Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate crime? Really?

Options
1…2829313334…36

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Because that's how crimes usually work - A stabs B and B shoots A - so the crimes cancel each other out?

    Can you please answer? Do you think calling someone fat is a hate crime?


  • Options
    #903
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Isn't that the definition of 'offensive' ; "Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" - if it causes offence, it is, by definition, offensive. Why would someone explicitly choose to use a word that they know will cause offence to some people when other alternatives are easily available?

    No. It's not up to me to ensure that people aren't offended. If people are offended by me, **** off.

    If I am going about my business or saying something to my friend and someone overhears and gets offended, that's on them. Or I am talking to someone in a manner I deem acceptable, I will and their offence is their issue not mine.

    If my intention is to offend, that's different but I am not tailoring my speech to suit the easily offended. People can be offended by anything these days.


  • Options
    #904
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 32,211 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    A punch...for calling someone a bunch of sticks?

    But would it be a hate crime?
    It is really not nice to take the piss.
    Would you feel the same if your brother/sister or a friend had f#ggot yelled at them in a dark alley and their face slashed with a Stanley knife?
    Grow up and show a little decency.


  • Options
    #905
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. It's not up to me to ensure that people aren't offended. If people are offended by me, **** off.

    If I am going about my business or saying something to my friend and someone overhears and gets offended, that's on them. Or I am talking to someone in a manner I deem acceptable, I will and their offence is their issue not mine.

    If my intention is to offend, that's different but I am not tailoring my speech to suit the easily offended. People can be offended by anything these days.
    Really sounds like it IS your intention to offend - deliberately choosing a term that was changed legally in the USA more than 25 years ago - simply because it offends, when you have lots of alternatives available. It's really a kind of verbal trolling, isn't it?


  • Options
    #906
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you please answer? Do you think calling someone fat is a hate crime?
    How would that help? I'm happy with the Wiki definition of hate crime, and I'm happy that Gardai, DPP and Courts can implement this definition making judgements on a case-by-case basis as they do with all other crimes.


    If there's a point here, maybe try making the point - I guess you're trying to say something about how hate crime will be slippery slope and we're all going to be arrested for calling people snowflakes or something - is that the point?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    Really sounds like it IS your intention to offend - deliberately choosing a term that was changed legally in the USA more than 25 years ago - simply because it offends, when you have lots of alternatives available. It's really a kind of verbal trolling, isn't it?

    No it isn't.
    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    If there's a point here, maybe try making the point - I guess you're trying to say something about how hate crime will be slippery slope and we're all going to be arrested for calling people snowflakes or something - is that the point?

    No, you keep trotting out that you are happy that the Wikipedia definition is what hate crime is to you. I am asking you to clarify if, by your own definition, calling someone fat is a hate crime? A simple yes or no will do.


  • Options
    #908
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Why don't you check the Wiki definition and work it out for yourself?

    Dont mind wiki, I just want to know whether you'd regard it as a hate crime.

    Simple question.


  • Options
    #909
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    stefanovich wrote: »
    You referenced them as a group who wants more hate crime legislation. The fact that it is a Soros funded organisation just proves my ulterior motive suspicions.

    The Gardai and CSO both favour as well...


  • Options
    #910
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    batgoat wrote: »
    The Gardai and CSO both favour as well...

    The CSO has a political opinion now? I thought they were supposed to be impartial and focused on collecting and presenting the data.

    The guards want to make prosecutions easier.


  • Options
    #911
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    stefanovich wrote: »
    The guards want to make prosecutions easier.

    The utter bastards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    The utter bastards.

    Still no answer?


  • Options
    #913
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    The utter bastards.

    It's so easy to give glib remarks but then ignore pertinent questions. When asked what is a hate crime, you said "look at the wiki definition".

    When asked if, by the definition you provided, calling someone fat would be a hate crime, you obfuscate and refuse to answer. Why?

    Do you agree with the wiki definition (that you have pointed to numerous times) and feel that calling a person fat is a hate crime, or do you not?


  • Options
    #914
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No it isn't.

    So why do you deliberately choose a word that you know will offend ordinary, decent, sometimes vulnerable people when you have loads of alternatives available? Are you so insecure that you feel that using a different word will be some kind of loss for you?


    Deleted User wrote: »

    No, you keep trotting out that you are happy that the Wikipedia definition is what hate crime is to you. I am asking you to clarify if, by your own definition, calling someone fat is a hate crime? A simple yes or no will do.


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Dont mind wiki, I just want to know whether you'd regard it as a hate crime.

    Simple question.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's so easy to give glib remarks but then ignore pertinent questions. When asked what is a hate crime, you said "look at the wiki definition".

    When asked if, by the definition you provided, calling someone fat would be a hate crime, you obfuscate and refuse to answer. Why?

    Do you agree with the wiki definition (that you have pointed to numerous times) and feel that calling a person fat is a hate crime, or do you not?
    I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.


    You keep presenting these edge cases as if they are some kind of barrier to hate crime legislation.The experience in the many other countries that have hate crime legislation to protect vulnerable people would suggest that you're wrong.


  • Options
    #915
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

    If your personal opinion is irrelevant then why the **** are you talking on a discussion board if you won't give your opinion?

    It was a couple of pages ago when you were demanding that a "disabled" person give you a yes or no answer. You've painted yourself into a corner and you know it. Either stand by your definition or admit you were wrong and it is open to gross misinterpretation.

    How is it an edge case? I would argue that Sineads case is an edge case yet you went in both barrels and said without doubt that it was a hate crime.

    At least be consistent.
    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    So why do you deliberately choose a word that you know will offend ordinary, decent, sometimes vulnerable people when you have loads of alternatives available? Are you so insecure that you feel that using a different word will be some kind of loss for you?

    Because honestly, I was unaware that certain people found the word handicapped offensive. I've used it consistently while conversing to and about handicapped people and I have never been corrected.

    To be honest, I may choose to refrain from using that word to people I don't know, but until "disabled" people I know balk at my political incorrectness, I'm fine using that term


  • Options
    #916
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

    I'd argue there are many more cases of assaults that include people being called fat than there are people leapfrogging over small people. What is an edge case in your opinion?


  • Options
    #917
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If your personal opinion is irrelevant then why the **** are you talking on a discussion board if you won't give your opinion?

    It was a couple of pages ago when you were demanding that a "disabled" person give you a yes or no answer. You've painted yourself into a corner and you know it. Either stand by your definition or admit you were wrong and it is open to gross misinterpretation.

    How is it an edge case? I would argue that Sineads case is an edge case yet you went in both barrels and said without doubt that it was a hate crime.

    At least be consistent.



    Because honestly, I was unaware that certain people found the word handicapped offensive. I've used it consistently while conversing to and about handicapped people and I have never been corrected.

    To be honest, I may choose to refrain from using that word to people I don't know, but until "disabled" people I know balk at my political incorrectness, I'm fine using that term

    Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.

    That's what you are dealing with here. Don't even bother


  • Options
    #918
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Blueshoe wrote:
    Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.


    Hahaha. Brilliant. Thought as much


  • Options
    #919
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.

    That's what you are dealing with here. Don't even bother
    And by 'ran', you mean that the Moderator just happened to land after your post, not mine, right? You were just as 'ran' from that thread as I was.


  • Options
    #920
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    And by 'ran', you mean that the Moderator just happened to land after your post, not mine, right? You were just as 'ran' from that thread as I was.

    You are right. It's normal behaviour to whinge about reception desks in hotels discriminating against people. And to post countless links and pictures of low desks who don't discriminate.

    As I said before. The outrage is outrageous


  • Options
    #921
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    And by 'ran', you mean that the Moderator just happened to land after your post, not mine, right? You were just as 'ran' from that thread as I was.

    Are you going to address my response?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    You are right. It's normal behaviour to whinge about reception desks in hotels discriminating against people. And to post countless links and pictures of low desks who don't discriminate.

    As I said before. The outrage is outrageous

    I really thought that the Basil Fawlty school of hotel management had died out in the 1970s, but apparently finding ways to make like difficult for your customers is considered smart business by some relics.

    What's your big concern about being considered 'normal'? Are you unable to make your own mind up about things?


  • Options
    #923
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    What's your big concern about being considered 'normal'? Are you unable to make your own mind up about things?

    Ok. Pot kettle.

    What is your opinion on my question or are you going to point us back to a wiki that you've already refused to get behind?


  • Options
    #924
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Are you going to address my response?

    A second time?


  • Options
    #925
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    A second time?

    No. The first please.

    In YOUR opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime, considering that you agree that the wiki definition is the right one?

    That's all I want to know


  • Options
    #926
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    No. The first please.

    In YOUR opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime, considering that you agree that the wiki definition is the right one?

    That's all I want to know


    I'm waiting too...


  • Options
    #927
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. The first please.

    In YOUR opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime, considering that you agree that the wiki definition is the right one?

    That's all I want to know
    In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.


  • Options
    #928
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

    Yet you were one of the first to call leapfrogging a hate crime.

    Take a seat chief. Either own your ideals or don't. It's ok


  • Options
    #929
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote:
    In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

    That's embarrassing


  • Options
    #930
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

    That was a shameful cop out


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,532 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yet you were one of the first to call leapfrogging a hate crime.

    Take a seat chief. Either own your ideals or don't. It's ok
    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's embarrassing


    Funnily enough, 'owning my ideals' does not involve playing word games with you, as you try to create mythical barriers to implementing legislation that works really well in lots of other countries.


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    That was a shameful cop out


    Bwaahaahaaa.


Advertisement