Homophobic attack on London bus - mod warning, please see OP

batgoat · 07-07-2019 4:49pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Could you please answer two question, or anyone else that likes.

Q1) If someone was targeted, attacked and killed because they were ginger, this was later proven in court, the murderer admitted it, the murderer had diaries; Should we sentence this murderer of a ginger person(proven intent) more than we would a similar violent attack(with no intent)?

Q2) If a celebrity is attacked, should we sentence the attacker of a celebrity more than the attacker of a normal citizen?

I believe answering these questions fairly can shine some light on the discussion

I already pointed out that there isn't a long history of violent attacks and discrimination against gingers so not comparable.

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 5:09pm

Now the true bias around here is exposed

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Intent = premeditated = murder
No intent = manslaughter.
Murder will get a longer sentence than manslaughter.

batgoat wrote: »

I already pointed out that there isn't a long history of violent attacks and discrimination against gingers so not comparable.

Timberrrrrrrr · 07-07-2019 5:13pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Now the true bias around here is exposed

Wheres the bias?

If you deliberately (premeditated) attack and kill someone then its murder. Doesnt matter the colour of thier skin/hair/car/house, if it's premeditated then.you will get a longer sentence than say punching someone outside of a pub and killing them

07-07-2019 5:18pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Now the true bias around here is exposed

Keep thinking of this every time you post about gingers; thanks for the laugh.

http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/155075/red-power

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 5:21pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wheres the bias?

If you deliberately (premeditated) attack and kill someone then its murder. Doesnt matter the colour of thier skin/hair/car/house, if it's premeditated then.you will get a longer sentence than say punching someone outside of a pub and killing them

You have constructed a strawman, as have the others.

You are comparing things, that I am not comparing.

Compare these things:
A premeditated murder, because the victim was a ginger(proven intent)
A premeditated murder, against their boss(whatever reason- didn't promote them at work)

Should one receive more of a sentence then the other?

Timberrrrrrrr · 07-07-2019 5:23pm

Kimsang wrote: »

You have constructed a strawman, as have the others.

You are comparing things, that I am not comparing.

Compare these things:
A premeditated murder, because the victim was a ginger(proven intent)
A premeditated murder, against their boss(whatever reason- didn't promote them at work)

Should one receive more of a sentence then the other?

No

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 5:23pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No

There is the bias right there.

Timberrrrrrrr · 07-07-2019 5:25pm

Kimsang wrote: »

There is the bias right there.

Why?

Do you think one should get a longer sentence?

Now if you tell me the boss was shot and killed but the ginger was kidnapped, tortured for 3 days and then killed then yes the gingers murderer should get longer.

If both are just shot then both murderers should get the same sentence.

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 5:29pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why?

Do you think one should get a longer sentence?

Yes I believe so because the person(ginger in this case) was attacked for who they are. Just like the Nazis rounded up jews/gays/etc.. because of who they were, being ginger is just as much of an identity as anything else.
We gave extra weight to these criminals because we agreed attacking someone for who they were is extra disgusting(Nuremberg trials).
Attacking people for what they've done, is also disgusting and vile, but it is not en par with a hate crime! We sentenced criminals of war differently to perpetrators of genocide.

pinkyeye · 07-07-2019 5:31pm

Are you trying to tell us you have red hair Kim and you feel discriminated against?

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 5:34pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why?

The bias comes from while you accept and believe in the notion of hate crimes, you, like others, seem to apply it only if said characteristic has a history of discrimination, when this should have no effect.

There was no long history of hate crimes against people wearing glasses, but it didn't stop the Khmer Rouge from committing genocide against such people.

Anyone thought to be an intellectual of any sort was killed. Often people were condemned for wearing glasses or knowing a foreign language.

Christy42 · 07-07-2019 5:35pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes I believe so because the person(ginger in this case) was attacked for who they are. Just like the Nazis rounded up jews/gays/etc.. because of who they were, being ginger is just as much of an identity as anything else.
We gave extra weight to these criminals because we agreed attacking someone for who they were is extra disgusting(Nuremberg trials).
Attacking people for what they've done, is also disgusting and vile, but it is not en par with a hate crime! We sentenced criminals of war differently to perpetrators of genocide.

If gingers start being attacked regularly due to their hair colour then we will start treating them as hate crimes. It doesn't happen so we don't.

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 5:36pm

Christy42 wrote: »

If gingers start being attacked regularly due to their hair colour then we will start treating them as hate crimes. It doesn't happen so we don't.

Can you explain your reasoning behind that? Or is it just a natural law of the universe?

So a serial killer goes on a rampage killing gingers, you charge the guy with murders and not hate crime? That's disgusting.

aloyisious · 07-07-2019 6:03pm

Kimsang wrote: »

You have constructed a strawman, as have the others.

You are comparing things, that I am not comparing.

Compare these things:
A premeditated murder, because the victim was a ginger(proven intent)
A premeditated murder, against their boss(whatever reason- didn't promote them at work)

Should one receive more of a sentence then the other?

There is a clear and vital difference between the victims you mention. if the victim was because of his/her human genetic particularity and not because of a boss's workplace decision, then yes, IMO, a different sentence should apply.

I'd suggest that treating both scenarios as = in respect of a sentence is somewhat strawman if one takes the human "Ginger" aspect into evaluation, and swaps it with the victim being chosen because of another particular human genetic peculiarity, say being a homosexual.

Edit. My reply is based on what you previously posted as that seemed to indicate that crimes with a similar amount of violence, and not the motive, should be the required basis on which sentencing should apply. Your quote: The problem I have is when crimes of a similar violent nature get disproportionate sentencing, because of who(i.e. sexuality/race/gender) was attacked. This flies in the face of the concept of "Justice".

Killing the boss because one disagrees with his/her evaluation of one's place in the workplace promotion-wise is different [IMO] from that of killing another person on the grounds of sexuality/race/gender.

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 6:33pm

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd suggest that treating both scenarios as = in respect of a sentence is somewhat strawman if one takes the human "Ginger" aspect into evaluation, and swaps it with the victim being chosen because of another particular human genetic peculiarity, say being a homosexual.

Why is targeting someone because they're gay, worse than targeting someone because they're ginger?

I think targeting anyone for any characteristic they have should hold equal weight in regards hate crime. It should hold more weight as a crime than targeting someone because of what they do. We used to agree as a society, but this has recently changed. Why? And what good does it do?

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 6:34pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Are you trying to tell us you have red hair Kim and you feel discriminated against?

It was batgoat who brought up gingers.. So I guess s/he's the one I'm fighting the rights for

batgoat wrote: »

Ginger people have not had a long history of discrimination... Meanwhile the people most vocal about this attack not being homophobic seem to actively oppose hate crime legislation. Eg Kim

LillySV · 07-07-2019 6:37pm

Kimsang wrote: »

There is the bias right there.

Your the biased one there... everyone is equal but you seem to think some are more equal than others.....

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 6:39pm

LillySV wrote: »

Your the biased one there... everyone is equal but you seem to think some are more equal than others.....

Well you clearly haven't been reading the thread have you

:pac::pac:

batgoat · 07-07-2019 6:43pm

Kimsang wrote: »

It was batgoat who brought up gingers.. So I guess s/he's the one I'm fighting the rights for

It was in response to another user... So no it wasn't...

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 6:47pm

Some posters around here are very good at changing the subject, without ever addressing the points raised or questions asked, and instead just affirm their strict dogma that flies in the face of reason and proof.

Could you please stay on topic and answer the questions?

batgoat wrote: »

I already pointed out that there isn't a long history of violent attacks and discrimination against gingers so not comparable.

Kimsang wrote: »

We sentenced criminals of war differently to perpetrators of genocide.

Kimsang wrote: »

Why is targeting someone because they're gay, worse than targeting someone because they're ginger?

aloyisious · 07-07-2019 6:50pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Why is targeting someone because they're gay, worse than targeting someone because they're ginger?

I didn't suggest or argue that targeting a gay is worse than targeting a ginger and to respond to my post with that question, even for argument, is not nice.

My reply was based on what you previously posted as that seemed to indicate that crimes with a similar amount of violence, and not the motive, should be the required basis on which sentencing should apply. Your quote: The problem I have is when crimes of a similar violent nature get disproportionate sentencing, because of who(i.e. sexuality/race/gender) was attacked. This flies in the face of the concept of "Justice".

Killing the boss because one disagrees with his/her evaluation of one's place in the workplace promotion-wise is different [IMO] from that of killing another person on the grounds of sexuality/race/gender.

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 6:53pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Killing the boss because one disagrees with his/her evaluation of one's place in the workplace promotion-wise is different [IMO] from that of killing another person on the grounds of sexuality/race/gender.

Why not for also different for being ginger(like sexuality/race/gender)? That's the elephant in the room you are massively avoiding.

aloyisious · 07-07-2019 6:59pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Why not for being ginger? That's the elephant in the room you are massively avoiding.

I am not avoiding anything and to post otherwise is pure strawman. TTFN.

uncleoswald · 07-07-2019 7:01pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Why not for being ginger? That's the elephant in the room you are massively avoiding.

If violence and prejudice against gingers became a genuine societal problem to the extent that gingers felt targeted and fearful they would organise and ask for extra legal protection.

But this is fairly obvious so I have difficulty believing you are being genuine.

Kimsang · 07-07-2019 7:02pm

aloyisious wrote: »

I am not avoiding anything and to post otherwise is pure strawman. TTFN.

You are completely avoiding the question, like everyone else here.

If someone kills their boss because they don't promote you, it is different to killing your boss because he's gay, You agreed with this.

aloyisious wrote: »

Killing the boss because one disagrees with his/her evaluation of one's place in the workplace promotion-wise is different [IMO] from that of killing another person on the grounds of sexuality/race/gender.

My question then becomes, if someone kills their boss because they don't promote you, is this different to kill your boss because he's a ginger?

Can you answer this question without making an accusation or changing the subject? Or I bet another poster will be along now in a minute...

Annasopra · 08-07-2019 9:36am

Kimsang wrote: »

How many homophobia attacks makes a hate crime?

Stupid question really. 1 of course

dudara · 08-07-2019 12:46pm

In the interests of our collective sanity, stop the ginger debate right now.

The mod team will review and clean up this mess in due course.

dudara

08-07-2019 2:02pm

Kimsang wrote: »

Never have I been around so many people acting in bad faith at once. No wonder people are really starting to despise identity politics.

I think the question is at this point is what problem do you have with homophobic attacks being reported by the media.

Kimsang · 08-07-2019 2:05pm

I think the problem is people like you accusing others people of sch outrageous things. Care to supply evidence? , then you'll disappear and another one will show up with a different attack.

Tokyo · 08-07-2019 2:32pm

Mod: Okay, I just deleted 67 posts waffling on about gingers. 67. Jesus H. Christ.

Kimsang - seeing as you started this stream of ridiculousness, and then insisted on perpetuating it over the last 18 hours, take some time off from the thread. No more posts here, ginger-related or otherwise, for the next 48 hours.

Everybody else, post somewhere near approximating the topic, or the next mod response will be thread bans and cards.

Homophobic attack on London bus - mod warning, please see OP

Comments