Candie wrote: » Gotta love the regulars. Disabled woman is demeaned and humiliated in an intimidating encounter having been targeted because of her disability (regardless of ridiculous arguments to the contrary)... ...and SHE'S the one with the problem. Stay classy.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » When I read posts by internet hard chaws, I just remind myself that talk is cheap. If they were mouthing off in the same way to, say, colleagues in the office (which is very possible, I’ve certainly encountered such bullshíters), they’d probably mostly be met with heavy-lidded disdain and amusement, nobody taking them seriously but just letting them gab on all the same. Sure, they only make themselves look bad. And nobody believes their bullshït either.
Hector Savage wrote: » Right so it's a hate crime whomever it happens to.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » No, it's a hate crime if bias is a significant factorhttp://enarireland.org/proposed-hate-crime-legislation/ What is your specific problem with identifying hate crimes as hate crimes?
AndrewJRenko wrote: What is your specific problem with identifying hate crimes as hate crimes?
Deebles McBeebles wrote: » I dunno, ODB (brilliant), the bigger they are, the harder they fall. A fall for a gangly guy like him could well result in injury and the fall would surely be more likely given his legs are what holds him up.
Deleted User wrote: » now is this one of those posts you read about thats playing a man and not a ball? tsk
[Deleted User] wrote: » the relevance of not calling it a hate crime is a matter of resistance of there being a separate category for a crime based on who it happens to
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Report it if you think it has crossed the line.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So presumably you don't agree with the legal distinction between paedophilia and rape, because there shouldn't be a separate category based on who it happens to, right? BTW, hate crimes are not generally defined by 'who it happens to'. They are defined as motivated by hate of the victim's identity or background.
Deleted User wrote: » i dont agree that a relevant comparison is the distinction between paedophelia and rape, both of which are instances of sexual assault regardless of the identity of the victim. that is an embarrassing jump youve made and really now, cmon. a gnat could shave with the thinness ofbyr other distinction but ive already asked you what consequence you seek for a crime designated a hate crime vs the same offence perpetrated on another victim
[Deleted User] wrote: » i dont agree that a relevant comparison is the distinction between paedophelia and rape, both of which are instances of sexual assault regardless of the identity of the victim. that is an embarrassing jump youve made and really now, cmon.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Is it really that controversial that a crime motivated by hate should be punished more severely than one that isn't?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'm a bit confused now - is the identity of the victim relevant or not?
Deleted User wrote: » nah there wasnt anything hateful about it i think the propensity to focus on what an angle or an opinion or an argument says about the person making it has been a feature of the thread, tbh that does tend to place people with that propensity into a set that claims moral superiority without ever being able to appeal to anything more than vague or subjective handwaves towards ideals that nobody is under any obligation to share the thread is asking the relevance of claiming this as a hate crime vs something youd not blink an eye at (terrorism vs gurrierism, nest pas) and the response has been not far off "what kind of animal even asks that?"
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » I myself said that I don’t think it’s a hate crime, just opportunistic cowardice. And I realise that nobody is under any obligation to agree with me that it was a disgusting, intimidating act. Likewise, I’m under no obligation to respect the viewpoint that what happened to her is no big deal nor the person expounding that viewpoint.
AndrewJRenko wrote: So presumably you don't agree with the legal distinction between paedophilia and rape, because there shouldn't be a separate category based on who it happens to, right?
Candie wrote: Whether or not it's a hate crime is one thing, people suggesting that she is just looking to up her profile (which was previously sky high, not because of her disability but in spite of it) and calling her character into question on the basis that she found it intimidating and unpleasant experience when they, presumably able-bodied people with no skeletal issues, would just laugh it off because they're not snowflakes etc, that's quite another.
Deleted User wrote: » And there is the trifecta. So far in a thread about someone jumping over a little persons head (as horrible as that is) you have brought up: The murder and rape of a teenager Threatening someone's family with a machete And now paedophilia and rape. You sir, are the master of bad analogies and comparisons.
Deleted User wrote: » genuinely- start a thread on the distinction between paedophelia and rape and argue away with someone about that dont for a second hope that its a conversation ill be having with you in a thread about whether jumping over someone is a hate crime
Deleted User wrote: » i mean ive asked and other have asked anyone who feels its that obvious to set out why and what effect they want a "hate crime" designation to have at any stage of investigation, prosecution, sentencing or redress. not hearing much back tbh
Candie wrote: » It's been suggested on multiple occasions that she's just an attention seeker and what happened amounts to nothing. Nothing. Whether or not it's a hate crime is one thing, people suggesting that she is just looking to up her profile (which was previously sky high, not because of her disability but in spite of it) and calling her character into question on the basis that she found it intimidating and unpleasant experience when they, presumably able-bodied people with no skeletal issues, would just laugh it off because they're not snowflakes etc, that's quite another.
weldoninhio wrote: » I’d be sceptical that it even happened. She was on the country’s busiest thoroughfares and no one else saw it. She was bawling her eyes out and not one person stopped. It’s a very far fetched poor me story. Isn’t O’Connell street all under CCTV surveilence??
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yeah, sure - she's hanging out with Gaga, Saoirse Ronan and Christine Lagarde, and she makes up stories about what happens on Marlborough St for 'attention' - have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?
Blueshoe wrote: » Leapfrog. It's a child's game
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's not exactly a staple activity for teenagers in baggy trackies around Marlborough St, though is it? And she's not a child. And she didn't want to play games with anyone.
Blueshoe wrote: » Well she is minus craic then isn't she. Look obviously they shouldn't be going around annoying people like that but it's hardly a hate crime. Build a bridge and get over it love
AtomicHorror wrote: » Have you any idea how privileged you sound? Weren't you the fella who tried to argue it was all cool beans because of survival of the fittest or something? Yeah, you sound like great craic yourself. Grim world you'd have us living in. If you can muster the energy to type, you could do us all a favour. Go one further and think directly prior.
kurtainsider wrote: » So let's all get this straight. 2 scumbags behave in a disgusting. despicable cowardly manner towards a person who is not in a position to defend herself and you take their side? At least you are honest about your mentality. Would an attack on a person in a wheelchair amuse you more or less than this one would you say?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
