Kimsang wrote: » 'Victims' say a lot of things in our victim-hood culture. I'm not disputing the fact that those people were attacked in London. I dispute the motivation for those attacks. Using hateful slurs during an attack doesn't constitute a hatecrime, The motivation for the attack is what constitutes a hate crime. Nazis rounded jews up in systematically gassed them to death based on their religion. That is a hate crime.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » The fact that so many people here missed the point OP was making is evidence enough to support that very point.
martingriff wrote: » No that's Genocide
martingriff wrote: » Care to point it out as I can not see where he has any evidence
Kimsang wrote: » So genocide is not a hate crime? What type of crime is genocide exactly?
What is a gendered attack
Scum bags attack innocent victim. What's the gender got to do with it? The scum bag trait exists among men and women.
what difference does gender make (surely irrelevant??).
What has gender to do with it? And apart from the gender of the victim and perpetrators have I missed something?
Why is that clear? Why is it a hate crime?
Kimsang wrote: » The first page where everyone questioning what gender had to do with it.
martingriff wrote: » . you have not shown her been a women was the PRIMARY motivator.
martingriff wrote: » Actually I agree it can be called a hate crime. Can I have your definition of a hate crime here is mine a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds. So that assault in London is classified as a hate crime. The 1 in Limerick while awful and should not be used by you for your own logic is not classed as 1.
martingriff wrote: » But you have not pointed why gender has anything to do with it. 5 people decided to attack a lone person waiting for a bus. It could very well have been a lone small guy they thought they could have taken on. you have not shown her been a women was the PRIMARY motivator.
"Why do some men get upset, angry and offended at gay people existing, they could have just minded their own business on what other's people's sexuality is but they rather intervene in strangers lives and beat them up for being gay."
Kimsang wrote: » Please might I remind you what the OP said in the other thread: This was a clear and obvious attack on men, and would not be tolerated if such stereotyping was applied to other protected classes.
Parker Nutritious Sometimes wrote: » This isn't the other thread though. Debate that over there. The OP here is a different scenarios altogether.
Kimsang wrote: » Yes its called hypocrisy
Parker Nutritious Sometimes wrote: » Oh goodnight! Like's too short for this.
Kimsang wrote: » So unsubscribe and stop crying, or address the actual points raised. people like you are tiresome
Kimsang wrote: » Exactly the point how are you missing this??? The other thread also hasn't pointed why gender has anything to do with it. They also have not shown why them being gay was the PRIMARY motivator.
Kimsang wrote: » Please might I remind you what the OP said in the other thread:This was a clear and obvious attack on men, and would not be tolerated if such stereotyping was applied to other protected classes.
martingriff wrote: » If you want to start a thread on that then you should have instead and this is where I find you worse then that OP you tried to use an attack on a person to further your point. I have been trying to have a dialogue with you here and the other thread even admitting when I was wrong but now its clear to see you do not give a **** about either attacks your only trying to further an agenda that somehow all women are against men. I am out now of this
Quote: Originally Posted by martingriff View Post Actually I agree it can be called a hate crime. Can I have your definition of a hate crime here is mine a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds. So that assault in London is classified as a hate crime. The 1 in Limerick while awful and should not be used by you for your own logic is not classed as 1. Thanks for this, I believe this can highlight where we fundamentally disagree. Although I agree with your definition of hate crime, it might be more useful to use examples to see if that fits our definitions. I believe that a hate crime should be one that is motivated by a prejudice, so the involvement of hateful speech during an attack would not constitute one; so intent must be proven. If someone was attacked and called hateful slurs during attack. (for me not necessarily a hate crime) I believe you would call this a hatecrime, but by your very definition you have not proven motivation. The attacker could be opportunistic with their use of hateful words during an attack, it doesn't necessarily mean it motivated the attack. If a person has proven to have attacked the person because of that characteristic. i.e. they stated it in court (I think we agree this is a hate crime)
Kimsang wrote: » Yet you ignore the threads of conversation we had where you stated your definition of hate crime. Why not reply to the points I made, instead of throwing wild vitriol around? The cognitive dissonance here is plain for all to see, that's why you're so emotional.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7ee04830a36fdfd2a86ec036ec5de104.svg)
