[Brian?]

Originally Posted by MoashoaM

All of his points would be a headache. Instead we could take a segment from a video where he gives his spiel. Joe Rogan or at a college. The Strange of Europe or something.

Or just tell me what you disagree with primarily.

I disagree with his apocalyptic view of Europe’s future, the great replacement of white Europeans with Asian and African Muslims. There is projection that supports it.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by taxAHcruel

Probably because you are not comparing like with like. One was a failed mugging - the other was seemingly an attack on people purely for being who they are.

Except that these 2 girls were robbed, which makes it (at least partially) a successful mugging.

Therefore not just "an attack on people purely for being who they are".
I'm guessing the police are now trying to work out what to charge the perpetrators with. Maybe multiple charges, but it will be interesting to see.
And then, when it goes to court, we'll see which charges actually stick.
In the courtroom, the fact that the victims were homosexual may not get the same prominence as was given by the media.

[Blueshoe]

Originally Posted by Brian?

I disagree with his apocalyptic view of Europe’s future, the great replacement of white Europeans with Asian and African Muslims. There is projection that supports it.

Vague. Piss poor

[Brian?]

Originally Posted by Blueshoe

Vague. Piss poor

My answer or his idea?

It was a pretty vague question to begin with.

[ohnonotgmail]

Originally Posted by recedite

Except that these 2 girls were robbed, which makes it (at least partially) a successful mugging.

Therefore not just "an attack on people purely for being who they are".
I'm guessing the police are now trying to work out what to charge the perpetrators with. Maybe multiple charges, but it will be interesting to see.
And then, when it goes to court, we'll see which charges actually stick.
In the courtroom, the fact that the victims were homosexual may not get the same prominence as was given by the media.

Unsurprisingly you would be very wrong on that. according to the CPS in the UK

In 2016/17, 83% of hate crimes cases we prosecuted led to a conviction or guilty plea. Because of the serious nature of these offences, the CPS can apply to the courts for a 'sentence uplift' which is an increased punishment for the crime. Last year, more than half of our requests led to offenders having their sentence increased because it was motivated by hate.

[recedite]

having their sentence increased because it was motivated by hate

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.
Mugging a homosexual person is not necessarily a more serious crime than mugging a heterosexual person.
Homosexuals are not more important in the hierarchy of victimhood. People saying that in this thread are being accused of homophobia for saying it.
If muggers demanded that a hetero couple kiss for the muggers amusement, before escalating it into a fight and a robbery, would that be a heterophobic hate crime?

What if the muggers were homosexuals, would that make any difference?

[ohnonotgmail]

Originally Posted by recedite

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.
Mugging a homosexual person is not necessarily a more serious crime than mugging a heterosexual person.
Homosexuals are not more important in the hierarchy of victimhood. People saying that in this thread are being accused of homophobia for saying it.
If muggers demanded that a hetero couple kiss for the muggers amusement, before escalating it into a fight and a robbery, would that be a heterophobic hate crime?

What if the muggers were homosexuals, would that make any difference?

i've no interest in your stupid what-ifs. Targetting somebody BECAUSE of their sexuality is a hate crime in the UK. In this incident it is quite clear to me that the two ladies were targetted because of their sexuality.

[taxAHcruel]

Originally Posted by recedite

Except that these 2 girls were robbed, which makes it (at least partially) a successful mugging.

I am not sure that really negates the point I made. One was a mugging as the intent of the attack - the other is being claimed (to be honest I do not know either way) as an attack on them for who they were which might - incidently - have included some of their possessions being taken.

Originally Posted by recedite

Therefore not just "an attack on people purely for being who they are".

I do not know the intent of the attack - none of us do I guess. But if it was an attack on them for being who they were - then the fact that taking some of their possessions was part of that attack does not change the nature and intent of the attack.

I think where we differ here - see if you agree - is you are defining the nature of the attack based on what was done _during_ the attack - whereas I would be defining it based on the _intention_ of the attack regardless of what they actually did during the attack.

I suppose both are equally valid. But only one answers the question I was answering when I replied to Hector. Which is to explain why one attack might result in more discussion than the other. Which is that a mugging - an attack with the intention of taking someone's possessions is - while horrific and to be condemned - is at least easy to understand.

Whereas attacking someone - whether you take their stuff or not while doing it - purely because of who they are as a person - has an extra dimension of horror and confusion and distaste to us and some people find it harder to understand.

[batgoat]

Originally Posted by Blueshoe

Vague. Piss poor

If you subscribe to the great replacement, it's a moronic conspiracy theory that racists tend to love. Also the New Zealand killer subscribed to it. A bit like a protocols of zion style conspiracy.

[Professor Moriarty]

Originally Posted by recedite

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.
Mugging a homosexual person is not necessarily a more serious crime than mugging a heterosexual person.
Homosexuals are not more important in the hierarchy of victimhood. People saying that in this thread are being accused of homophobia for saying it.
If muggers demanded that a hetero couple kiss for the muggers amusement, before escalating it into a fight and a robbery, would that be a heterophobic hate crime?

What if the muggers were homosexuals, would that make any difference?

There's a slim chance that some people would see your argument as dissembling. Almost as if you are discounting what happened to these women. Kind of as if you were dismissing them. But I'm sure nothing could be further from the truth.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by taxAHcruel

I do not know the intent of the attack - none of us do I guess. But if it was an attack on them for being who they were - then the fact that taking some of their possessions was part of that attack does not change the nature and intent of the attack.

I think where we differ here - see if you agree - is you are defining the nature of the attack based on what was done _during_ the attack - whereas I would be defining it based on the _intention_ of the attack regardless of what they actually did during the attack.

I think we broadly agree. Except that you have already defined the attack based on the intention, while at the same time admitting you don't know the intent.


I haven't taken that step, preferring instead to wait and see what the perps are charged with, and whether those charges are proven.

[taxAHcruel]

Originally Posted by recedite

I think we broadly agree. Except that you have already defined the attack based on the intention, while at the same time admitting you don't know the intent.

Sure - no problem there. We do not know the intention of the attack I admit. But if we did then I _would be_ defining it by that - not the actions that occurred during it.

There is no conflict there between the two statements. In fact I actually posted my post - then went back and edited it to specifically put in the "would be" for that very reason I kinda predicted the response you would give I think I am getting to know you. At this rate we will be having beers by Sunday

But I think we are allowed to postulate to answer Hectors question as to why one murder gets almost no discussion and this attack does. I think we can answer that users question working entirely with hypotheticals?

[FaxingBerlin]

Just a quick question that may or may not have been answered previously in the thread, how did these attackers know the two girls were gay?

[FunLover18]

Originally Posted by FaxingBerlin

Just a quick question that may or may not have been answered previously in the thread, how did these attackers know the two girls were gay?

I think they were holding hands.

[MrFresh]

Originally Posted by recedite

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.

You can be charged with a hate crime but you can also be charged with a regular assault and the judge can take your victim's circumstances and what he believes your motivations were into account when deciding your punishment.