Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
12-06-2019, 18:45   #976
Brian?
Moderator
 
Brian?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,206
Send a message via MSN to Brian?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoashoaM View Post
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.
Brian? is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
12-06-2019, 20:19   #977
recedite
Banned
 
recedite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxAHcruel View Post
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.
recedite is offline  
Thanks from:
12-06-2019, 21:11   #978
Blueshoe
Banned
 
Blueshoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 2,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian? View Post
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
Blueshoe is offline  
Thanks from:
12-06-2019, 21:54   #979
Brian?
Moderator
 
Brian?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,206
Send a message via MSN to Brian?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshoe View Post
Vague. Piss poor
My answer or his idea?

It was a pretty vague question to begin with.
Brian? is offline  
Thanks from:
12-06-2019, 23:04   #980
ohnonotgmail
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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

Quote:
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.
ohnonotgmail is online now  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
13-06-2019, 10:19   #981
recedite
Banned
 
recedite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
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?
recedite is offline  
(2) thanks from:
13-06-2019, 10:27   #982
ohnonotgmail
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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.
ohnonotgmail is online now  
(3) thanks from:
13-06-2019, 10:29   #983
taxAHcruel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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.
taxAHcruel is offline  
Thanks from:
13-06-2019, 10:31   #984
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 2,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshoe View Post
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.
batgoat is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
13-06-2019, 10:35   #985
Professor Moriarty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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.
Professor Moriarty is offline  
Thanks from:
13-06-2019, 10:39   #986
recedite
Banned
 
recedite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxAHcruel View Post
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.
recedite is offline  
Thanks from:
13-06-2019, 10:42   #987
taxAHcruel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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?
taxAHcruel is offline  
Thanks from:
13-06-2019, 10:49   #988
FaxingBerlin
Banned
 
FaxingBerlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 52
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?
FaxingBerlin is offline  
13-06-2019, 11:09   #989
FunLover18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by FaxingBerlin View Post
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.
FunLover18 is offline  
Thanks from:
13-06-2019, 12:43   #990
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
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.
MrFresh is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet