useless
Social Justice Rogue
No, Minorities deserve extra protection due to the fact that they are a MINORITY and thus often subject to the abuse from the MAJORITY (In this case heterosexuals).
U.S's first LGBT museum opens (Guess where!)
- Thread starter Xanikk999
- Start date
GhostWriter16
Deity
EVERYONE is a minority in hundreds of ways, as RedRalph wisely pointed out.
Why should someone get extra protection merely since they are gay? They should have no extra rights.
Why should someone get extra protection merely since they are gay? They should have no extra rights.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
You just don't get it do you? Let me spell it out for you in simple terms:
Homosexuals are more often then not the victims of abuse by heterosexuals.
Homosexuals are more often then not the victims of abuse by heterosexuals.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
If someone commits a crime due to a specific hate towards a certain group then that only shows that persons incapatibility with society at large (whom accept the minority as a part of the whole)
In this way, the rule is less extra rights to a minority but actually extra rights to our society because it would put away an individual who would otherwise fracture or society.
It's not extra protection, it's enhanced punishment for a criminal. Are you becoming soft on crime?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Irrelevant. If you discount motivation as a relevant factor in judgement, you must execute all killers, or none. It is inconsistent to do otherwise.
Hence the existence of the court system. If criminal justice were simple, then we'd be able to rely on lynch mobs.
Majorities can also be the victims of hate crime. Nobody disputes this.
But I think this is telling: to what extent is this a genuine philosophical opposition to the concept of "hate crimes", and to what extent is it a defence of the manifold social privileges which Domination has access to? I wonder...
GhostWriter16
Deity
Except that I'm not arguing that ALL motivations are irrelevant, but that killing a homosexual for his homosexuality is no worse than killing someone for any other irrelevant.
Do you pretend to know anything about me?
List all of the minorities that you believe deserve protection, and then I will tell you if I fit into any of those categories.
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
Re: Hate Crime laws - If someone is willing to physically attack another person because they are angry that such a person simply exists, that criminal is obviously a greater danger to society than someone who is violent for some actual reason.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Which is logically absurd, yes. You either acknowledge motivation, or you do not. You cannot draw arbitrary lines around "relevant motivation" and "irrelevant motivation", or, at the very least, you have made no effort to argue the grounds upon which you may do so.
I know enough. You're white, straight, cisgender, Christian, male, middle-class able-bodied, English-speaking and self-evidently blind to the social privilege that comes with each of these.
As I said, this isn't about protecting "minorities", that favourite whipping boy of the privileged reactionary. It's about protecting people, of whatever identity; if minorities need more protection, that's because we, the majorities, have constructed a world that is hostile towards them.
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK, I'm not sure how you are defining "Able-bodied" but I'm not very strong, and I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I hardly think I'm the "Stereotypical WASP."
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Granted, but you are both a person with a great degree of social privilege, and a complete blindness to that privilege.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I do not believe I have any more social privledge than the average person.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Because you are so used to it, you wouldn't know or understand a life without it.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Have nearly half the people you know been physically attacked or had their property destroyed due to intolerance and hatred of them?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You honestly don't think that it's harder to be black than to be white? Harder to be gay than to be straight? Female than male? Transgender than cisgender?
Bingo.
harder to be autistic than neurotypical
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Oh, quite so! All the more reason to recognise other marginalised people, and to find solidarity with them.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Black than White: No.
Gay than Straight: It can be, depending on circumstances.
Female than Male: Not in the US anyway.
Transgendered than Cisgendered: It can be, depending on Circumstances.
Did you not notice that I said I have Asperger's? Yet I don't pretend like it entitles me to anything...
What should we have affirmative action for those with autism now?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You are horrifically blinkered.
Who said anything about "entitlement"?Did you not notice that I said I have Asperger's? Yet I don't pretend like it entitles me to anything...
What should we have affirmative action for those with autism now?
You're just building strawmen now.
About homosexuality in the ancient world, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the number of people who were purely gay, as in only attracted to the same sex, was any less than today. The estrogen theory also sounds kind of ridiculous to me.
What I think is likely is that the number of people who would now be considered straight were probably less shy about indulging in occasional homosexuality. Why do I think this? First of all, I know from experience that in the Middle East many otherwise heterosexual men are not averse to batting for the other team sometimes. Secondly, women are conditioned in most societies to not sleep around and out of opportunity it's sometimes easier for men to find other men. In the ancient world it was also more common for people to spend more time among those of the same sex.
It was however expected for people to get married which people did so not for romantic reasons normally so someone who was exclusively attracted to the same sex probably would have married a woman anyway.
What I think is likely is that the number of people who would now be considered straight were probably less shy about indulging in occasional homosexuality. Why do I think this? First of all, I know from experience that in the Middle East many otherwise heterosexual men are not averse to batting for the other team sometimes. Secondly, women are conditioned in most societies to not sleep around and out of opportunity it's sometimes easier for men to find other men. In the ancient world it was also more common for people to spend more time among those of the same sex.
It was however expected for people to get married which people did so not for romantic reasons normally so someone who was exclusively attracted to the same sex probably would have married a woman anyway.
Similar threads
