Ouch - if they Deport him the Civil suits not worth much.
It is, and that's why I'm so pissed off at the Judge.Originally Posted by Stevinator
Again, 5-10 is the designated sentence, though not for the so-called "hate" crime or any civil liberties hogwash.
Dang, ya know, it's been so long that I've forgotten who started it.
Your tune changed...
Well, there's a bunch of pro-queer haters - need I name Guild Wars OTF names? So yeah. But that's not what I'm incensed about, it's that Clementi was a pitiable little dweeb and Ravi and Wei went after him with the figurative long knives.
So if someone filmed you having (queer) sex and publicized it, they are clean as a whistle?
Wrong. Clementi's mental state isn't the issue, and I'll cheerily admit that the pro-queer lobby is trying to color the case by claiming "hate" crime and such, but both Ravi and Wei ARE guilty of criminal behavior.
I disagree most harshly. In fact, the more harsh and punitive the sentences are, the less likely we'd be living in a shytebag nation. I was telling my son only yesterday that back in my day, not only would pedo-bear types sometimes be killed out of hand, but that my attractive elder sister used to hitchhike without fear of sexual assault (she may not have been the sharpest tool in the shed, but it really wasn't a high risk thing). Modern criminals don't fear justice as they ought, not only is our legal system so overwhelmed that they're likely to escape prosecution, but if they're sentenced then they're likely to have it overturned on appeal if they are litigious enough.
Not what I'm concerned about at all; I'm quite the opposite.
As you may recognize above, I'm pretty upset about those as well. Instead of having a "rough justice" nation, we have a nation of nasty little "gotcha" laws which you can game given enough money-power.
Undeniably. I'm just pointing out that I find it amusing that I'm so incredibly biased (to the point of fury) when so many people have claimed that I'm an evil queer-basher.
My assumption, given the Judge's commentary, was that it had nothing to do with his feeling guilty and everything to do with what could happen to him. He's a filthy little scum-sucker by all accounts.
I missed that; I thought his parents were the non-citizens. If that's correct, nothing could be better at this juncture (since the sentence is not likely to be lengthened) than for his foul arse to be kicked out of the country, meaning his investment at Rutgers was wasted.
That wasn't my take-away, but I'd probably have to re-read the article to make sure. She was still "hosting" Ravi for the shindig, even if she wasn't the one doing the publicizing.
Thanks for pointing that out; I agree that Clementi being queer has clouded the waters (so to speak).
Perhaps that's at the root of my fury? That Ravi and Wei remind me of my own history? I was noticeably the poorest kid in both my high school and junior high, and given either of my parents' wealth that is a scary statement... I took a hefty dose of crap in school, including constant claims I was queer, that doubtless had far more to do with family finances than with my being new or Christian. I was a nerdy Eagle Scout whereas numerous classmates had extensive party agendas of the "glitterati" kind; I didn't even go to my prom since it was going to cost nearly $300 for admission alone.
Sadly, the false stereotype about the "right" being the only anti-queer side sticks often enough because of things like Romney's queer aide taking flack.
Again, not my takeaway. Maybe I'm wrong - but that's pretty unusual.Given that Wei copped a plea, we'll probably not know conclusively. I might be reading too much into it, but since Ravi was also offered a plea deal I suspect that she was certainly dirty enough for a criminal charge or two.
Yeah, I don't really like so-called "bias" crime any more than I like "hate" crime. If you're targeting someone for crime, you're not their pal. Trying to infer thoughtcrime based on protected classes is a huge step in the wrong direction.
Reasonable analogy is reasonable. The reason I despise Wei in the bargain is that she should have kicked Ravi in the nuts the first time, not harbored his peep show at the second-go-round.
I don't see how who he had sex with should make any difference in this case. Simply implying that it should make any difference is homophobic in it's own right. The prosecution would be homophobic in it's claim that Ravi had some malicious homophobic agenda. That's actually a criminal offense right there. If we really want to not discriminate, the entire situation should be treated no differently than if Clementi commited suicide due to being caught on tape playing with his legos.
What needs looking into is Ravis assumed intent as in what he expected to come out of this rather than attempting to label it as a hate crime. With even the tinyest bit of goodwill he should be assumed to not be a raging homophobe by the legal system. Regardless of personal convictions expressed in this thread, the legal system considers discrimination based on sexual preference a crime rather being *** itself. Even if you want to change that or if it was to be changed it can't be done for this case lest we risk throwing some of our most sacred rules of law overboard.
Wow, what a thread to to pick for my first post in 5 years. How ya doin'?
edit: Those "***" refers to sexual preference of course. Sorry, I don't know of any other way to express it in English (homophiliac..?).
Look The "Earth-Pig Born" is back!
[IMG]http://3.bp.********.com/_CW5iuzp1bHM/TG88Y_0aCNI/AAAAAAAADq8/_LY1z5IO_do/s400/Cerebus+Wallpaper+%28Cerebus%29.jpg[/IMG]
LOL
or are you the 3 headed Hound of Hell?
Nice post and Homosexual and Hetrosexual are the words you were looking for I think, but the Whole blocked 3 letter words thing at this site is ***
And when it's not *** it's Anti-Semitic.
If I kill myself over it is it a hate crime if I'm *** or a ***?
I'll agree to that, though I think I already kind of did replying to Valhauros and Goryani. "Hate crime" in general is IMO an attempt to legalize thoughtcrime, and the fact that this uses the "queer = icky" hook to hang it on is in itself an exhibition of bias.
Not so great; my son's been running a high fever for the four-day weekend and now spit up blood. But it's good to have some blasts from the past.
It's why I use "queer" - only two more letters. Stupidly, some of the liberal fascists on the GW OTF were screaming at my using the word, claiming that it was hate-loaded (as "fag-got" is apparently the new "N-word"). Yet "queer" appears in homosexual jargon and publication consistently as an acceptable term.
EDIT - apparently the regular spelling of the six-letter description of a bundle of sticks also is rank effrontery to the word filter.
You mean it's an attempt to make thought crimes illegal... or did I get you wrong here? I'm assuming that thought crimes are what's mentioned in Orwell's "1984".
Or are you supporting the idea to punish people for what they are thinking? Knowing what they are thinking is a different matter, of course.
If thoughts would be punished like deeds, we would all have to be put onto the electrical chair... except me of course because I'm always right with my adjucations.
With respect to the law, it depends on what we are doing, not what we are thinking and as I wrote before, not all consequences of our deeds are our fault or within our responsibility. Our motives might have an influence on the kind of punishment, however.
D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!
Isn't that the point of a debate; to try to change the other dude's mind?
Anyway, I misread your ire and bile as anger at the bad guys for 'forcing' poor Clementi to commit suicide, a concept I find tragically laughable.
Well, it's an attempt to consider certain thought as illegal. I find that concept both ludicrous and fraught with totalitarian potential.
No, no, precisely the opposite. I find the claim that one crime is worse than another of precisely the same circumstances because the one was done when 'hating' to be... well, evil. It isn't the same as an accidental crime, such as manslaughter; when I use the term "malice aforethought" it means that someone intends to do a criminal act because they've planned on malevolence. "Hate crime" in the U.S. is the claim that one sort of malevolent intent is somehow worse than another sort despite the end result being the same.
Well, there's also just airing your own views rather than arguing them. I suppose some would say that's still an attempt to coerce. Thing is, the sentence should have been much harsher; I can only hope that during the appeal process Ravi gets the proper minimum sentence or more.
Oh, no, though I still find them both completely despicable I doubt even Ravi really wanted him dead.
I remember some kids from my collegiate years that were as mentally fragile as Clementi seemed to have been; it doesn't seem to take much to shatter some types. Once there was one involved in a table-top war game (it might have been old Warhammer) and was so personally invested in the character that he truly freaked when the character was taken out by an archer.
I can't really answer for the entire agenda behind hate crime legislation, but there is some sound thought to it. The problem is that it's so hard to prove. It's a bit like affirmative action. Affirmative action is discrimination by definition, but is done for the greater good (I'm not going to argue if this is the case or not). We know that discrimination has an extremely negative effect on society as a whole and I suppose the idea is to counter that by punishing crime motivated by hatred harder.
This case however is hard to argue fitting the bill no matter what you think of hate crime legislation. It reminds me of the NCIS episode (I know.. ) where a suspect dies from a brain hemorrhage caused by a punch to the face. It's not something anyone would die from. 1 in 1000000 or something males just happen to have that congenital weakness in a part of one of their cerebral veins.
It's about what outcome you can expect something to have. Even if outing him might be problematic in that community and Ravi did it with that in mind, a suicide is pretty far beyond the consequences you can reasonably expect imo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks