It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Pedophile Protection Act': What's next for hate crimes?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Deaf Alien


You know what? That's the beauty of ATS. I've always thought that pedophiles should be executed.


Fine. Why stop there? Why not execute all the people that you think are undesirable? Dangerous? What? What's to stop me from wanting YOU or your family executed just cause I think you are undesirable?

See? It is a stepping stone to totalitarianism government. Thank GOD for our government!!!


Your first mistake in this debate. I said:


You know what? That's the beauty of ATS. I've always thought that pedophiles should be executed. Probably because I'm in Corrections but a debate in a thread a few months ago changed my mind about that.


Oh I am very sorry
Sometimes I let my emotions get the best of me.




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I don't believe in "hate crimes".

Like I said, as opposed to what, a "love" crime?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wookiee
To answer the Subject Line of 'What's next'

Terrorist hate crimes will be next, once they're released from gitmo and settled here in the good old US.
They'll be given homes, tax-free work and watches that point to Mecca.
But you'll go to jail if you even think bad thoughts about them.


I am unaware of any non-citizen, unconvicted people being released from Guantanamo and given homes, citizenship, tax exemptions or anything of the like but I may be wrong. If they are unconvicted but they receive discrimination for their time in Guantanamo then I believe they do deserve protection from that in some form or another.

I must say though I disagree with policing peoples thoughts. As I said in my previous post I disagree with people receiving discrimination for things they haven't even done.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Hate is a thought, not an action. The term "hate crime" means "thought crime." That is what the Democrats stand for - legislation against thought crimes. The fact that they define which thoughts are bad and which are not just further demonstrates the point.


That being said, the fact that they choose to protect pedophiles speaks volumes about who they think populates their constituencies.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
being born a pedophile


What? Sorry, don't buy that. Sexuality in something learned by the culture we live in.

Example: What would you said if it were your parents that teach you how to have sexual relations? But, this is something totally normal and done in respect in some tribes in Africa, so perfectly normal to them.

Sorry, I don't think we are born as human with already the taste of kids.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 13Etznab
 


Then you are at odds with most psychiatrists and their researches.

Your debate is not with me but with them.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Praise science and studies!

Of course, science has always been right...



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 13Etznab
 




Praise science and studies! Of course, science has always been right...


So you do know better? I will congratulate you when you get Nobel prize.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Deaf Alien:

We have all seen the psychiatric community's attempts over the years to classify virtually any behaviors considered abnormal to be diseases. The rationalization for their existence (and their financial success) is based upon this disease model of "mental health." All I can say is that to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Furthermore, the practices of medicine, and particularly psychiatry, are not always based on science.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


Then you do agree with the other poster that pedophilia is not inborn but "learned" by environment and parents?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
World Net Daily isn't exactly a non-biased reputable rag. It's on the same level as Pravda, The National Enquirer, etc...

I don't have any love for paedophiles, and other sexual deviants, but the hysteria over the bill is way overblown.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


Well at least it sparked a good debate



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
Hate is a thought, not an action. The term "hate crime" means "thought crime." That is what the Democrats stand for - legislation against thought crimes. The fact that they define which thoughts are bad and which are not just further demonstrates the point.


Isn't a hate crime a crime motivated by hate? The standard definition in the UK is as follows:



Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

SOURCE

Which is what I disagree with, if someone who hasn't done anything wrong is being discriminated against due to someone else's prejudices then they deserve protecting from said prejudices.

As for democrats standing for stopping crimes motivated by hatred, I cant imagine any party not standing for this.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I haven't read all the replies but I think there is a misunderstanding about what this bill is, and in my opinion bigots that are against homosexuality and transgendered people are purposely saying that this bills protects pedophiles in order to get public opposition to what is otherwise a very good, and fair bill.

I will openly admit that that could be way off, but I'd like to throw it out there the possibility.


.... provides special protections for pedophiles and others with alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.


Gender identities has nothing to do with voyeurism or exhibitionism.


Gender identity (or core gender identity) is a person's own sense of identification as male or female, another gender, or identifying with no gender. The term is intended to distinguish this psychological association, from physiological and sociological aspects of gender. Gender identity is how one personally identifies his or her gender regardless of their sex characteristics.
en.wikipedia.org...

It has to do with if someone "feels" male or female. If a male wears a dress, isn't that ok? That's what this bill seems to be protecting. Should a man wearing a dress get beat up because of clothing choice? No way, that should be protected. Anyone willing to harm a person like that should be slapped with the additional punishment of a hate crime.


"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said last week on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.


Christian ministry, eh? Yeah, they aren't against gays and transgendered people at all.


Let me mention I have a friend who thinks he is female in some way (I don't know the specifics of it, or how it works) but if someone beat him up over that, needless to say I'd be pissed off. A perfectly decent, normal person doesn't deserve that treatment by people that decide on a whim to harm him.


Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.


I don't know if that's true, but should anyone be able to get beat up for a medical problem they have? Sex offenders, I believe, when moving to a new neighborhood are required it inform the police and the neighbors are notified. If a neighbor doesn't like this, and decides to beat the guy or gal up, should that not be a hate crime? Despite the prior actions of the male or female, shouldn't the attacker be accountable?


....national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"


Before you judge, many of the "philias" aren't harmful to other people. Like one on wikipedia is an attraction to noses....unusual, yes but not overly harmful.

en.wikipedia.org...


But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime


Yeah, I highly doubt it. But honestly, regardless of the distance of the flasher, do you think the first reaction would be to slap the guy or gal with a purse? Pretty much turn and run away sums it up. I doubt you're going to want to move closer to the flasher...I mean really.


"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.


No, just as ludicrous as you'd like to make it (so you can stop this bill going through).

I wonder, if the bill was narrowed down to only gays and transexual people, or whatever the acronym is GLBT, would these critics hope on board and vote for it? Probably not, because their agenda is against gays mostly. Many don't want protection for gays, and guess who these people are? The lovely, good hearted Christians (falsely called so, btw, Jesus wouldn't approve...). So much for hate the sin, love the sinner. Hate the sin, and beat the hell out of the sinner is more like it.............and God will love you for it! yar right



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
If I was born a pedophile I wouldn't know it was bad, but life and the rest of the world says it's bad, and it's disgusting. And I think the general population of the world agrees. They don't deserve equal rights, in fact many people don't.

Rapists, sick murderers, pedophiles, child molesters, demented torturers -- They're nothing but manifestations of evil, and they deserve to be destroyed.


Evil or not, if you hurt them and for those things outside of the law, you deserve to be punished. Dare one might say, that that would be evil for you to harm another person?

We're not talking about "equal rights", we're talking about if you have or have not the right to beat the crap out of a person because of some characteristic that you personally don't like.



Although I believe in fair rights for all, in most occasions. Pedophiles are in that category I consider un-savable, or un-diserable by any facet of our society.

There isn't a person out there exept for pedophiles that would ever condone this type of behaviour or allow it.


No one is defending the harmful actions, but what this discussion is about is can a person harm or kill another person, because of a characteristic about them that they personally find distasteful? I think even you would say that is wrong to kill or harm another such person.


[edit on 11-5-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


When I was younger I got into alot of fights and all of them were either because I didn't like some characteristic of that person or that person didn't like some characteristic about me.

One guy picked a fight with me because I went into a hip hop club wearing a slayer shirt.


Doesn't make it a hate crime though.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


When I was younger I got into alot of fights and all of them were either because I didn't like some characteristic of that person or that person didn't like some characteristic about me.

One guy picked a fight with me because I went into a hip hop club wearing a slayer shirt.


Doesn't make it a hate crime though.



To compare that to what I was talking about I think is ridiculous. Getting beat up for wearing a dress as a man is different that if some guy beat you up over a "slayer shirt".



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


How so?

I was singled out for the way I dressed.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   


Democrats stand for - legislation against thought crimes. The fact that they define which thoughts are bad and which are not just further demonstrates the point.


That being said, the fact that they choose to protect pedophiles speaks volumes about who they think populates their constituencies.


Some of you are expanding my understanding of human stupidity. Some of you turn to savage beasts as I've seen in this thread lacking in hardly any thoughtfulness. Just because it is such a small minority here that we're talking about, and a minority that is greatly hated by society, shouldn't mean that you have permission to act and say whatever you want. Minorities throughout time have been mistreated, for either "real" or imagined reasons, perfectly justified by society.... so think about that for awhile. Jews, Blacks, Witches, ect. All at one time were perfectly fine to torture and kill, so more brains please.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

An analogy. You are attracted to your neighbors spouse. As long as you don't act on that you aren't an adulterer. Once you have though, you are.





So basically you are saying that if a man is attracted to another man but never acted on the urges, he's not gay?




Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Are you equating homosexuality to pedophilia?



You really misinterprited what he was getting at I think. A person is considered "gay" whether or not they have had any sort of male contact in our culture. It's the attraction to males that makes a person gay. Similarly, a pedophile is someone who likes kids irrespective if he/she has or hasn't had contact.

Some of you seem to be missing the point, shouldn't both be protected from violence? A pedophile moves into town, and you don't like it, can or can you not beat him up? That's what it comes down to really.

One might argue that all hate crimes should be eliminated, and that's a fair discussion I suppose. But if a black person is specifically targeted for being black, and gets killed, shouldn't their be an additional punishment? If it was a random person, then no group feels any additional pain. But in the black community in this example, the pain from this person's death extends to a certain extent to the whole community, since the likelyhood of an attack on them increases if people are being attacked based on skin color.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ghaleon12]

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ghaleon12]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join