Okay, there are a few things bothering me.

[Mythsaje]

(So what else is new, right?)

First of all, I'd like to say that this isn't meant to be flamebait. I post it to stimulate discussion, not start a flame war. I ask that people attempt to be civil to one another to allow a real debate to take place. Or several, as the case may be.

The first thing is the idea of criminalizing any kind of speech. "Hate" speech, for example. I understand not wanting to hear it, particularly if you're the intended recipient. Gawd only knows I'd love for all different kinds of assholes to just shut the fuck up. Well, mostly. On the other hand, I somewhat prefer them to be out in the open so we don't have to wonder WHERE they are. Shutting them up wouldn't prevent them from continuing to be assholes. It would just make them quiet, subversive assholes. I prefer to be able to spot them quickly and thus avoid them.

I can't precisely be telling people who are the targets of hate speech how to deal with it, since I belong to no group that might tend to attract such--other than a liberal, of course.

I suppose the best way I can think of to deal with hate speech is by publically decrying it. "Thanks for that not-so-valuable input from the Asshole Brigade. Now on to something relevant."

We have to be very careful about how we try to temper free speech. The only group and circumstance I can think of, off-hand, where free "speech" should be curtailed is in our system's current misidentification of spending money as the equivilant of free "speech."

This is not to say that inciting a riot or deliberately inciting people to commit acts of violence by the use of hate speech shouldn't be subject to legal recourse--both civil and criminal. But we must be wary about how we allow our rights of free speech to be curtailed. It's not hard for me to imagine how "hate-speech" legislation could be twisted to make criticizing Christianity against the law.

For example.

I worry about things like this. I find it important to consider the possible negative outcomes of what may be seen as positive legislative action. Like "free speech zones" which, apparently, came out of the fight against abortion clinic protestors. To keep them out of the way of the legitimate clients of such establishments, they were forced to congregate in certain acceptable areas.

Now we can argue that it was a good idea. It certainly has its merits. But the way it's been used since then...not so much.

Another thing that got under my skin this morning was several comments in a thread about the actor Charlize Theron. Now while I may find such comments as "I'd hit that" rather offensive myself, I have to wonder if sometimes some people go a little far with their condemnation of any commentary regarding a woman's attractiveness. You certainly don't see anything of the sort with regards to comments about a MAN'S attractiveness.

Heterosexual people SHOULD find members of the opposite sex attractive and feel free to comment on it in a reasonable, tasteful way without being condemned for it. Crude and tactless remarks are one thing, but genuine appreciation for someone's appearance shouldn't be taken as offensive. In my opinion, anyway. As far as that goes, I think the same of those who might comment about members of the same gender.

When people go too far, I think, is when the ONLY thing that matters about a person is his or her appearance. When his/her behavior, persona, or point of view is completely discounted simply because of his or her appearance.

Charlize Theron is admirable to me because of her social and political stances. She's also a beautiful woman. Maybe a tad thin for my tastes, but that has no bearing on my perception of what kind of person I think she is.

The same could be said for Angelina Jolie, whose work with the U.N. has been worthy of note. She also has a lot of guts and drive. When I saw how she did her own stunts in Tomb Raider, and how she worked hours a day learning the martial arts moves she used in the movie, I was more than impressed. I admire her for all of these things. I also think she's beautiful, but I worry about how thin she's gotten lately. She doesn't look well.

If one only sees members of the opposite sex as physical things rather than as real people, then there may be an issue. But if one considers it merely an aspect of a much greater whole, I don't think it's in any way degrading. But I suppose that's just my opinion and worth about as much as anyone's willing to grant it.

People certainly need to look BEYOND appearance. But if we discount how it may affect our judgments entirely, we're simply fooling ourselves.

I think this is a quote from a book, but, for the life of me, I can't quite remember which one.

"Beauty's not just skin deep, it's a hell of a lot deeper than that."

We humans are complex creatures, and our psychology with regards to such things is as widely varied as our approach to it. Maybe some of us should have a bit more respect and not say such things as "I'd hit that." But maybe some of us should also recognize that, whether spoken or not, appreciation of physical appearance does color much of our attitudes.

I mean, George Clooney is not only admired for his political stances, but he's admired by many women for his physical attractiveness. He receives attention that Michael Moore, for all his liberal credentials, will never get.

:shrug:

Fair? Perhaps not. But true? Absolutely. Make of it what you will.

[readmoreoften]

1. Read my post and then get back to me.

I don't want to silence the speech of Christians. That's nothing more than feeding into a right-wing meme. But reading a bible verse over someone while you sodomize them and telling them they deserve it is an aggravating factor. If you only want to look at the physical end effects of a violent crime--rape, death, etc. then we should throw out manslaughter, and murder 2.

The mental goal of the criminal already matters. If their goal is to annihilate a population it should be treated as such.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2500141

[Selatius]

2. How do we define mental goal, though? In law, you have motive and intent.

You can't convict a person if you can prove only motive but not intent. If you can prove the intent, then you win. A person can believe in wiping out all Arabs with nuclear warheads, and that's no one's business but his own. That's a motive, but you can't arrest a person for a belief, however bizarre or offensive or insane. If, however, the person also plans out very specific courses of action meant to fulfill that belief and you can demonstrate that he has indeed put together a serious plot, you have proven an intent to kill.