Post a response to this discussion thread
According to the test, I am a moderate.
* * * *
Discord: I still think that I have answered your questions, and you think that I have not. I regret that you're right -- we're in that "repeat at each other" zone, so we might as well let it go. Peace.
By the way, Wulfgar is absolutely right about why I posted what I did about -sOc-. But I admired and admire your posts addressing that controversy; I wish more Crankizens thought in that way and wrote in that spirit.
* * * *
grundle:
Your account of "liberals" is, as usual, caricatured and wildly off.
"Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be soft on violent criminals. Liberals have created things such as parole, probation, plea bargaining, suspended sentencing, "time off for good behavior," and "not guilty by reason of insanity."
* No. Liberals can be damn tough on crime, especially Robert F. Kennedy liberals.
* Liberals did NOT create parole or probation or plea bargaining or "suspended sentencing" or "time off for good behavior"; those were created and supported by legislators across the board as means of dealing with prison overcrowding and administration.
* The insanity defense has been around for nearly two centuries in the common-law system, and probably a hell of a lot longer. In the most famous early case, the one that created the McNaghten test, you will find that its roots are in Judaeo-Christian religious doctrine emphasizing the need to be sure that a criminal defendant can distinguish right from wrong and thus can appropriately be held responsible for his or her crimes. You should do some basic historical research on this question. But you don't on any other question you posit, so what else is new?
"But when liberals see a violent hate crime, the liberals are shocked and stunned. Liberals are so accustomed to being soft on violent crime, that when liberals see a violent criminal who is bigoted, racist, or homophobic, the liberals do not know how to react. After all, liberals are accustomed to being soft on violent crime. So when liberals see that a violent crime was motiv[ATED] by bigotry, racism, or homophobia, the liberals are shocked and stunned. The liberals' reaction is to create a special category of crimes, and this special category of crimes is known as "hate crimes.""
No. Liberals who favor hate-crime legislation do so because they perceive crimes committed for reasons of hate as dangerous to the intended second-level targets of those crimes. The killing at the heart of the Jasper, Texas, case, for example, was intended to send a threat to all African-Americans residing in that area, and also to all African-Americans. Most hate-crime killings of gays and lesbians are intended to send a threat to all other gays and lesbians.
I am not a wimp or a wishywashy bozo; moreover, unlike you, I write without redundancy. I am tough on crime, whether violent or nonviolent. I have been robbed and mugged myself; my parents have been burglarized and robbed. I have had friends who have been assaulted and even raped. Do not presume to tell me what I, as a liberal (though your silly test calls me a moderate), think about violent crime and why.
Post a response to this discussion thread