Ham Steak + Muslims = Instant Hate Crime

[quote name='RollingSkull']The same could be said for any prankster and his victim. I don't see why this instance means more for a Muslim than for ANY other potential target of a prankster. Any target of the prankster could makes some prejudiced judgement about people like that prankster. Why does the burden fall heavier on the administration to punish more severely if the prankster is white and the victims are a specific victim group? I'm not saying the kid shouldn't have been punished, but it isn't like he slipped pork into their meals. He threw it down in a bag on the table.[/quote]

It's different because minorities require more protection than majorities just by virtue of the fact that they're a minority, especially such an extreme minority as those Somali kids in a town that's 96% white.

An example: If you were to go to a country in the Middle East that was majority Middle Eastern Muslim and slam down a ham sandwich they'd probably laugh at you (provided you didn't pick some violent fundamentalists...).

They have the security in knowing that they are the majority. Everyone else is like them and agrees with them. The Somali students don't have that security by default, it has to be shown to them.

[quote name='RollingSkull'] But what it should be doing is not what it is actually doing. An action counts as a hate crime if, through subjective judgement, race is defined as a motivating factor, which puts the onus on the defense to disprove motive (Something evaluated subjectively enough that the humor I take from the nigger word censor could be enough to prove motive should I later commit a crime against a black individual.), and gives litigious members of the specified victim groups a weapon that could be used maliciously.

I've never seen hate crimes phrased as specifically dealing with the nebulous concept of making groups dislike each other more. Maybe I'm a little slow, but that isn't a crime in and of itself.[/quote]

You don't throw out hate crime laws if people use them improperly though. You have to either make sure they're not used improperly or alter them to be as specific as possible. People sue too often, but that doesn't mean you take away their right to sue since it's quite often justified.

I'd have to know how often they're used improperly to know if it's really a problem. If I ever have the free time I'll look into it :p.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Only hate crimes phrase that treatment as a function of one's victim group status. Only hate crimes define out specific victim groups.[/quote]

And they're not worded so that they exclude the majority, it's just that people don't find it necessary to defend the majority like they do a minority group. Just as the 1st Amendment is used to protect speech, religion, etc. that is unpopular since it's unnecessary to defend something nobody cares about anyway.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']When using a phrase like this in a posting, is it not a requirement that the name "Shepard Smith" be somewhere close to it?[/quote]

They ARE synonyms, aren't they?
 
[quote name='trq']("Boy, Germans sure were evil fifty years ago.
And how about the South in the Civil War? They must've been real stupid, not knowing it's wrong to keep slaves.")[/QUOTE]

You're not seriously arguing that Nazis and slavery weren't evil, are you? Your moral relativism is getting out of hand.
 
[quote name='trq']Actually, it's pretty carefully considered nonjudgementalism. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that if you (the general "you") think you already know everything, you're not going to learn much. Simply picking a historical period or a different culture and giving them all the "benefit" of your modern perspective and society ("Boy, Germans sure were evil fifty years ago.
And how about the South in the Civil War? They must've been real stupid, not knowing it's wrong to keep slaves.") doesn't tell you much of value, like how perfectly typical people might have actual reasons for doing terrible things. So whatever your pet peeves about blankets (and apparently Muslims, if these boards are any judge), white American self-flagellation isn't an integral part of that paradigm. After all, if I'm a proponant of anything, it's consistency.[/quote]

THOSE FILTY SANDniggerS

Ahem.

Man, sandninja has SUCH a nice ring to it.

I'm not saying that we judge every other culture by holding them against progress made today. No cirriculum I've seen has done that, and I'm fairly sure the proposed Islamic cirriculum being discussed is not simply trying to prevent that either. How many people would be up in arms if schools were forced to teach a Christian cirriculum, topics as decided by the Catholic church?

But you don't learn anything either if you shield yourself from ever saying "Wow, that was barbaric" where it is merited. It prevents the students from truly understanding the progress made in modern societies and fosters bad habits of placing other cultures on the "exotic" pedastal, which is precisely the sort of thing that fosters myths like the ecological Native American or allows cirriculae to gloss over the less palatable aspects of certain cultures.

Nobody's really aguing that this isn't an overreaction to some degree, as far as I can tell. It ain't perfect, but letting the people who aren't offended determine what's offensive to other people doesn't work, either. ("It should be okay to call people niggers; it doesn't offend me." "But you're white." "So?")

Consider the swastika -- despite 1,500 years of use as a buddhist and hindu sun symbol, it's highly offensive to jews. How do you tell what's fair use? It has to fall to intent, and this kid intended to be a douche and go after race/religion.
Click to expand...

You could just go the road of Iran... "The Holocaust didn't happen. What are you guys so upset about?" ;)

Yes, the kid played a joke based on one's religion. He didn't burn a cross in their lawn. He didn't sneak ham into their meals. He placed a bag of ham on the table. Unless simply observing ham will cause Muslims to go directly to hell, what he did is, at best, a minor prank. A minor prank that used their religion at its focal point, yes, but a minor prank nonetheless. Given the gamut of more malicious things he could have done with just a smidge more imagination, I think it is hard to read from his intent that he meant it as anything more than a mean-spirited, yet harmless jest. I don't think it should be read as "SANDniggerS SHOULD BURN"

You don't throw out hate crime laws if people use them improperly though. You have to either make sure they're not used improperly or alter them to be as specific as possible. People sue too often, but that doesn't mean you take away their right to sue since it's quite often justified.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. I don't think they're constitutional and I don't think they should be within the scope of our justice system. There is no patch fix for including subjective motive within the scope of the prosecution to prove and the defense to disprove. We have never done that in the past with very good reason. We have never judged a crime more severe based on its motive, only on whether it is a crime of passion or premeditation. I don't think it fits with legal tradition, and I don't think it jives with the Constitution, mainly equal protection. And, mostly, I think it is redundant. We already have established laws and punishments for beating people, lighting crosses on their lawn, what have you. That the crime is somehow worse because it was done for reason x instead of y is absurd to me.

And they're not worded so that they exclude the majority, it's just that people don't find it necessary to defend the majority like they do a minority group. Just as the 1st Amendment is used to protect speech, religion, etc. that is unpopular since it's unnecessary to defend something nobody cares about anyway.
Click to expand...

How they're worded does not change how they are perceived, which is relevant in this case because they exacerbate the racial tensions they seek to combat (A fallacious bit of logic in and of itself, using laws of this sort to fix a social ill, but that point hasn't been made directly, so tis a straw man.), by providing the minorities protected legal status.

I could always, by the way, just dare you to prosecute as a hate crime a murder of a white individual committed by a black individual. I'll bet $20 on the outcome of that.
 
I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.
 
[quote name='FrogalP']I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.[/quote]

Oh fuck. It is over. /thread. I lose. :(
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']
That's not the point. I don't think they're constitutional and I don't think they should be within the scope of our justice system. There is no patch fix for including subjective motive within the scope of the prosecution to prove and the defense to disprove. We have never done that in the past with very good reason. We have never judged a crime more severe based on its motive, only on whether it is a crime of passion or premeditation. I don't think it fits with legal tradition, and I don't think it jives with the Constitution, mainly equal protection. And, mostly, I think it is redundant. We already have established laws and punishments for beating people, lighting crosses on their lawn, what have you. That the crime is somehow worse because it was done for reason x instead of y is absurd to me.[/quote]

I think the difference I'm getting at here is the effect of the crime. There are laws against burning crosses on other people's property I'm sure, but what would that be, trespassing and some open flame law? That doesn't address what burning the cross really means or the effect that it has.

I don't like the ability of prosecution to abuse it either, but at the moment I can't think of a better way to address the problem.


[quote name='RollingSkull']
How they're worded does not change how they are perceived, which is relevant in this case because they exacerbate the racial tensions they seek to combat (A fallacious bit of logic in and of itself, using laws of this sort to fix a social ill, but that point hasn't been made directly, so tis a straw man.), by providing the minorities protected legal status.

I could always, by the way, just dare you to prosecute as a hate crime a murder of a white individual committed by a black individual. I'll bet $20 on the outcome of that.[/quote]

Well since minorities are given harsher punishments than whites generally I guess it's not really necessary to punish them more for hate crimes ;).

Laws like these are from the school of thought that racism is best fought through the law rather than social activism (which is disruptive and at times can become violent). Ultimately that doesn't really seem to completely work, but people keep those laws as a decent substitute while society adjusts to treating everyone equally (if that's even ever possible).

I'm ending here, since FrogalP effectively ended the thread with whatever that was. So you can reply or not or whatever, but I'm done. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think the difference I'm getting at here is the effect of the crime. There are laws against burning crosses on other people's property I'm sure, but what would that be, trespassing and some open flame law? That doesn't address what burning the cross really means or the effect that it has.

I don't like the ability of prosecution to abuse it either, but at the moment I can't think of a better way to address the problem.[/quote]

I don't think the problem need be addressed through legal terms, especially by making already illegal crimes crimes super-duper bad if they are done because the victim is a minority.

Laws like these are from the school of thought that racism is best fought through the law rather than social activism (which is disruptive and at times can become violent). Ultimately that doesn't really seem to completely work, but people keep those laws as a decent substitute while society adjusts to treating everyone equally (if that's even ever possible).
Click to expand...

I don't believe any social ills are particularly well fought by law. The law punishes people that break it, and not a lot else. Take a ride down the local interstate to see what a great job speeding laws have done to combat speeding. ;)

Full disclosure though, as a conservative, there aren't many things the government can do that I don't think people can do better.

I'm ending here, since FrogalP effectively ended the thread with whatever that was. So you can reply or not or whatever, but I'm done. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's like picking up FrogalP's victory flag and waving it like your own! Have some class! He was the one who so soundly defeated me! :p
 
[quote name='FrogalP']I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.[/QUOTE]

So...any guesses as to what language this was written in before it was run through BabelFish?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So...any guesses as to what language this was written in before it was run through BabelFish?[/QUOTE]
I'm going with Italian.
 
[quote name='FrogalP']I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.[/QUOTE]

What was that one guy's name? Ya know, the crazy anti-semite who made all those completely off-the-wall posts?
 
[quote name='camoor']What about the first amendment? I think that once people start to talk about this as a crime, then it's fair to cite the first amendment's right to free speech. There's no amendment guaranteeing your right to not be offended.[/QUOTE]

Well, the "hate crime" issue is what I think most of us are in agreement about as being an overreaction. My point was purely about this kid not being "over sensitive" and having the same right to be offended as any other person confronted with someone making cracks about his race or religion. I wouldn't be overly bothered in his shoes, but saying that anything that isn't universally offensive to absolutely everyone should be written off as "special treatment" is a poor scale to go by. So once more: Arrested? Too much. Suspended? Is there any group that would just laugh off racial or religious insults in schools? Why should this kid?

[quote name='elprincipe']You're not seriously arguing that Nazis and slavery weren't evil, are you? Your moral relativism is getting out of hand.[/QUOTE]

Really? THAT'S what you took from my post? C'mon now.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying, however, is that simply writing them off as "evil" doesn't tell you anything about how these things happened in the first place. Nobody ever considers themselves "evil"; the Nazis didn't wear black because that's just what bad guys do. Everyone thinks they're doing the right or necessary thing. So ignoring that and simply sticking a black hat and curly mustache on them doesn't tell you anything about, say, the dangers of "just following orders," or the pitfalls of hypernationalism, or what can happen when you look for minority scapegoats.

If you're getting moral relativism out of anything I've said, you couldn't have missed the mark by a wider margin. If anything, it's about moral consistency -- either judging oneself (or your own national/racial/religious/whatever group) as harshly as you judge others, or judging them as leiniently as you would yourself. That's fairness. That's objectivity. Blanket "us good, them bad" or "us bad, them good" statements miss the point, and it seems like there are lots of the latter in the OP. Just because I feel compelled to dig into those doesn't mean I'm advocating the opposite position.
 
[quote name='trq']Is there any group that would just laugh off racial or religious insults in schools? Why should this kid?[/quote]
In a perfect world, the Somalis would have learned that the worst thing you can do is let a prankster know he got under your skin.



That's objectivity. Blanket "us good, them bad" or "us bad, them good" statements miss the point, and it seems like there are lots of the latter in the OP. Just because I feel compelled to dig into those doesn't mean I'm advocating the opposite position.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with exploring the reasons of x, y, or z, but I shouldn't think it is too world-ending to say "Yes, our culture is better because we don't treat women like property."
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']In a perfect world, the Somalis would have learned that the worst thing you can do is let a prankster know he got under your skin.[/QUOTE]

Knowing how to deal with some jerkwad IS useful, but "develop lunchroom social skills" is probably about as important as "vote for my American Idol" or "buy new Fallout Boy CD" for some Somali immigrant kid. In any event, I'm not sure that the burden should be on the kid being made fun of, instead of the kid being a dick anyway.

[quote name='RollingSkull']There's nothing wrong with exploring the reasons of x, y, or z, but I shouldn't think it is too world-ending to say "Yes, our culture is better because we don't treat women like property."[/QUOTE]

Even if we ignore the likely retort along the lines of "No, OUR culture is better because our women aren't filthy whores," it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. What about Europe, where the standard of living is higher, and the freedoms generally more expansive? "Our culture is better because we don't deprive homosexuals of their full rights"? So Europe > USA > Middle East? Wait, wait, the Continent has no real committment to free speech, so maybe we're tied ... but they only limit stuff like Holocaust denial. That's not so bad. And we're still the number one country for arms exportation ... but is that a plus or a minus? Oh, and Canada is sorta like the best of both worlds, so maybe Canada > USA/Europe > Middle East ... and the Middle East has sub-saharan Africa beat by a mile, so ...

So what? It's just not a productive way of thinking about the world. Human civilization is infinitely more complicated than a bowling score sheet.
 
[quote name='trq']Really? THAT'S what you took from my post? C'mon now.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying, however, is that simply writing them off as "evil" doesn't tell you anything about how these things happened in the first place. Nobody ever considers themselves "evil"; the Nazis didn't wear black because that's just what bad guys do. Everyone thinks they're doing the right or necessary thing. So ignoring that and simply sticking a black hat and curly mustache on them doesn't tell you anything about, say, the dangers of "just following orders," or the pitfalls of hypernationalism, or what can happen when you look for minority scapegoats.

If you're getting moral relativism out of anything I've said, you couldn't have missed the mark by a wider margin. If anything, it's about moral consistency -- either judging oneself (or your own national/racial/religious/whatever group) as harshly as you judge others, or judging them as leiniently as you would yourself. That's fairness. That's objectivity. Blanket "us good, them bad" or "us bad, them good" statements miss the point, and it seems like there are lots of the latter in the OP. Just because I feel compelled to dig into those doesn't mean I'm advocating the opposite position.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I am quick to jump on percieved moral relativism because I detest it so much.
 
So what? It's just not a productive way of thinking about the world. Human civilization is infinitely more complicated than a bowling score sheet.
Click to expand...

Just because civilization is multi-faceted doesn't mean that refusing to take any score at all is an instant route to the high ground. I'm not talking about ranking civilizations based on a scorecard, I'm talking about having the courage of your convictions to believe that your civilization is better in one way or in totality because of specific, justifiable reasons. The contrary mindset is hardly productive either inasmuch as it allows intellectual laziness in the face of otherwise difficult to justify positions. Doctrinaire feminists these days make a great example. The very same people who believe that the Duke Lacrosse dudes were most likely not innocent, and something clearly happened there, will refuse to pass any judgement on anything that comes out of an Islamic country. Germany using Sharia to justify a Moroccan man beating his wife. Iran sentencing rape victims to 100 lashes (Well, it beats the maximum sentence for such a crime: death). (I could probably go on, but I don't exactly memorize these things.) Across the board, doctrinaire feminists will remain silent about these incidents, offering the occasional lip service about how uncomfortable they feel in passing judgement on foreign cultures.

This nonjudgemental way of thinking allows for that sort of intellectual inconsistency, justifying a lazy world view, because it is so much easier to be concerned with the plight of your fellow man within your own country and let any sort of empathy or compassion you proclaim stop at the water's edge.
 
[quote name='trq']Well, the "hate crime" issue is what I think most of us are in agreement about as being an overreaction. My point was purely about this kid not being "over sensitive" and having the same right to be offended as any other person confronted with someone making cracks about his race or religion. I wouldn't be overly bothered in his shoes, but saying that anything that isn't universally offensive to absolutely everyone should be written off as "special treatment" is a poor scale to go by. So once more: Arrested? Too much. Suspended? Is there any group that would just laugh off racial or religious insults in schools? Why should this kid?[/quote]

I was friends with some Mormon kids in my HS, they certainly didn't goto the admin every time someone made a crack.

In fact, whenever someone was cracking wise - they'd just tell all the jokes themselves in a sarcastic "is-that-the-best-you-can-do" way - it was pretty funny and a great way of diffusing the situation.

The Somalis sound like tattle-tails, sometimes you have to fight your own battles in life instead of running to mommy all the time.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I am quick to jump on percieved moral relativism because I detest it so much.[/QUOTE]

De nada.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Just because civilization is multi-faceted doesn't mean that refusing to take any score at all is an instant route to the high ground. I'm not talking about ranking civilizations based on a scorecard, I'm talking about having the courage of your convictions to believe that your civilization is better in one way or in totality because of specific, justifiable reasons.[/QUOTE]

I think that's just fundamentally flawed (for one, it treats culture as immutable -- is American culture the same today as it was fifty years ago? -- and by dealing in absolutes, it keeps anyone who thinks their culture is the "best" -- i.e., everyone -- from ever taking or learning from other cultures), so I'll just point out that when it comes to "in total," it's self-contradictory, because to say "Culture X is better than Culture Y" does, in fact, entail keeping a scorecard.

Are you going to tell me that people should have the "courage" to believe they know the one true religion next? Because history has taught us that's a real winning meme so far.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Doctrinaire feminists these days make a great example.[/QUOTE]

I won't really get into it, since it'd just be way too off topic, but in my experience with that specific subset of feminists, I've found the opposite: that they're all too willing to judge other cultures based on their own standards. I can't think of a more broken-record comment from that camp than "Muslim women have to wear things on their heads and faces! How awful!" Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If they ever tried asking an actual Muslim woman about it, they might not get the answer they expect.

[quote name='camoor']I was friends with some Mormon kids in my HS, they certainly didn't goto the admin every time someone made a crack.

The Somalis sound like tattle-tails, sometimes you have to fight your own battles in life instead of running to mommy all the time.[/QUOTE]

Good on the Mormon kids, but Utah ain't Somalia. Do we now expect every immigrant to be perfectly and instantly assimilated on arrival? Further, we can "lolz, its a hamm sammich!" all day, but the fact that the "It's not like they ate it!" defense is springing up tells me how little anyone here knows about the kid's religious beliefs, which brings me to my final point: It's not anyone's place to tell other people what they're allowed to be offended by, bottom line.

Maybe the Somali kid's a whiny bitch. Doesn't matter. If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime. Don't want to get suspended? Don't pull shit.
 
[quote name='trq']I think that's just fundamentally flawed (for one, it treats culture as immutable -- is American culture the same today as it was fifty years ago? -- and by dealing in absolutes, it keeps anyone who thinks their culture is the "best" -- i.e., everyone -- from ever taking or learning from other cultures), so I'll just point out that when it comes to "in total," it's self-contradictory, because to say "Culture X is better than Culture Y" does, in fact, entail keeping a scorecard.[/quote]
It doesn't have to. One would expect one's culture can be taken in a current snapshot while being aware of its fluidity. In the same vein, one should not be beholden to EVERY potential change in their culture, especially coming from before they are born.

Are you going to tell me that people should have the "courage" to believe they know the one true religion next? Because history has taught us that's a real winning meme so far.
Click to expand...
Don't know any cultures that achieved affluence to this date by understanding other cultures and not judging them.



I won't really get into it, since it'd just be way too off topic, but in my experience with that specific subset of feminists, I've found the opposite: that they're all too willing to judge other cultures based on their own standards. I can't think of a more broken-record comment from that camp than "Muslim women have to wear things on their heads and faces! How awful!"
Click to expand...
I could direct you to some websites if interested. My experience is not unsubstantial.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If they ever tried asking an actual Muslim woman about it, they might not get the answer they expect.
Click to expand...
By that same metric, who am I to judge my slaveholding ancestors? I was never a part of such a thing, and, really, the cultural differences between the 1800s and today are so immense... Last I heard, the darkies rather enjoyed their work.

And, again, who are we to interfere in, say, Darfur? If those black folk wanna kill each other, that's just what they do. It is their culture, and we really cannot judge them for it.

Good on the Mormon kids, but Utah ain't Somalia. Do we now expect every immigrant to be perfectly and instantly assimilated on arrival? Further, we can "lolz, its a hamm sammich!" all day, but the fact that the "It's not like they ate it!" defense is springing up tells me how little anyone here knows about the kid's religious beliefs, which brings me to my final point: It's not anyone's place to tell other people what they're allowed to be offended by, bottom line.

Maybe the Somali kid's a whiny bitch. Doesn't matter. If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime. Don't want to get suspended? Don't pull shit.
Click to expand...
But it isn't our place to cater our society to the most offended individual. That has been a common theme in most of what I've posted in this thread. If we cater to everything the Somali students would get offended by, replete with disproportionate punishment, we are, in effect, instituting their cultural norms on the entire school through a sort of Orwellian version of 'tolerance', in a way that the same people who screamed for separation of church and state would applaud heartily.
 
And I haven't read anything about Islam that ranks ham at the level of kyptonite to Muslims. I've only seen them as being forbidden from eating it.
 
[quote name='trq']Good on the Mormon kids, but Utah ain't Somalia. Do we now expect every immigrant to be perfectly and instantly assimilated on arrival? Further, we can "lolz, its a hamm sammich!" all day, but the fact that the "It's not like they ate it!" defense is springing up tells me how little anyone here knows about the kid's religious beliefs, which brings me to my final point: It's not anyone's place to tell other people what they're allowed to be offended by, bottom line.

Maybe the Somali kid's a whiny bitch. Doesn't matter. If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime. Don't want to get suspended? Don't pull shit.[/quote]

I agree that the hambag kid should be punished, and I wouldn't argue against a suspension. The only part I thought was ridiculous was the "hate crime" aspect.

I love how everyone needs to tiptoe around mainstream religion, but then you have transparent religious discrimination like this happening all the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24wiccan.html?em&ex=1177560000&en=b32d06a7c7b02220&ei=5087%0A

This guy only had to die for his country to get the right to put what he wanted on his tombstone - forgive me if I can't manage to muster up sympathy and outrage over a situation in which a teenager had to sit through the horror of being one foot away from a ham sandwich.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Ha, religion. If pigs were so great, they would be humans, and not 4-Legs-of-Deliciousness.[/QUOTE]

Umm, in all religions that forbid pork, it's not because pigs are revered and considered "great," but rather because pigs are considered "unclean." That's the exact opposite. You're thinking of the way Hindus treat cows.

[quote name='camoor']I agree that the hambag kid should be punished, and I wouldn't argue against a suspension. The only part I thought was ridiculous was the "hate crime" aspect...[/QUOTE]

Indeed. It has to be a crime on its own to be committed as a hate crime.
 
[quote name='camoor']I agree that the hambag kid should be punished, and I wouldn't argue against a suspension. The only part I thought was ridiculous was the "hate crime" aspect...[/QUOTE]

Indeed. It has to be a crime on its own to be committed as a hate crime.
 
[quote name='captaincold']By now you guys know that this was a fake story right?[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm the one who brought it up again, but I was just following the source of the quote from Raynre's signature to provide a correction since it's been getting spread around for so long.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Ha, religion. If pigs were so great, they would be humans, and not 4-Legs-of-Deliciousness.[/QUOTE]

Did you ever look into exactly what they eat? They are actually gross as hell and I am not concerned with any religious aspects of it.

That goes for Crabs and shrimp as well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top