Five minutes of hate news

[The Whispering Monk]

Repro-Shabbat???

TLDR-"Twelve hundred American synagogues participated in "Repro-Shabbat." "Repro" is short for "reproductive rights." The idea, which originated with a left-wing organization called the National Conference of Jewish Women (NCJW), was to have as many synagogues as possible promote the idea that Judaism supports a woman's right to abort the child she is carrying at any time in her pregnancy and for any reason, that the human fetus is never a human being — even five minutes before it is born — and that it has no innate right to live."

I mean...I shouldn't be surprised because the Jewish population in America seems to be largely Left, but this surprised the heck out of me.

 

[ATP]

Repro-Shabbat???

TLDR-"Twelve hundred American synagogues participated in "Repro-Shabbat." "Repro" is short for "reproductive rights." The idea, which originated with a left-wing organization called the National Conference of Jewish Women (NCJW), was to have as many synagogues as possible promote the idea that Judaism supports a woman's right to abort the child she is carrying at any time in her pregnancy and for any reason, that the human fetus is never a human being — even five minutes before it is born — and that it has no innate right to live."

I mean...I shouldn't be surprised because the Jewish population in America seems to be largely Left, but this surprised the heck out of me.

80% or so vote for Democrats,so yes.
And,since they do not have their version of pope or even bishops,every rabbi could say what he want.

 

[mrttao]

Repro-Shabbat???

TLDR-"Twelve hundred American synagogues participated in "Repro-Shabbat." "Repro" is short for "reproductive rights." The idea, which originated with a left-wing organization called the National Conference of Jewish Women (NCJW), was to have as many synagogues as possible promote the idea that Judaism supports a woman's right to abort the child she is carrying at any time in her pregnancy and for any reason, that the human fetus is never a human being — even five minutes before it is born — and that it has no innate right to live."

I mean...I shouldn't be surprised because the Jewish population in America seems to be largely Left, but this surprised the heck out of me.

So... what % is it?
1200 synagogues participated. is that 90% of them? 10%?
how many synagogues are there in usa?

 

[Cherico]

So... what % is it?
1200 synagogues participated. is that 90% of them? 10%?
how many synagogues are there in usa?

3,727 synagogues
40 percent are Orthodox, 26 percent Reform and 23 percent Conservative, according to the census, the first to count U.S. synagogues since 1936.

those are the official numbers, at least lots of people hold religious services in their own homes these days.

 

[mrttao]

3,727 synagogues
40 percent are Orthodox, 26 percent Reform and 23 percent Conservative, according to the census, the first to count U.S. synagogues since 1936.

those are the official numbers, at least lots of people hold religious services in their own homes these days.

thank you.
so 32% of Synagogues
despicable, but at least still a minority

although concerning due to how extreme it is. how many of the remaining ones do support abortion, but not at the "5 minutes before birth" mark.

 

[Cherico]

thank you.
so 32% of Synagogues
despicable, but at least still a minority

although concerning due to how extreme it is. how many of the remaining ones do support abortion, but not at the "5 minutes before birth" mark.

For most of the community it's something you ignore if it happened in the first three months. And the people get more judey the longer it's put off if it's not a medical emergency.

 

[Captain X]

Middle Schoolers Face Hate Crime Charges After Attacking Students for Being White: Police

Five middle school students are facing hate crime charges after what was believed to be a racially motivated attack against another group of kids in Coconut Creek.

www.nbcmiami.com

 

[Rocinante]

Middle Schoolers Face Hate Crime Charges After Attacking Students for Being White: Police

Five middle school students are facing hate crime charges after what was believed to be a racially motivated attack against another group of kids in Coconut Creek.

www.nbcmiami.com

Even if the victims are white, I am still thoroughly against "hate crime," being a thing. A crime happened here. Assault at the minimum. Hate crimes are bullshit.

 

[Blasterbot]

Even if the victims are white, I am still thoroughly against "hate crime," being a thing. A crime happened here. Assault at the minimum. Hate crimes are bullshit.

either apply them equally or don't apply them. I am on the side of don't apply them but if the laws are on the books then they must apply equally.

 

[Abhorsen]

Even if the victims are white, I am still thoroughly against "hate crime," being a thing. A crime happened here. Assault at the minimum. Hate crimes are bullshit.

Eh, I don't have the biggest problem with hate crime laws in the US, except that they can make minor offenses serious. It's the same logic behind degree's of murder: it's not just what you did, but your mindset in doing it. And since they are only crimes if the underlying behavior was a crime, it's not something that's a huge deal to me.

The issue is that these are kids. They don't need to go to jail, they need better parenting and teaching, not grievance study teaching.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

'Hate Crime' is BS b/c it involves the Feds at that point.

 

[Abhorsen]

'Hate Crime' is BS b/c it involves the Feds at that point.

Also not necessarily true. States can have hate crime laws.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Also not necessarily true. States can have hate crime laws.

They can. However, the 'Hate Crime' has been an easy excuse for the Feddies to get involved.

 

[Abhorsen]

They can. However, the 'Hate Crime' has been an easy excuse for the Feddies to get involved.

Sure, but that's a separate issue: federal jurisdiction. Not "should there be an enhancement punishment to a crime if done for hateful reasons". That is something I could see either side of the issue on.

 

[Skallagrim]

Sure, but that's a separate issue: federal jurisdiction. Not "should there be an enhancement punishment to a crime if done for hateful reasons". That is something I could see either side of the issue on.

Shouldn't that simply be resolved by allowing the judge or jury or whatever to simply weigh that in the consideration, without creating a separate category for it? As far as I'm aware, everywhere it exists "hate crime" is just a bullshit excuse, mostly used to punish people for wrongthink. The concept just shouldn't exist. But if a crime is particularly heinous (for any reason), I believe that should just be taken into consideration when meting out the punishment, on a case-by-case basis.

 

[mrttao]

Shouldn't that simply be resolved by allowing the judge or jury or whatever to simply weigh that in the consideration, without creating a separate category for it

Yes, this is literally why crimes have a minimum and maximum penalty, instead of an exact penalty. and a judge chooses a figure between those based on the circumstances.

 

[Pocky Balboa]

Spanish degenerates are really hurrying to make up for the time lost under Franco.

Looks like Cenk Uygur has a new vacation destination.

 

[Abhorsen]

Shouldn't that simply be resolved by allowing the judge or jury or whatever to simply weigh that in the consideration, without creating a separate category for it? As far as I'm aware, everywhere it exists "hate crime" is just a bullshit excuse, mostly used to punish people for wrongthink. The concept just shouldn't exist. But if a crime is particularly heinous (for any reason), I believe that should just be taken into consideration when meting out the punishment, on a case-by-case basis.

There's a lot of similar rules that punish for state of mind. Notably degrees of murder, but it's also the basis of many crimes even being crimes under mens rea. If, while at the self checkout, you genuinely forget to ring something up, you are not guilty of theft. If you do it intentionally, you are.

The moral issue with wrongthink crimes is that the crime is for thinking X without any action (see: silently praying outside a clinic). It's a classic victimless crime.

What hate crimes seek to handle is things like vandalizing a synagogue with a swastika or a church with a pro-abortion message. This is fundamentally different than putting ones name on an abandoned building, so why should the justice system be forced to treat it the same?

And on top of that, people seem to be complaining about written in sentence enhancements. These, IMO, are a good thing (absent that they only lengthen sentences of some, vs reducing the sentences of most at the cost of the most deserving). They promote uniformity in justice for similar actions. Getting rid of them either reduces the range of possible punishment for extreme actions, or eases giving out excessive punishment for non-extreme actions.

Say you have two beatings, one racially motivated with the consequential increase in brutality, the second minor. Both break the same laws, with the first also being a hate crime if such a law exists. We'd like to standardize the punishment of the first as worse than the second. One solution: make a hate crime law to handle this.

Is it the only solution? No. As others mentioned, giving the judge and jury a variety of options is also possible, but it comes with downsides: a judge could be a tough on crime type, and put people away for minor beatings for the same length as other judges would use for the most serious.

But having other solutions doesn't make the idea of a hate crime law (where it's a sentence enhancer) fundamentally wrong. Again, I'm ambivalent towards them, if done properly.

 

[mrttao]

Say you have two beatings, one racially motivated with the consequential increase in brutality, the second minor.

You are spoiling your own arguments by positing different severities of beatings.
You should be comparing exactly the same severity of beating.
With different reasoning as to why the beating occured.

The thing is... the whole "racially motived is extra bad" is suggesting that the other reasoning is NOT that bad.

> broke your arm because racist = bad
> broke your arm because they are insanely violent = not bad
> broke your arm because your political affiliation = not bad
> broke your arm to steal your wallet = not bad

There are already various degrees of assault based on the amount of damage dealt.

Also it is extremely easy to abuse such a system, since racism is extremely hard to prove/disprove.
So its mostly up to the whims of the persecution/judge

If someone murders me to steal my wallet. I would not want him to get a lesser sentence just because "at least he was not racist"

 

[Abhorsen]

You are spoiling your own arguments by positing different severities of beatings.
You should be comparing exactly the same severity of beating.
With different reasoning as to why the beating occured.

The thing is... the whole "racially motived is extra bad" is suggesting that the other reasoning is NOT that bad.

> broke your arm because racist = bad
> broke your arm because they are insanely violent = not bad
> broke your arm because your political affiliation = not bad
> broke your arm to steal your wallet = not bad

There are already various degrees of assault based on the amount of damage dealt.

Yes, but there's a significant correlation. Using this correlation takes away variance in justice for different crimes. This means that different judges will rule less differently on similar crimes, etc.

Also, one could easily argue that a beating based on race is 'worse' for society. In America, it directly attacks the civic nationalism of America by trying to divide people. As for a beating, if I get beaten up for my wallet, I'm far less scared than if I'm beaten up for being a fag. One of those is terrifying to me (enough that my opinion on gun control soured, because I wanted to be able to stop it), the other isn't. For a more 'real' example of this, again, look at church vandalism: what's written matters a helluva lot. A swastika is scary, bubble letters is a nuisance.

It's also about the state of mind for a person doing the action also: hitting someone with a car on purpose is morally different than doing it on accident. The only difference is the thoughts going through the person's head.

Hate crime enhancements capture this difference in the legal system.