[Dr Lecter]

"Homosexuals are gay"- fact
Anyway... By hatred groups, that really should people that incite violence towards a certain group of people, or actively persue conflict with said group. People going around saying something like "Christians are stupid" is just idiotic remark, people saying "Kill all christians" is incitement. Saying that "Jews are fat cats" is just idiotic generalisation, saying "Let's kill all the jews" is incitement. We have to make this division clear in order to protect our more stupid citizens who make statements like those labelled idiotic. While still making it clear that incitement towards a group is wrong.

[Jordan]

I don't want to admit it, but Hannibal is right. How do you define a hate group? You can't. You can't stop people from hating anything. The term 'hate' is so stupid and vague when used in this context. There are crimes. Hate is sometimes the root of the crime, most of the time it's not. I use to think that most crimes are caused by hate, until civillian pointed out---Most crimes that hurt others are done out of greed, passion, insanity, etc..

For instance. Most people don't care why a person murders. They just want to know if he is guilty of the killing or not. Knowing why can provide a motive, but in the end all that matters is that his actions have defined him as a criminal.

Liberals use the term 'hate' an awful lot. You can pretty much label anyone a hater. The fact that certain people dislike certain races is acutally not a crime. Sure it can turn violent, but until somebody pulls a trigger, there is not much the law can do.

'hate crimes' and racisim seem almost inherent to a multicultural system. You have to accept the fact that certain people out there look down on others. Sure this sort of mentality can one day lead killings, terrorism etc.., but until that day, it's there right.

I say this because, from a liberal standpoint, the christian bible is filled with hate inspiring doctrine. It has a cut and dry approach to what is wrong and what is right. Any sort of intolerance to a certain practice (homosexuality, Paganism, Adultery) is considered grounds for 'hate'. But at the same time, the liberal view is being intolerant towards the christian view point and muslim etc....

It's a catch 22. You can't supress any group that does not perform a crime. And not liking something is not a crime.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 24 January 2005 - 05:43 PM

[Dr Lecter]

You can't supress any group that does not perform a crime.  And not liking something is not a crime.

Read the above paragraph I wrote about incitement...

[Hannibal]

"I reserve the right to hate or love, and no government should ever be able to legislate my emotions."

--William James

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan- that's true, we do need a better definition of it. I think there's a difference between promoting dislike of certain people and promoting ignorance, which is what I'm against. For instance, if I were to start an anti-Jordan group because I disliked your ideas and wanted you to change them than that would be my right. However if I wanted to start a group that was against people who's names were Jordan that would be wrong, right?

So, basically, people are free to disagree with others based on their actions but no group should be permitted to form or march or otherwise spread their ideas if their ideas consist of de-humanizing or hating another group of people based upon race religion lifestyle or gender. It is tricky to word and I can see not many are in favor of this clause, but I'd like it in there myself.

[Slade]

In regards to hate groups, Wikipedia (ubiquitous Internet resource that it is) has a good article on hate groups. Read and be enlightened, or less in the dark, or something.

The solution to the problem is obvious, Jordan. Leave them alone until they start stirring up trouble. You can't do something about them unless they commit a crime. Unless you're the Bush administration looking into pacifist organizations under PATRIOT ACT act clauses, of course.

Oh, you said that bit about waiting until they commit a crime already...

It's not really a Catch-22 though. That involves more circular logic that relys on not actually being able to get in (or out) of that circle. For example, if you said you can suppress a group if they commit a crime, but a group of people cannot be charged with a crime and therefore not suppressed, that's more the idea of Catch-22. Sorry, I'm just a bit anal about language at times. Don't mind me.

The only way to truly keep ideas from people is via Thought Control and anihilation of the ability to hold abstract concepts in the mind.

[J m HofMarN]

I have to disagree with you there Slade, the idea that we should only stop these people when their actions hurt someone is kind of silly. It's rather like watching someone load a gun and aim at you but saying they havnt shot you yet. Asking ignorant people to keep their views quiet is a good idea, it will keep them divided and make it more difficult for them to link up and eventually commit crimes. However given the opposition I will move to forget about this clause and simply push through the free speech protections without the limitations for hate groups

[barend]

I'd like to push for the position of evil, tyranical dictator...

where by a large group of people suffer to accomidate the easy-ass lives of a few to live in luxury.

it's pretty much what we have now... i'd just swap the people around so everyones had a go at each end.

then no one could be accused of not understanding anyone elses position.

-------------

then once that becomes boring, i'd-

no wait... i don't think it would become boring.

[Dr Lecter]

I'd like to push for barend to be shot for attempting to dictate over the country

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 25 January 2005 - 12:23 PM

[Slade]

So... We have Supes and Barend both wanting dictatorship positions. The most clear-cut way to do it would have you both rule as an oligarchy until you are either killed by the populace or by your rival through your schemes.

[J m HofMarN]

We're still writing the rights clauses in our constitution. We won't even mention form of government until a while later so keep your little dictators in your pants til then. Ok, so is everyone agreed on this clause?

[Dr Lecter]

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

[Slade]

Have we decided that we want a constitution then? If so, I vehenemently support the right to free speech.

[J m HofMarN]

Alright, I suppose we've been taking things a bit backwards this is true. Ok, we need to decide what form of government to have first. It's pretty much betweem dictatorship, monarchy, elected monarchy, democracy, republic or theocracy. We'll look at economic systems later so communism and socialism dont come into play yet. Now I suppose we can vote and try to compromise to find the right form of government. I'm all for a democracy.

[Slade]

I've already said I'm for a democratic form of government.