Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?

[Nik]

i didn't realize you would take such great offense to it....but its nice to you that you don't mind insulting back and be serious about it, so i guess in your world, two wrongs do make a right...

I don't take great offense. But nor do I find it humorous. And no I don't mind insulting you back, but I don't expect you to find my insults humorous.

if i were you, i really wouldn't brag about your reasoning skills over mine, it shows immaturity...and makes you look stupid for having to brag about something you don't really have

I wasn't "bragging". You asked a question, I answered it. Bragging would be me going everywhere and telling people how much smarter I am than you. I haven't done that. In fact, I made no comparison until you asked me a direct question.

Nice circular reasoning there too. I am stupid because I brag about being smart, although I am stupid? Yeah. Logic fail. And you wonder why I think I am more intelligent than you?

since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills. i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.

you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement: those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about. thanks for proving you live in under a rock....

Oy. I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible. This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that. I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question. You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.

 

[Nik]

Umm, congratulations. Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in. What exactly is your point here?

Your law background is meaningless to this discussion because you don't understand the real world application of law. That's abundantly clear from your posts on this topic. Hence, every one of your snide comments shouts, clearly, "I just graduated from law school, but I don't know dick about practicing law."

I find it funny, that's all.

If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard? Why can't you just discuss actual issues?

 

[catzmeow]

You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.

Nor are you. So, I see no reason to treat your objections to my answers as technical, precise ones.

 

[Nik]

Sure, lets go. But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws. You aren't an authority. Thanks.

When were we talking about criminal law again?

Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.



So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.

Try reading it again. And I never claimed to be an authority. I try not to traffic in obvious flaws, unlike you.

 

[del]

Umm, congratulations. Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in. What exactly is your point here?

um, that you're talking out of your ass?

just a guess

Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.

Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes. So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?

Sure, lets go. But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws. You aren't an authority. Thanks.

When were we talking about criminal law again?

i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you..

i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.

 

[Nik]

You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.

Nor are you. So, I see no reason to treat your objections to my answers as technical, precise ones.

Then don't. You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.

 

[Nik]

um, that you're talking out of your ass?

just a guess

Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.

Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes. So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?

Sure, lets go. But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws. You aren't an authority. Thanks.

When were we talking about criminal law again?

i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you..

i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.

Check the edit, genius.

And no, I never claimed to be an authority. Whassamatter, don't know what the word means? I'll wait while you go look it up

 

[catzmeow]

If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard? Why can't you just discuss actual issues?

Because you've attempted to set yourself up as an authority here, who doesn't need to provide evidence. And, you've pretended to know more, and be more intelligent, than the rest of us.

I was working with racists when you were still in grade school, darlin.' Scary ones. Who committed hate crimes, and stabbed people to death.

You have NO IDEA how the law deals with those offenders, and what works (or doesn't). It's clear from your posts.

As I've stated now, a dozen or more times, you are a fuzzy headed liberal who thinks hate crimes legislation is a nice idea, but has no idea how it will work in the real world. Your answer to everything, as a recent law school graduate, is "more laws." And you have people who work in the field of justice here who are telling you that the solution to race/hate crimes isn't MORE LAWS, but better enforcement of EXISTING LAWS.

Jesus-f-christ.

 

[Yurt]

I don't take great offense. But nor do I find it humorous. And no I don't mind insulting you back, but I don't expect you to find my insults humorous.



I wasn't "bragging". You asked a question, I answered it. Bragging would be me going everywhere and telling people how much smarter I am than you. I haven't done that. In fact, I made no comparison until you asked me a direct question.

Nice circular reasoning there too. I am stupid because I brag about being smart, although I am stupid? Yeah. Logic fail. And you wonder why I think I am more intelligent than you?

since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills. i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.

you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement: those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about. thanks for proving you live in under a rock....

Oy. I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible. This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that. I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question. You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.

and you are a lawyer?

a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you. i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.

 

[catzmeow]

Then don't. You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.

Dude, you don't even know enough to understand that hate crimes legislation proposes an enhanced penalty under criminal statutes for certain types of crimes. Hence, is CRIMINAL LAW.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off at you.

 

[Nik]

If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard? Why can't you just discuss actual issues?

Because you've attempted to set yourself up as an authority here, who doesn't need to provide evidence. And, you've pretended to know more, and be more intelligent, than the rest of us.

No, I haven't. I never referred to my own experience in the actual argument. Never referred to the fact that I have a law background. YOU brought it up.

I was working with racists when you were still in grade school, darlin.' Scary ones. With guns, who committed hate crimes, and stabbed people to death.

Congrats. I was getting beaten up in grade school cause of who my parents were. No guns though, thankfully.

You have NO IDEA how the law deals with those offenders, and what works (or doesn't). It's clear from your posts.

As I said, avoid the appeal to authority. Surely with your extensive legal experience, you should know that

As I've stated now, a dozen or more times, you are a fuzzy headed liberal who thinks hate crimes legislation is a nice idea, but has no idea how it will work in the real world.

Oy. Of course. While you are the wise, learned one who has "experience in criminal law". Congrats. That doesn't make you an expert on hate crimes legislation, or hate crimes law.

 

[Nik]

If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard? Why can't you just discuss actual issues?

Because you've attempted to set yourself up as an authority here, who doesn't need to provide evidence. And, you've pretended to know more, and be more intelligent, than the rest of us.

I was working with racists when you were still in grade school, darlin.' Scary ones. Who committed hate crimes, and stabbed people to death.

You have NO IDEA how the law deals with those offenders, and what works (or doesn't). It's clear from your posts.

As I've stated now, a dozen or more times, you are a fuzzy headed liberal who thinks hate crimes legislation is a nice idea, but has no idea how it will work in the real world. Your answer to everything, as a recent law school graduate, is "more laws." And you have people who work in the field of justice here who are telling you that the solution to race/hate crimes isn't MORE LAWS, but better enforcement of EXISTING LAWS.

Jesus-f-christ.

Ok. Lets explore this for a moment. What exactly do you know about people who don't commit crimes because of laws that exist?

Because thats part of the issue here. And your experience tells you jack shit about them. You have a one sided, ignorant viewpoint that is cabined from your work. Try and expand it a little bit. You are NOT an expert on why people commit crimes, just because you work in the criminal justice system.

 

[Yurt]

Sure, lets go. But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws. You aren't an authority. Thanks.

When were we talking about criminal law again?

Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.



So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.

Try reading it again. And I never claimed to be an authority. I try not to traffic in obvious flaws, unlike you.

you have more than one person telling you that you're throwing your lawschool attendance around like a brag or like it makes you superior, you might want to reevaluate the way you come accross as it could just be that you are coming across that way.

 

[Nik]

Then don't. You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.

Dude, you don't even know enough to understand that hate crimes legislation proposes an enhanced penalty under criminal statutes for certain types of crimes. Hence, is CRIMINAL LAW.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off at you.

Oy. I explained this already, dumbshit. I didn't realizing you were going back and actually talking about hate crimes legislation again. I thought you were still, oddly, focused on me and my career.

As I said, check the edit.

 

[Nik]

since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills. i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.

you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement: those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about. thanks for proving you live in under a rock....

Oy. I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible. This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that. I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question. You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.

and you are a lawyer?

a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you. i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.

I'm not assuming your not a lawyer. I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise. Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.

 

[catzmeow]

As I said, check the edit.

Too late, at this point. You've already been outed.

 

[del]

Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.

Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes. So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?

Sure, lets go. But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws. You aren't an authority. Thanks.

When were we talking about criminal law again?

i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you..

i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.

Check the edit, genius.

And no, I never claimed to be an authority. Whassamatter, don't know what the word means? I'll wait while you go look it up

check what edit, asshat?

 

[catzmeow]

Then don't. You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.

And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant, wet-behind-the ears, know-nothing.

 

[Nik]

Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.



So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.

Try reading it again. And I never claimed to be an authority. I try not to traffic in obvious flaws, unlike you.

you have more than one person telling you that you're throwing your lawschool attendance around like a brag or like it makes you superior, you might want to reevaluate the way you come accross as it could just be that you are coming across that way.

Congratulations. Then there is more than one person who is acting like a total moron. Go back to the earlier pages in this thread. Who exactly was it who brought up my law school attendance? It wasn't me, thats for sure.

 

[Nik]

As I said, check the edit.

Too late, at this point. You've already been outed.

Yeah, except the edit was from BEFORE you pointed it out.

Fail.