LogFAQs > #963968309

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Right, and if society stops placing significance on it then it goes away.

No, it just stops being significant. There will always be differences between people even if everyone stops caring about them. Those differences just won't matter.

Moreover, society has not stopped placing significance on the differences in question, nor has the serial killer basing his murder spree off of them, so that's a hypothetical scenario with absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought you were opposed to victimizing them with the implicit threat of "you're next." If they don't realize they fit his definition of "black" then they won't be afraid. But now it sounds like you want them to be victimized that way.

There's a considerable difference between not caring about visible differences and not knowing about visible differences. I really don't know why you're having such difficulty understanding this.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's another issue I have with it.

It shouldn't be. The simple reality of the matter is that proving murder is very different from proving manslaughter. You're never going to be able to escape that because there are so many different variables involved in any given instance of killing a person.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

South Park said something I agree with and stated it in a concise manner that makes it convenient for posting. It is in no way the basis for my understanding of the subject.

In that case, I invite you to share your actual basis, since South Park's inherently flawed assessment isn't exactly helping your case.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Everyone has an identity. Every victim of a crime has an identity. If it doesn't matter what the identity is then why should it be extra illegal to victimize some identities and not others?

And again, we come back to the same fundamental misunderstanding that shows up in South Park's interpretation: The victim of a crime having an identity does not mean that that identity was the motivation for the crime.

More broadly, there is indeed some gatekeeping as to which identities warrant protection. The fact that (as you say) everyone has some kind of identity kind of necessitates that, since otherwise you lose sight of that core tenet of "this crime vicitimizes a broad class of people and should therefore be treated more seriously." That's generally going to be drawn on somewhat arbitrary lines that are more or less universally agreed upon (except by hate criminals), mostly on the basis of traits that are so intrinsic to people that they can't be changed, such as race or sexual orientation. That's decided on a case by case basis, so if you disagree with the designation of any particular class as being protected or not, you'll have to do so on a similarly case-by-case basis.