Hate-crimes bill threatened with Bush veto

Full story: CNN 1,589
The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender. Full Story

Since: Dec 06

Atlanta, GA

#2048 Jun 15, 2007
Yes, and now let's adjust those reflect the population differences. Of course there will appear to be more if you don't look at the difference in population percentage. You know, or I am assuming that you know, that all stats, when assessing anything have to be based on a per cap basis, not as a whole. Without doing so, the results are misleading. The final step isn't shown until you get to the page that I posted.
It is nice that you can copy and paste, but the critical thinking part of the deal has evaded you.

Here is a paragraph that reflects the fact that when compared with each groups percentage of the population, whites actually offend less. The link is below the paragraph.

"Of those persons who committed a crime based upon their perceived biases, 60.6 percent were white, and 19.7 percent were black. Nearly 13 percent (12.9) were classified as unknown race. Groups containing persons of various races accounted for 5.1 percent of the perpetrators, and the remainder were American Indian/Alaskan Natives or Asian/Pacific Islanders.(Based on Table 2.34.) "

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_repor...

“yeah - I'm Gay”

Since: Mar 07

Denver

#2049 Jun 16, 2007
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
Yes, and now let's adjust those reflect the population differences. Of course there will appear to be more if you don't look at the difference in population percentage. You know, or I am assuming that you know, that all stats, when assessing anything have to be based on a per cap basis, not as a whole. Without doing so, the results are misleading. The final step isn't shown until you get to the page that I posted.
It is nice that you can copy and paste, but the critical thinking part of the deal has evaded you.
Here is a paragraph that reflects the fact that when compared with each groups percentage of the population, whites actually offend less. The link is below the paragraph.
"Of those persons who committed a crime based upon their perceived biases, 60.6 percent were white, and 19.7 percent were black. Nearly 13 percent (12.9) were classified as unknown race. Groups containing persons of various races accounted for 5.1 percent of the perpetrators, and the remainder were American Indian/Alaskan Natives or Asian/Pacific Islanders.(Based on Table 2.34.) "
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_repor...
And this supports your statement that whites are far more likely to be the victims of hate crimes - how? Nice try though. The "population adjustment" works when dealing with "projected" numbers. In the case of FBI statistics, we are dealing with the actual number of reported crimes. No matter how one "plays" with the numbers - the actual numbers stay the same. This same "adjustment" was used by Hitler to claim that while Jews made up 1% of the population, they were responsible for about 80% of the crime. Then again with the Rightwing religious groups to manipulate the figures on sexual asssaults against children. While law enforcement agencies and mental health workers state that at least 90% of such assaults, religious extremists using this mathmatical formula declared that since homosexuals account for 1-2% percent of the population ( a percentage much lower than accepted by any other organization) it meant that they were responsible for 33% of sexaul assaults on children. It doesn't work that way. If aan actual number of crimes are committed and an actual amount of those crimes are by a certain group ... the numbers don't change. Makes for very good propaganda though.

“)O( Brightest Blessings”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2050 Jun 17, 2007
Vyxyn wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't.
While you can choose to engage in a homosexual act or not, you cannot choose to be attracted to a member of the same sex in that manner if you are straight. If you can, then, fundamentally, you are not straight, you are bisexual. Some people do not have an attraction to anyone -- they are asexual. You cannot understand one without understanding all of them.
Just as a black person cannot choose not to be black, gay people cannot choose to be attracted to someone of the same sex.
Nor is monogamy among gay people a reaction to the HIV crises -- the group of persons who are least likely among all active orientations to be affected by HIV are gay, and they were significantly noted to be involed in long term, monogamous relationships well before the threat of HIV was made present in the United States.
Indeed, among that particular gay population,*most* are involved in long term, monogamous relationships and do not often engage in casual sex as a matter of course.
As for the choice to be or not, I have that choice. I have that choice every single say -- I am partially african american, and I confuse people enough that they have to ask me in order to make that classification. Ergo, I have that choice. My son has an even greater choice than I do as to what racial background he will choose to identify with.
THe number of occasions where I was not granted that choice were so dramatic that they stand out markedly (I was accused of lying about my racial background, for example, in an interview).
So don't tell me african-americans don't have a choice. You can say that *others* will choose for them based on their own preconceptions and privileges, but as a generalization, your statemnet is inaccurate.
Lastly, they weren't using misinformation. You state they were, and I defy you to provide evidence of a credible, tried and approved nature that isn't sourced in a hate group to establish that point.
=) This was an excellent post.

“)O( Brightest Blessings”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2051 Jun 17, 2007
Blake MacLeod wrote:
<quoted text>
How you do love to make statements without any factual basis. The only "assault" to our dignity are those bigots who need to condemn someone in order to "feel good" themselves. Insulting to Black Americans? Get off the cross, Jesse - someone needs the wood. I am growing weary of your constant whining about your fragile ego.The only Black Americans feigning to be insulted, are those bigots unable to comprehend that discrimination is discrimination. Those closest to Martin Luther King - such as his wife - have denounced your so called outrage for what it truly is. As for "knowing" what Mr. King fought for, I'll place my trust in Mrs. King to be in a better postion than you for determining that. Why not simply don a hooded sheet and at least be honest about your bigotry. You are an insult to those who believed in the Civil Rights Movement - and to the principles it represented. The only thing you have "proven" is that bigots come in all skin colors.
OMG I almost fell off my chair when I read "Get of the Cross Jesse someone needs the wood".. That will stay with me long after I've left work and I will probably undoubtedly use that like going forward when Thumpers go off on a rant... I like your writing style.

“)O( Brightest Blessings”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2052 Jun 17, 2007
MistakeBuggerPillowSissy wrote:
I THINK IT IS UTTERLY ABSURD THAT ANYONE SHOULD HAVE A 'ROGHT' TO WANT TO STICK THEIR MAN TOOL UP SOMEONE DIRTSHUTE.
I CANNOT TELL IF THE JOB APPLICANT IN FRONT OF ME IS GAY OR STRAIGHT. I CAN TELL IF HE IS CHINESE OR FEMALE. IF WE HAVE TO GIVE SPECIAL RIGHTS AND JOB PREFERENCE TO PEOPLE BASED ON WHAT MAKES THEM HARD AND GETS THEM OFF, THEN I AM LEAVING THIS GOD DAMNED COUNTRY!
BUSH IS DOING THE RIGHT THING BY BLOWING THIS OFF.
Please I hope noone ever thinks I believe in any way shape or form like this person that posted this above.. And part of me truly feels bad for having laughed as hard as I did at this post, but it is probably the most absurd thing I've ever read and the level of ignorance to it was so mind boggling that while sitting at work watching the bashers try to justify their hate, I came across it and almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard.

Please know Ladies and Guys, My husband, our Children, Our Parents and Siblings all support you 110%. Hate is for those who only love themselves.
You will always have allies and friends with me and my family =)

“Dream a little dream with me”

Since: Dec 06

Peoria, Arizona

#2053 Jun 17, 2007
Jesse_B_Simple wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth is not just the facts of what I proclaim but that it is rooted in the character of God! Absolute Truth is not a concept. He is a Person and His name is Jesus Christ (John 14:6)! Postmodern thinking based on relativistic ideology, the validity and co-equality of all worldviews, missed this distinction!
Whether or not one believes in God or the Bible does not negate its truth! Again, this is the direct result of God's inspiration of the Bible, meaning He is the Author - not men, and the veracity of His character. Whoever negates God and the truth of the Bible is, by this attitude, actually negating self.
Hebrews 11:6 states, that God "rewards those that diligently seek Him!" That reward is not knowledge alone but a revelation of Himself and the possibility of a true friendship through faith in Jesus Christ.
When communicating, my desire is looking at more than the physical but with an understanding of the spiritual that is behind it. The Bible, 2 Corinthians 4:18, states that "what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." There is a lot more than political rhethoric and upheaval taking place in the hate-crimes debate!
Untrue. All of it.

Not one whit of it is applicable to me.

Try again, though.

“Dream a little dream with me”

Since: Dec 06

Peoria, Arizona

#2054 Jun 17, 2007
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
Oh Vyxyn, it would appear that you live in a world of fantasy.
Did I say that whte males should be excluded from hate crime laws? Or anyone else? I think you missed the point.
The statistics actually do support the fact that white males are more likely to be victims of a "hate" crime, so looks like the horseshit belongs in your court, not mine.
And whether you know it or not, you showed your motivation for your argument with your line, "loss of privilege." The thought in your head right now is probably, "What?," so think about it. You will get it.
<quoted text>
In order for the legislation to be targeted at white males, they would need to be excluded from it. Thusly, yes -- your inference was based within your statement.

the statistics do not support that white males are more likely to be victims of hate crimes, incidentally. That is an outright lie -- or are you actually asking me to provide you with the link to the FBI hate crime statistics? I can do so rather easily, if you would like.

No, actually, the loss of privilege statement didn't reveal my motivation -- it reveals a small part of my philosophical viewpoint (just as your use of the "white male" sturcture reveals some of your philosophical view).

Your failure to understand that -- and probably the specific reference therein when using privs as such a touchstone -- indicates that you are operating from a far more fantasitical world than I ever will.

So no, I'm not living in a fantasy world.

WHite privilege is more than a mythical concept, and male privilege is even more entrenched.

As for my motivation, its actually far more apparent than you seem to have noted:

my motviation is accuracy. Thus the correction.

I don't give a damn what your position is. I'm not seeking to change it unless you'd care to get into a specific debate on the subject with me with the express purpose of attempting to do so.

I'm seeking to make sure you use factual and real data to support your position. That likely requires a bit more of a challenge than you might be willing to put forth the effort in the interest of, but that's not my problem.

“Dream a little dream with me”

Since: Dec 06

Peoria, Arizona

#2055 Jun 17, 2007
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
You know, or I am assuming that you know, that all stats, when assessing anything have to be based on a per cap basis, not as a whole. Without doing so, the results are misleading.
THis is incorrect. per captia basis itself can be misleading when applied outside of a context its not meant to be applied to (for example, a general population).

In short: wrong. Stats 101, Ex.*very* bad use of demographics information.
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
Here is a paragraph that reflects the fact that when compared with each groups percentage of the population,*whites actually offend less*. The link is below the paragraph.
"Of those persons who committed a crime based upon their perceived biases, 60.6 percent were white, and 19.7 percent were black. "
Um, I must assume that you meant to use a different quote, since the one you did yuse actually shows that whites offend *more* than anyone else. And over three times more often than black people.

Not a good example.
Jesse_B_Simple

Baltimore, MD

#2056 Jun 17, 2007
Vyxyn wrote:
<quoted text>
Untrue. All of it.
Not one whit of it is applicable to me.
Try again, though.
Based on what?

Since: Dec 06

Atlanta, GA

#2057 Jun 17, 2007
Wow again you miss the idea. That is why I used the per cap statement.
You have apparently failed to read the whole post. I will dumb it way down for you.
Whites make up 74%(+/- a few tenths) of the population yet commit only 60 percent of the hate crimes.
Blacks make up about 12-13% and commit 19.7% of the crimes.
Here is where you look at the percentages of the population and their rates of offense.
I have t assume that you are joking when you misread so many things because no one can actually be that And your first statement while true in some situations is off base here. In this instance, this discussion in particular, one must look at the whole picture to determine where the problems occur.
I like the way in which you try to discredit arguments, but it doesn't really work here. pay attention to the words and then come back at me.
Vyxyn wrote:
<quoted text>
THis is incorrect. per captia basis itself can be misleading when applied outside of a context its not meant to be applied to (for example, a general population).
In short: wrong. Stats 101, Ex.*very* bad use of demographics information.
<quoted text>
Um, I must assume that you meant to use a different quote, since the one you did yuse actually shows that whites offend *more* than anyone else. And over three times more often than black people.
Not a good example.

Since: Dec 06

Atlanta, GA

#2058 Jun 17, 2007
It is amazing to me that a group of people come on these forums and speak as though they are actually intelligent, but fail to see the reality in things.
Maybe for you sake I shouldn't have said adjust. Sorry, guessed you could understand that, hmm...I will use compare from now on. Again, when trying to find where a problem lies of who commits crimes by the greater numbers, when looking at a group, regardless of what group it is, to get the final answer and determine who commits at a higher rate by percentage you must look at the whole along with the pieces.
You ask how I determine that whites a far more likely to be victims of hate crimes? As a percentage based on per cap, figure it out. You are right on one thing though, the numbers don't change. The numbers as a whole stay the same, but the numbers that show who commits more on a per cap basis stay the same too.
Propaganda, I love it. you refuse to see the facts in the issue and spread half truths around the forum, and imply that mine is propaganda, haha.
Blake MacLeod wrote:
<quoted text>
And this supports your statement that whites are far more likely to be the victims of hate crimes - how? Nice try though. The "population adjustment" works when dealing with "projected" numbers. In the case of FBI statistics, we are dealing with the actual number of reported crimes. No matter how one "plays" with the numbers - the actual numbers stay the same. This same "adjustment" was used by Hitler to claim that while Jews made up 1% of the population, they were responsible for about 80% of the crime. Then again with the Rightwing religious groups to manipulate the figures on sexual asssaults against children. While law enforcement agencies and mental health workers state that at least 90% of such assaults, religious extremists using this mathmatical formula declared that since homosexuals account for 1-2% percent of the population ( a percentage much lower than accepted by any other organization) it meant that they were responsible for 33% of sexaul assaults on children. It doesn't work that way. If aan actual number of crimes are committed and an actual amount of those crimes are by a certain group ... the numbers don't change. Makes for very good propaganda though.

Since: Dec 06

Atlanta, GA

#2059 Jun 17, 2007
I am going to use a statement from one of your earlier posts. "Actually, calling someone an idiot can be a voice of a rational thinker." I am choosing to use that now. Read and actually analyze the stats. Don't take them at face value, any 7th grade student could do that. Dig a little deeper an you will see a bit more than appears on the surface. Read the whole report and do a little math. You used stats 101 in you other posting to me. Perhaps that is your problem, you stopped at 101 and never learned how to analyze problems...I normally say it was nice talking to people even if we have an argument, but yours have been so blind to all but your side that it has been more annoying than anything...
Vyxyn wrote:
<quoted text>
In order for the legislation to be targeted at white males, they would need to be excluded from it. Thusly, yes -- your inference was based within your statement.
the statistics do not support that white males are more likely to be victims of hate crimes, incidentally. That is an outright lie -- or are you actually asking me to provide you with the link to the FBI hate crime statistics? I can do so rather easily, if you would like.
No, actually, the loss of privilege statement didn't reveal my motivation -- it reveals a small part of my philosophical viewpoint (just as your use of the "white male" sturcture reveals some of your philosophical view).
Your failure to understand that -- and probably the specific reference therein when using privs as such a touchstone -- indicates that you are operating from a far more fantasitical world than I ever will.
So no, I'm not living in a fantasy world.
WHite privilege is more than a mythical concept, and male privilege is even more entrenched.
As for my motivation, its actually far more apparent than you seem to have noted:
my motviation is accuracy. Thus the correction.
I don't give a damn what your position is. I'm not seeking to change it unless you'd care to get into a specific debate on the subject with me with the express purpose of attempting to do so.
I'm seeking to make sure you use factual and real data to support your position. That likely requires a bit more of a challenge than you might be willing to put forth the effort in the interest of, but that's not my problem.

“Dream a little dream with me”

Since: Dec 06

Peoria, Arizona

#2060 Jun 17, 2007
Jesse_B_Simple wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on what?
Based on the fact that none of it is applicable to me. I am not a believer in any of the abrahmic faiths.

My faith specifically descirbes an entirley different structure of the universe and world

“Dream a little dream with me”

Since: Dec 06

Peoria, Arizona

#2061 Jun 17, 2007
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
Again, when trying to find where a problem lies of who commits crimes by the greater numbers, when looking at a group, regardless of what group it is, to get the final answer and determine who commits at a higher rate by percentage you must look at the whole along with the pieces.
Who commits crimes by the greater numbers...

You said it, not I.

You are applying per capita to a whole population, which is fallacy.

The greater numbers of crimes are still performed by whites (proper comparison -- whole to whole) while the per captia crimes indicates that a larger number of black people as a percentage of the *black* population (not the whole) commit crimes in comparaison to the number of white people who commit crimes as a percentage of the total number of white people (per captia to per capita).

You are still wrong.
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
You ask how I determine that whites a far more likely to be victims of hate crimes? As a percentage based on per cap, figure it out.
I did. It comes out to a rate roughly half the number of balck people.
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
You are right on one thing though, the numbers don't change. The numbers as a whole stay the same, but the numbers that show who commits more on a per cap basis stay the same too.
yes -- as I described specifially above.
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
Propaganda, I love it. you refuse to see the facts in the issue and spread half truths around the forum, and imply that mine is propaganda, haha.
<quoted text>
And yet...

“Dream a little dream with me”

Since: Dec 06

Peoria, Arizona

#2062 Jun 17, 2007
Ex-Mississippian wrote:
Wow again you miss the idea. That is why I used the per cap statement.
You have apparently failed to read the whole post. I will dumb it way down for you.
Whites make up 74%(+/- a few tenths) of the population yet commit only 60 percent of the hate crimes.
Blacks make up about 12-13% and commit 19.7% of the crimes.
Here is where you look at the percentages of the population and their rates of offense.
I have t assume that you are joking when you misread so many things because no one can actually be that And your first statement while true in some situations is off base here. In this instance, this discussion in particular, one must look at the whole picture to determine where the problems occur.
I like the way in which you try to discredit arguments, but it doesn't really work here. pay attention to the words and then come back at me.
<quoted text>
Already have, in my other response.

YOur point ehre, however,is still lost in relation to your orignal point -- whites still commit more crimes than blacks, even on a per captia basis, byt he numbers *you* provide.

Now you are doubly hit.

I'm a sociologist. Stats are how I do most of my work.
Nor am I trying to discredit your arguments -- you are doing that more than adequately all on your own.

Since: Dec 06

Atlanta, GA

#2065 Jun 17, 2007
I find it hard to believe that you are a sociologist, here is why: Please folow through to the end or else you will miss something else.

# of hate crimes committed by whites(according to the FBI report we have used) 4635 -found by multiplying the total # of crimes 7649 by .606, the percentage committed by whites.

# of hate crimes committed by blacks(again the FBI report) 1507 same method-7649x.197

# of whites in the country: 211,460,626

# of blacks in the country: 34,658,190

Now, lets find out the ratio of how many people out of each race committed a hate crime.

Whites: 211,460,626 people/4635 hate crimes=45,623. So out of this we can say the 1/45,623 white people committed a hate crime, or 1 hate crime per every 45,623 white people.

Blacks: 34,658,190 people/1506 hate crimes=23,013.
Out of these numbers we can say that 1/23,013 blacks committed a hate crime, or 1 hate crime out of every 23,013 black people.

Therefore, whites are about half as likely to commit a hate crime that blacks or to turn it around, blacks committed hate crimes(based upon the FBI report for that year) at the rate of 1.98/1.

So to sum up, if blacks are more likely to commit a hate crime than whites at a rate of 1.98/1, then it is logical to say that based upon these numbers, or an a per cap basis, whites are more likely to be victims of hate crimes.
Again, yes whites commit more as a total but they make up 75% of the population.
This is not that hard to understand. I know it is a touchy subject these days to call people out based on their race, and though it sounds like it I am not attacking black people here. One can't realistically call out the whole black race because 1/23000 commits a hate crime, but we are talking likelyhood and the numbers speak for themselves.

Sociologist, huh? Most likely a student who took a Sociology class, maybe a Bachelors in Sociology, but no PhD which would make you a Sociolog"ist."

THIS POST IS FOR BLAKE MACLEOD AS WELL
Vyxyn wrote:
<quoted text>
Already have, in my other response.
YOur point ehre, however,is still lost in relation to your orignal point -- whites still commit more crimes than blacks, even on a per captia basis, byt he numbers *you* provide.
Now you are doubly hit.
I'm a sociologist. Stats are how I do most of my work.
Nor am I trying to discredit your arguments -- you are doing that more than adequately all on your own.
Jesse_B_Simple

Baltimore, MD

#2066 Jun 17, 2007
Two Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG I almost fell off my chair when I read "Get of the Cross Jesse someone needs the wood".. That will stay with me long after I've left work and I will probably undoubtedly use that like going forward when Thumpers go off on a rant... I like your writing style.
Its too bad that what you like, and possibly identify, is a figment of someone's imagination! A disingenuous one at that, which is more deluded than truthful!

“)O( Brightest Blessings”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2067 Jun 17, 2007
Jesse_B_Simple wrote:
<quoted text>
Its too bad that what you like, and possibly identify, is a figment of someone's imagination! A disingenuous one at that, which is more deluded than truthful!
Can you clarify?
Jesse_B_Simple

Baltimore, MD

#2068 Jun 17, 2007
Two Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you clarify?
Just read the thread. Things that posted by me were embellished, misquoted, misinterpreted, and this forum disinformed. If you disagree, then do so but don't rebut it, based on attacking your objections, and attribute that to me. Doing just that IS a "straw man" argument!

“)O( Brightest Blessings”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2069 Jun 17, 2007
All I asked for was a simple clarification..
You stated in Full "Its too bad that what you like, and possibly identify, is a figment of someone's imagination! A disingenuous one at that, which is more deluded than truthful! "
I did not understand what you meant by "and possibly identify" or "is a figment of someone's imagination"
I simply made a comment regarding a Joke that someone said that I found humorous.. I wasn't sure what you comments were to exactly mean so I asked you to clarify.. That's All =)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 3 min Pietro Armando 5,019
Gay man wins suit against clinic that used shoc... 3 min Bryan Fischer s H... 1
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 9 min barry 2,859
Obama calls on women only at news conference 18 min Jooy 3
Supreme Court Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Florida 23 min Jooy 1
Apple CEO Donating to Gay Rights Campaign in South 23 min Bryan Fischer s H... 19
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 28 min WasteWater 26,711
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 32 min Respect71 5,510
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 1 hr WeTheSheeple 18
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 6 hr Mikey 14
More from around the web