Thought crimes

I really dislike "Hate Crimes" laws.  The killers of Ahmaud Arbery are justly going to prison for life - 2 of them without parole (a most immoral act, but that's the subject of a different post).   Now, for the same action, they are on trial for Federal "Hate Crimes", which basically seems to mean they said nasty things about Ahmaud's race.  But that's perfectly legal under the 1st Amendment.  It is legal to use any language in a non-confrontational situation (i.e., when "fighting words" are likely to trigger a fight) And that's my issue.  This law just seems to be a way to double punish individuals for one action.  And to punish them for speech, even thought, as well.  I don't think people should be punished twice for the same action, and I really don't think they should be punished for speech, or what's the point of the 1st Amendment?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Education and Achievement

 Lots of recent discussion about "elite" schools that require rigorous tests for admittance.  The complaints center around the "under-representation" of certain racial/cultural groups - typically Black and Hispanic - and the "over-representation" of others - mostly Asians.  The most common "fix" seems to be to lower that standards to assure a "representative" mix. I have so many problems with this that it's hard to know where to start.  First, Over and Under representation based on race is a distorted measure.  It assumes that there are differences in racial scholarship that are based upon race itself.  So the very beginning assumption is racist.   Second, the culture of the individuals towards learning and academics is disregarded completely.  Anyone of any race that is raised to value learning and academics has an advantage over anyone of any race who is not raised to value learning and academics.  The tales you can hear about Bla...
Read more

Settled Science

 Read this article ( https://www.science20.com/hontas_farmer/transgender_science_is_settled_science_it_does_not_support_your_ideology_or_bans_on_care-256467 ) on "Real Clear Science" and strongly disagree with it. First, any article that claims that an area of science is "settled" is almost surely wrong.  Science isn't "settled" - it's evolving as more information becomes available. Second, the area of "transgender science" is hardly settled, when the research is fragmentary and contradictory in many instances.  This article does not make any effort to present contradictory data, when such data does exist ( https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary/#f+876674+2+2 , https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386 , https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids ). Finally, Nations have been pulling back from treatment of minors with any drugs and (especially) surgery ( https://www.tabletmag.com/sec...
Read more