but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
Take Lee Rigby for example.
Yeah and I've seen niggers who do that just for giggles. No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group.
But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable. But these guys do the same level of crime completely at random. They'll do it to any group, without care, so you can't even be safe by being "one of them."
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line. The guy who beats gays to death out of bigotry shouldn't receive more or less than the guy who still beat a guy to death but did it out of jealousy.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
No, most people who are wealthy learn that people want their shit and protect it.
No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group. But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable.
I never said that they were universally less depraved or less intolerable. There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line.
There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
Then there is no need for hate crime laws. Individual context is all you need to determine if someone is more of a problem than another, instead of blanket beliefs in needing more punishment based on how much you dislike their intentions.
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
Yeah and I've seen niggers who do that just for giggles. No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group.
But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable. But these guys do the same level of crime completely at random. They'll do it to any group, without care, so you can't even be safe by being "one of them."
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line. The guy who beats gays to death out of bigotry shouldn't receive more or less than the guy who still beat a guy to death but did it out of jealousy.
No, most people who are wealthy learn that people want their shit and protect it.
I never said that they were universally less depraved or less intolerable. There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
I agree with you on this.
Then there is no need for hate crime laws. Individual context is all you need to determine if someone is more of a problem than another, instead of blanket beliefs in needing more punishment based on how much you dislike their intentions.