Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

548 Excellent

About provoman

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

1,005 profile views
  1. provoman

    Has debate ever changed your mind?

    debate has changed my opinion. It was quite humorous to me when it happened, because the change was like a light switch.
  2. Speaking of strawman....I never challenged the Constitutionality of hate crimes laws, nor have I posted that hate crimes laws violate the Constitution. I have challenged your position that "hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences." and I beleive you also used "peaceful coexistance". Data nor studies have been presented that such laws are necessary for eqaulity or peaceful coexistance.
  3. You have not presented anything proves that hate crimes laws are needed to protect everyone equally. Your post about religious and none religious are treated equal and how sexual identity applies to all sexual identities, does not show how or why hate crimes are needed to protect everyone equally. Assault is a crime. If someone assaults you it is a crime. If someone assaults me it is a crime. We are both considered equal victims under the law. The people who assaulted us are subject to the same penalties and same considerations for sentencing. So without hate crimes laws, we already have a situation where everyone is protected equally under the law, and we already have situation where the law was created to promote peaceful coexistence. Now lets change it up a bit, and for purpose of discussion SB103 Penalty enhancements - in it current form - is law in Utah: Someone assaults you because you identify as gay. Someone assaults me for wearing a MAGA hat. The assault against you can be prosecuted as a hate crime under SB103. The assault against me cannot be prosecuted as a hate crime under SB103. I was engaged in the Constitutionally protected right of free speech, you were engaged in the Constitutionally protected right of just being yourself. Why should your status as victim be deserving of more protection than my status as a victim. My right to law freedom expression is just as inviolate as your right to just be yourself. Hate crimes laws are in part defended on the basis that the victim or class of victim will have fear to engage in Constitutionally protected activities, unless there are enhanced penalties; why should MAGA hats wearers have to live in fear of assault or other victimization simply for engaging in lawful protected speech? If we are going to create classes deserving of extra protections, then we need to be a broad as possible. Victim chosen for lawful freedom of expression - see recent assault at UC Berkley, and one can all too easily find videos of assaults on people wearing MAGA hats. Medical providers targeted because of the medical services provided. Prosecutor and Defense attorneys Attorneys targeted for the lawful services provided - I am thinking about divorce attorneys. or even Gloria Alred/Clarence Darrow types. Artists Public accommodation providers targeted for the services they do or do not provide. When considering which victims are deserving of enhanced penalties, please remember that the hate crimes law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell were not upheld or defended by the State because of protecting inborn unchanging characteristics.
  4. Conversion therapy" does not mean a practice or treatment that does not seek to 193 change a patient or client's sexual orientation or gender identity, including mental health 194 therapy that: 195 (A) is neutral with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity; 196 (B) provides assistance to a patient or client undergoing gender transition; 197 (C) provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient or client; 198 (D) facilitates a patient or client's ability to cope, social support, and identity 199 exploration and development; 200 (E) addresses unlawful, unsafe, premarital, or extramarital sexual activities in a manner 201 that is neutral with respect to sexual orientation; or 202 (F) discusses with a patient or client the patient or client's moral or religious beliefs or 203 practices.
  5. You ended a post with the statement "hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences." You are topping off the entire comment with that claim, its is not dismissive to ask for clarification.
  6. Yes I thought you were joking because your examples promote exactly what you suggest the law should not promote - ineqaulity in the application of punishment Also your example does not show how enahnced penalties create peaceful coexistence by a neutral law in all respects does not promote peaceful coexistance. Sentencing, is quite different from the black and white law.
  7. Not sure if you are being serious.
  8. Can you explain how a law that applies to EVERYONE equally, does not promote peaceful coexistance?
  9. "Hate crimes legislation is in place to promote peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society." assualt is a crime and the law is created to promote peaceful coexistence. Assault is acrime without a hate crimes law being on the books. Again if college attendance should be protected so should political beliefs, I am positive a search of news outlets would show more crimes against indivuals because of the victim apparent political beleifs than victims of crimes based on the victims marticulation.
  10. The new peoposed hate crime bill includes "marticulation" Might as well put "political affiliation" on the list if we are going to treat college attendance as a protected class. If martculation is a protected class and marticulation is the act of enrollemnt or attendance at a college or university, then would that mean stay at home moms who are not enrolled in college or university would not be a protected class.
  11. CNN https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F Police sources: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack Unfortunate if is true that the actor staged the attack
  12. interesting, I must have missed out on many a discussion that God is a he/she, not making a joke, I do not understand the statement of refering to God as a woman; given that LDS regard as God The Father of the God Head as a male. If we regard Heavenly Mother as a Goddess and if appropriate to refer to her as God the Mother, then that God figure would be a woman.
  13. @Nehor that certainly is the kinder of his statements on nuetrality.
  14. provoman

    Before the Temple is Restored in Jerusalem

    Who do you mean by "Jews must reunite"? Just Judah? All 12 tribes?