I dont know if you noticed, but Disqus put up a different avatar for my comments than I've used since forever… just since yesterday there's this pink and orange thing where there was a black and violet image. I have no idea where my original little picture went. I think it must have been deleted as spam too. Sad face. I am going in search of the original now.

hang in there.

kind regards,
Dr.e

Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks also to T-Steel for the work he did, and does.

How you can fail to see that stating someone must be a part of one ethnic group or is a specific sex simply because of their feelings on a specific type of law is not a racist and sexist comment is simply beyond me.

What if someone said “if you believe that welfare is a good idea, you must be a black woman”? Wouldn't you (rightfully) consider that a racist and sexist comment? Any sane person would, so think carefully about your answer.

And what approved groups (by your small-minded definitions) would I have to be part of to meet your criteria of being capable of empathy?

I am: overweight (obese by the medical definition, actually); diabetic; bi-polar; lived as a homosexual and bi-sexual for years; a high school drop out with only a GED as my 'formal' education; have been physically abused by my father; was raped when I was 14; I was a drug addict for 20 years, and I am a recovered drug addict now.

Any of those “good enough” for you?

You seem to mistake empathy with political or legal viewpoints, or more correctly you refuse to allow that others can be as empathetic as yourself, but simply not agree with you on some particular point.

Anyway, you cannot win an argument with an idiot or a deranged person, so I am done communicating with you.

You are right, roro. I lost a scholarship because I was not black or american indian or eskimo. I then, had to pay for my own college education by working through college. The straight white male, in this case, was discriminated against. And yet the ACLU was nowhere to be found.

ANY beating like the one in the video should be punished with a beating, or similar punishment that fits the crime.

Wonder why?

I've been under the weather and slammed at work, and have not followed comments on this article until this morning when we received an email from George Sorwell laying out that there were some disappearing comments on this particular article and that it had caused misunderstanding and upset.

Firstly, the same issue of comments recognized as 'spam' and therefore deleted, popped up also for one of Tmv's writers and that writer contacted us yesterday about the matter which Tyrone immediately began looking into as he is the only one at TMV who knows the innards of the system down at code level.

We did not know until we received George's email this morning, that a comment had gone poof on a different article, apparently also yesterday.

You likely saw Tyrone's comment above about the matter. And there is also an article this morning on TMV with an update as well, about what the situation is that caused such re some comments being marked as spam.

I want to say George's letter to us was reasoned and polite even though he was concerned, not knowing what had happened. We all here at TMV admin who have been handling this issue yesterday and today, JoeG, Tyrone and myself, appreciate his tone.

It appears to me, from a cursory reading of the comments one this article today, that there is misunderstanding in the back and forth because George's comment was missing in the spam prison.

I apologize that there was any misunderstanding because of this glitch, and know that ALL commenters know and agree by commenting at TMV, that even with misunderstandings, ad hominem attacks are unacceptible.

In that light, if any commenter here, would like to adjust their comments after the fact, there is always a button at the bottom of your comment that allows you to edit your own comment after it was first posted. Just afterward, press save, and comment will be back up in its new form.

Thanks George for letting us know the issue was more than just on one article. I believe the Disqus system will hiccup less now.

Kind regards,
dr.e

I accept your apology.

Last week, Tidbits drew a clear distinction between motive and intent. In these kinds of crimes the intent is to injure someone strictly for their membership in a group. Therefore, without the hate, there would be no intent to injure and therefore no crime would be committed. I described this more clearly during the discussion last week.

If you think logic trumps experience, you're free to make that case. If you think it's unfair for me to bring in additional evidence, like the Supreme Court ruling, you're free to make that case. If you prefer to ignore some of my arguments, like what I said about equal protection, you're free to do that as well.

For that matter, if you think personal insults make your case stronger, indulge in them.

I have the opportunity to respond or not.

Have a nice day.

As to the constitutional question, nope, it was you whose raised the issue, citing a Supreme Court ruling upholding them. Why would you have raised that issue otherwise? The question the Court answered was indeed the question of Constitutionality.

And yes, reductio ad absurdum is the best I case I can raise, because it is exactly what I did, and I use that form of argument on a very regular basis here.

And there is a difference between using motive to determine WHAT crime was committed vs. using motive to determine if the same crime deserves greater punishment.

I am all over this like white on rice with Disqus and WILL stay on top of this. I apologize for ALL the confusion and emotion over this.

Thank you!

I did not remove that comment. Not at all. I don't know where it went, but I'm not the one who took it down.

Not at all.

It is, in fact, still available in its original unedited form, in my Discus achieve. I trust that is evidence enough to support me.

Why would I take it down? There are no lies or misrepresentations is that comment.

I brought in the Supremes to show the argument in favor of hate crimes that is strong enough to persuade even Antonin Scalia of their merit. I thought maybe you would step up your intellectual case against them.

I don't see the part of that comment where I claim you called them unconstitutional. You're the one who's doing the misrepresenting, Austin Roth. You. You are. Not me.

If “the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum” is the best intellectual case you can muster, then you should go with that. Maybe you think the law is nothing but a matter of logic. But I'm going to fall back, once again, on the thinking of conservative judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” If you want to say the experience of redheads is equivalent to the experience of homosexuals, that's your choice. I'm sure you do the best you can.

As for the fact that assault is already a crime, in our system, intent matters. (Thanks to Tidbits for clearing up the distinction between intent and motive last week.) That's why there are distinctions between murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and self-defense. It is also fact that women, blacks, Jews, gays, and other minorities are subject to violence simply for their membership in their group. There's nothing logical about it–but I don't see any reason to deny the truth of that experience. It seems to me that this fact is a valid basis for a law PROTECTING them. And you know what? That fact also seemed like a valid basis to William Rehnquist, who was no liberal.

As for the idea of “special protection”–what a joke that is. The Mitchell case referred to earlier is proof enough that these laws are also available to protect white males.

There was absolutely no reason for me to remove that comment. That's why I didn't do it.

Since you are the technical guru here, I expect you to explain this.

I didn't delete anything. Maybe T-Steel can explain what happened, but I can't.

I also didn't lie or misrepresent you.

More to follow, and soon, but I want this much out there right away.

And now GS does his best Sir Robin impersonation by bravely running away from the fight!

After I call you out for your post full of lies and distortions about what I have said, you remove it, making it look like I was ranting incoherently. Cute, but ineffective., as DISQUS emailed my your original post!

To whit:

Austin Roth–

I'm looking forward to reading the actual details.

I have to admit I am losing all respect for you GS. You used to be intellectually honest in your arguments and dealings.

Not at all. You need to read, period. You are the one stating that I must be a white male because I don't support the concept of hate crime legislation. That IS a bigoted, sexist and racist statement. Plain and simple.

The corollary to what you are saying is that NO ONE who is NOT a white male DOESN'T support hate crime legislation. That, too, would be a bigoted, sexist and racist statement. And quite frankly, a stupid statement as well.

There you go again showing your racism. I know from his postings T-Steel believes exactly as I do. I know he will be shocked, to say the least, to find out he must be a white male, too.