Diversity of violence
Let’s just address the question of why punching out a gay guy who makes an advance is far worse than punching out the guy who said something bad about your mother, because it really, frankly, scares the shit out of me that you’re wandering around out in public unclear on the distinction.
I await with bated breath. Because, all this time, I done thunk that unwarranted violence is just plain ol’ bad. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an advocate of using violence in self-defense and all that but violence over words is just, well, senseless violence.
See, saying something bad about a person’s mother is by definition bad. It’s meant to be hostile; it’s supposed to insult you and instigate violence. When someone makes an unwanted advance, at the most, it’s annoying. The person isn’t being hostile towards you and there’s no insult to you. It’s not inherently bad.
In fact, you might see it as flattering. Here a person has checked you out and decided you’re kind of attractive and has decided to let you know. If you don’t feel similarly, you can just say, “Hey, no thanks.” or “Thanks, but you’re not my type.” No harm, no foul.
Why in the hell would having AN advance made on you require you to react with violence?
Sorry, that makes no sense. Well, here’s the thing about that: in either case, said person offended the delicate sensibilities of the other. In the latter case, the intent is quite different. So, I can buy that argument. However, I don’t care if you beat up a gay dude or some dude that said your momma’s teeth are so yellow, she spits butter. You have reacted violently and inappropriately. You should suffer the same force of law, no matter the victim.
The focus of the law should be on the person who acted violently. Not on the particular object of said miscreant’s anger.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:20 am
It’s the whole hate crimes thing.
If you’re in a special (protected?) group, your injury/death is more important.
If you’re not, oh well. You’re still as hurt/dead, but you’re not specialer.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:22 am
As LawDog pointed out on his blog a while back, hate crime legislation is just thinly disguised “thought crime” legislation. The act is the same, they’re just punishing you more severely for what you THINK.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
No, “they” are punishing you more severely for what “they” think you were thinking.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:57 am
As LawDog pointed out on his blog a while back, hate crime legislation is just thinly disguised “thought crime” legislation.
Well said.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The last time I debated this on-line, someone ranted about people being tied up and burned alive because they were gay or black. I asked him if he had thought of a way to execute the perpetrator twice, or if he thought some lesser penalty was appropriate when someone was murdered that way for other reasons. Never heard from him again.
I also asked if he’d noticed that the South had changed in the last 70 years…
July 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I’ll bet the person markm was debating would be astounded to discover that the men convicted of the pickup-truck dragging murder received the death penalty.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Well, I’ll tell you, I once beat the Hell out of a man who insulted my wife. He continued to do so even after we moved away from him and asked him to please leave us alone.
I do not regret doing so, I do not feel bad about it, nor do I think it was an inappropriate response. He was trying to force us to do what we did not want to do. He left two choices, leave our celebration and night out date, or whip his ass. He finally made me want to choose one of the options. I did.
He thought his remarkable size and musculature would be intimidating. He didn’t think so when I threw his ass out and told him never to let me lay eyes on him again.
There are such things as fighting words. An asshole might get away with one or two tries, but at some point he has earned an attitude adjustment.
In my younger days when I was baby-faced and whiskerless (or very nearly, Indian blood, you know) I was often approached by gays. I never felt the need to harm one if he took “no” for an answer. All of them did. However, I would have treated them just the same as I would any other had they laid hands on me.
My view of that is no different than when I was single. I didn’t know if a lady was interested in me, until I gave her an opportunity to respond. Same with gays. How do they find out if they don’t ask? Once rebuffed, they should accept it and move on.
That causes no harm. Words intended to degrade often do. Those are fighting words, and at one time were a defense against charges and still should be.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Isn’t this the same Aunt B. who got so very, very upset when a stranger voiced his opinion of her appearance and eating choices in public once? Hmmm…. Methinks there’s more going on here than she lets on.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
“There are such things as fighting words. An asshole might get away with one or two tries, but at some point he has earned an attitude adjustment.”
I agree with you on that. One of the reasons people are so rude nowadays is because they know that they can heap verbal abuse on you and if you whup their ass for it they can charge you with assault.
My dad grew up in the late 1920s through the early 1940s and he told me that in those days if someone insulted another person and got whupped as a result the general consensus among the police and/or courts was “you should’ve kept your mouth shut if you could’nt back up your words.” It’s too bad it aint like that still.