49 ms·

There is a key difference. In all of those "normal" crimes, the action itself was unequivocally a crime, whereas with discrimination laws, the action is only a

There is a key difference. In all of those "normal" crimes, the action itself was unequivocally a crime, whereas with discrimination laws, the action is only a crime contingent on the intention / what the employer was thinking, which is borderline Orwellian in my opinion.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
It's entirely arbitrary to say intention can change a sentence from 5-20yrs, but it cant change it from 0-5yrs. Either intention matters or it doesn't.
- lend000 9y ago
  No, there is an objective difference -- the difference between "a crime was committed" and "a crime was not committed." For any other crime, there is no question that the action is criminal -- it's only a question of whether the defendant intended to/conspired to/did commit it. However, when intention is the only crime and the action is perfectly fine unless the perpetrator had a certain thought when doing it, it's a thought crime, and not only are thought crimes much more impractical to regulate, but to even attempt to do so would impose a tremendous loss of privacy and freedom of expression upon society. I'm all for addressing externalities in society, and perhaps there is an externality-centric justification for affirmative action/quota/discrimination laws. Perhaps certain types of publicly-traded corporations beyond a certain size can be considered public goods in certain ways and subject to such laws. However, when we cross into individual cases of thought-crimes, that is where the left has completely lost me.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    I understand that you feel there is a distinction, but there isn't a substantive difference. A persons thoughts distinguish between criminality and non-criminality. One of the most fundamental rights is a right of interpretation. If a person perceives themselves to been a risk of harm they have a right to commit otherwise criminal acts. The only reason they aren't deemed criminal is their state of mind and what they thought of the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

It's entirely arbitrary to say intention can change a sentence from 5-20yrs, but it cant change it from 0-5yrs. Either intention matters or it doesn't.

lend000 9y ago
No, there is an objective difference -- the difference between "a crime was committed" and "a crime was not committed." For any other crime, there is no question that the action is criminal -- it's only a question of whether the defendant intended to/conspired to/did commit it. However, when intention is the only crime and the action is perfectly fine unless the perpetrator had a certain thought when doing it, it's a thought crime, and not only are thought crimes much more impractical to regulate, but to even attempt to do so would impose a tremendous loss of privacy and freedom of expression upon society. I'm all for addressing externalities in society, and perhaps there is an externality-centric justification for affirmative action/quota/discrimination laws. Perhaps certain types of publicly-traded corporations beyond a certain size can be considered public goods in certain ways and subject to such laws. However, when we cross into individual cases of thought-crimes, that is where the left has completely lost me.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  I understand that you feel there is a distinction, but there isn't a substantive difference. A persons thoughts distinguish between criminality and non-criminality. One of the most fundamental rights is a right of interpretation. If a person perceives themselves to been a risk of harm they have a right to commit otherwise criminal acts. The only reason they aren't deemed criminal is their state of mind and what they thought of the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense