Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a
Jew is more wrong than
killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in
either case, because in both cases it is murder.
The idea of "hate crimes" is a fairly recent one. This would mete out
punishment according to the intentions of the person doing the killing.
If a "hate crime" deserves harsher punishment, then a "love crime"
such
as euthanasia clearly deserves more lenient treatment.
If this was the proper venue and email thread for that discussion, I'd
make some well-supported ethical arguments against separating "hate
crime" from similarly malevolent crime. Since it's not, though, I'm
just noting that I take issue with that division of crime types.
This doesn't in any way mean I think anyone should be more lenient on
"hate crimes": only that non-"hate" crimes should not be held to a
different standard.
And also, if we are to begin considering
"indirect deaths", well, the
US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It
would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement. No specific
individual is being attacked.
circumstantial ad hominem (as distinct from the more commonly recognized
argumentum ad hominem): the logically fallacious use, as an argument,
of unflattering comparisons between disreputable or otherwise disliked
figures with other participants in a debate, often achieved by
implication rather than explicit statements
All "ad hominem" means is "to the person", in essence. An
"argumentum
ad hominem" or "ad hominem argument" is an argument that references the
person, rather than the opposing argument. A "circumstantial ad
hominem" is an implication of the person circumstantially with some
subject of discourse, in this case mass-murdering tyrannical regimes.
The reference to the US had no value in proving the repugnance of the
swastika in relation to other symbols, though it was an effective
implication of unflattering comparisons of American participants in the
debate to certain widely-loathed 20th century tyrants and their governments.
--
Chad