Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:18:44 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>>Brett,
>>
>>>  Which is why hate crimes will always (hopefully) be struck down.  You
>>>can't pove what people are thinking.
>>
>>Brett chooses to ignore a lengthy exchange between me and Joe
>>and Andy. (Me on the one hand, Andy and Joe on the other.)
>
>        This is why "thought crimes" are a bad idea.  Jamie *thinks* he knows
>what my motivation is/was.  His being very wide of the mark is ample reason to
>discard all such crimes that rely on *pretending to know* what the person was
>thinking when they performed a certain action.

Huh?
I don't have a clue as to what your motivation was. I never said I
knew what your motivation was. What are you talking about?

>>A great many convictions depend on proving what people are
>>thinking. Are you, Brett, willing to say that all such convictions
>>result from laws which should be struck down?
>
>        Like...?  Crimes need *proof*.  What exactly does proof of thought
>constitute?

Like... murder. To prove someone guilty of murder, you have to prove
that he had a certain intent. Next question.

What does proof of thought constitute? Uh, it constitutes grounds
for conviction. Or what were you asking?

Brett, you declined to say whether you want to strike down every
law such that conviction for violation of that law would require
"proof of thought." Do you want to do that, or not?

>>A separate issue:
>>
>>> You're missing the point.  Quotas were supposed to enable minorities
>>> proportional access.  According to an earlier post, black
>>> professionals still have a low (2.2%) participation rate in
>>> some professions.
>>
>>As it stands, this is a pretty silly argument.
>>Laws against murder were supposed to stop people from being
>>killed. But in some places murder is still a very serious
>>problem.
>
>The laws against murder are reactive.  Quota laws are supposed to be
>proactive.

A) I don't understand this distinction, please explain it.
B) If there is some interesting distinction here, why is it relevant?

>>It obviously does not follow that murder laws are ineffectual,
>>nor that they ought to be scrapped.
>
>        Some would argue that since capital punishment hasn't put a noticeable
>dent in murder rates, that either the process should be abolished or made more
>efficient (fewer appeals, etc.).

Oh, sure, I agree with THAT line of reasoning. I mean, in general, not
just for capital punishment.

But were you, Brett, claiming to have shown that affirmative action
has not placed a noticeable dent in discrimination? If you were
claiming to have shown that, you were very much mistaken. It is
in fact, pretty obvious that your little example is FAR from
showing that.

>>That, clearly, would be a silly quota law.
>
>        That is the kind we have.

Give one example.

I already asked you to give an example. So did Peter. Why won't
you do it? Why won't you give even ONE example?

>>Let's see if Brett can cite an example of such a law. Let's
>>see if he can give one example of a "government mandated
>>system" that works that way.
>>Jamie
>
>        Every current law that has a numerical quota.

You STILL don't give an example.

And, even if you did give an example of a "current law that has
a numerical quota, do you think that would show that it works
the way you outlined in your fanciful imaginary example?

This is pretty disappointing, Brett.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU