I found an interesting video it belongs to Ted Torbich he sounds like an expert in my opinion.He is basically talking about “hate” crimes and “hate speeches” .a Crime is a crime whether they murdered someone for money or murdered someone for religious reasons it is a crime .
He mixes momentary times in our life with an emotion to a mental thought process of “hatred/bigotry” (6:06). Also motive for crimes/murder doesn’t seem to be a factor in his argument.
“…because it leads to that, it would mean the destruction of the internet and everything as we know it…” (quote - his idea of “thought crimes”)
His use of air quotes around “extremist activities” is a gesture to invalidate the reality that extremism and extremist activities exist in reality.
His position is “it shouldn’t matter what your motivation was” when you commit a crime. Hmmm 
yet earlier he made it clear that “murder for self-defence was understandable”. He considered “motive” for his self-defence scenario, yet wants to dismiss “motive” by hatred.
Where does he speak to the responsibilities that come with “freedom”? I find these types never balance it with self-awareness nor societal responsibility.
Freedom of thought. Lol. Dipshit. Of course there’s freedom of thought. I still can’t fucking control what runs through Cog’s head - BUT I sure in fuck can tell him what I think when he moves those “thoughts” into words, attitude, emotion, action”
Our emotion makeup is based on thought. Our “world view” is based on thought. Our interaction with others are based on thought.
Laws can and do exist to curb hateful SPEECH from being expressed in society against members within that same society.
He equivalents “thought” with “speech”. I’m not sure if he understands the difference.
Hmmm… he needs to look up word meanings.
Especially what “speech” means.
…he ends with a weak “…staying at home, typing it on the internet, writing it out, telling it to your friends - all of these things - I don’t care what it is you say, I DON’T CARE WHAT IT IS YOU SAY…you can say “I want to kill 5 million fucking people, as long as you don’t do it.”
Hahahaha.
I have some further thoughts, but you guys go for it.
BTW - try some of that “thought expressed in real life by writing and promoting hate/bigotry HERE and see how far you get…”
What did he express in his opinion that made you write this?
Current real life example in the news of a “crime”. Does motive play a part?
Quote: Long told police the attacks were not racially motivated and were instead related to his “sex addiction”. Six of the eight victims were of Asian descent.
Let’s just set aside all the facts that are available at this moment in time or questions (like, why didn’t the guy go into a McDonalds and shoot white men - 
maybe motive and thought processes do play a part in real world motives for “action”)
Sex addiction. OK. At this moment in time, let’s examine this. Why use the word addiction? Not, “hey I like watching Asian women get it on - it gets me “off””. Is the idea of “addiction” positive or negative? Do people love or hate their addictions? Do addictions bring stability in one’s life? Do you think Asian women in regard to being thought of (by him) in this way was in anyway related to hate or bias? Can sex be a tool for power, control, degradation of others in order to make a “person” feel good? Where does “sex” take place? Isn’t it in our thoughts?
Even through his motive (and trying to deny racial hatred as a motive) he has enveloped a combination of both racial and gender bias/hatred as his personal motive. A blame placed on people “outside his thought bubble” that didn’t belong to them - the Asian workers.
At the robbing money part he sounded like an expert .
The one kernel of corn in the shit.
That’s how these guys perpetuate their hatred in the guise of freedom or any form of conspiraturds.
I use to, and still do on occasion, listen to this type of rhetoric (mostly to keep aware of the undercurrent).
All of his equivalency fallacies are supported by your mind saying “hey, he’s right about that” and without thinking about his mixture of definitions and broad use of analogies.
It is a technique we are all vulnerable to and it is effective in words and pictures. Emotional tugging, not wanting to self-examine thought (justifying), offering up an “other” (who’d guess government?) wanting to threaten or take away a “freedom” …
Out of curiousity… he based his whole argument on “the action” with no consideration to motives.
What would you guess his argument to be if he was asked to comment on the January 6, 2021
Capitol? Do you think he’d be consistent in his current argument, or would their “actions” be justified (in his mind) by the MAGA/patriots motives (thoughts)?
I think it would be justified in his mind .
Hell yah!
And also in the “name of freedom”.
This guy is a dipshit, hate mongering, fantasy filled extremist.
Also listen and watch the word “love” and how it gets used.
People have a natural ability to attach positive actions and attributes to this word, BUT again it needs to be examined in context.
LOVE is a word that can often be misapplied to justify negative thoughts and actions. It’s a word use (as is hate) that can sooth the mind and create a barrier to self-examination of thought processes, thereby the person never really has to self-examine (they just lump it as love, and somehow they are a victim being denied).
Are we playing the “Top the Deepity Game?”
Things that happen actually happen whether or not we know they happen,.
No it just a description for the topic I try to make the topic interesting .
Pay me no mind. I have no interest. There are several on the site who will be happy to post.
Hey @Cognostic 
(cool a new emoji popped up) is this like “if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” deepity - or which deepity did you have in mind?
Okay it’s cool .I have no problems with that .
One more thought? When’s the last time an alcoholic shot up a liquor store?
I agree with this speaker that a criminal’s motive shouldn’t be a factor when determining the seriousness of that crime. If someone kills a person out of hatred for their race, that’s premeditated murder, nothing more and nothing less. Let’s not dignify murder by attributing it to some passionately held belief.
Ironically, motives have more often been used as excuses for violent crimes. The French used to allow the “crime of passion” defense for men who killed a love rival. Provocative behavior or dress by a woman was an excuse for rape. More recently, the “gay panic” defense has been used in murder trials.
An excuse? The French example is based on this fact “the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as sudden rage rather than as a premeditatedcrime.[1]
Usually all criminal codes carry “degrees” of murder. 2nd degree is not premeditated. What about man slaughter?
Facts, motive (reason) are considerations in the criminal law system.
The “provocative” ness of a woman is still an excuse that, despite its past acceptance, isn’t accepted by society in general - unless of course the woman is a wife or prostitute…or doesn’t hold the same “religious values”.
I guess it would be acceptable for him to also advocate through words the “deservability” a woman of ill-repute or drunk or too stupid or slutty or a wife bears in being raped. I mean, those types of women get picked for a reason right or “owe” sex to their husbands, right?
HOWEVER - in Canada we have 7 degrees of sexual assault again, depending on factors…
Not at all. Whatever a person’s state of mind, they have absolutely no right to harm another person. The seriousness of a crime should depend on the impact on the victim, not on the criminal’s motivation.
Only 7? You lied to me when you said you wanted to try out all 13?