Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Of course, if you distribute it over a lot of poor people, only a little, you can keep them from becoming rich and having to do the same thing! Just enough to keep them from being poor, yanno'? Public works would probably work, too. Buildings and suchlike. Just so long as you're no longer in possession of anything.

But wait! *evil hiss* Communism! Or at least that's what the more publicly vocal Christians would say, nowadays.

[RedKing]

... We need a second coming of Dorothea Dix.

Funny you should mention her, considering the Dorothea Dix state mental hospital here is in the process of being shut down.

[Andir]

I'm not sure I can place any inherent value on a building based on how the community feels about it.  It's a lifeless structure built for some purpose.  Value the life inside of it, but the building should not be a symbol (even though I know people do place some arbitrary value on it.)

People hold things to have sentimental value. You might as well bitch about people trying to preserve art because it doesn't serve a practical purpose. A building can easily have a lot of history and tradition behind it. This kind of thing might not matter to you, but try to understand that it does matter to people.

Also: There's no such thing as "inherent value" in the first place. Value is inherently subjective, and people value whatever has a purpose to them. If people get enjoyment or fulfillment out of a building that is important to them for whatever reason, then it has value to them. Wanting to belong to a group, a culture, etc. is a very legitimate and fairly universal human need, and a building can provide a very important outlet for that even in terms of its own history and construction. And even if they don't care about the building, per se, they're sure as hell going to care about that building being burned down, considering what it represents to them.

Burning a church does not hurt a race of people.  A community, maybe... but not a whole race.

A racially-motivated crime is an offense against the race. It's an extremely threatening gesture (burning down a church, and all) toward anyone belonging to the class that is the target of the hate crime, e.g. black people in this case. Black people living in similar communities elsewhere would certainly have a bit of a reason to be afraid that this kind of thing is going on, and white supremacists elsewhere probably don't need to be getting any ideas.

You realize that you make an argument for social exclusion?  If the community values man/woman marriage over same sex marriage, it inherrently has more value to said community and any person willing to challenge that community by burning down that belief structure should be treated like someone trying to destroy a community... by that logic.

[penguinofhonor]

Hurting a black community because they're black, though, is a hate crime. I think that's the reason it counts, not because of the fact that a community is hurt.

[Andir]

Sure, but my point was that burning/tearing down anything shouldn't be considered "more important" because a community values it.  If the guy did it because he was trying to kill someone based on race, then it's a hate crime, but the fact that it was a church means jack squat.

[Fenrir]

Sure, but my point was that burning/tearing down anything shouldn't be considered "more important" because a community values it.  If the guy did it because he was trying to kill someone based on race, then it's a hate crime, but the fact that it was a church means jack squat.

This is something that must be judged by a single person. One person may love the community more than he loathes the institution or building, and another person may possess priorties in the reverse. G-Flex was simply stating that it is meaningless to say that the church has no value without stating to whom it is not valuable, and the community does very much value that structure.

[Andir]

Sure, but my point was that burning/tearing down anything shouldn't be considered "more important" because a community values it.  If the guy did it because he was trying to kill someone based on race, then it's a hate crime, but the fact that it was a church means jack squat.

This is something that must be judged by a single person. One person may love the community more than he loathes the institution or building, and another person may possess priorties in the reverse. G-Flex was simply stating that it is meaningless to say that the church has no value without stating to whom it is not valuable, and the community does very much value that structure.

In doing so, you are saying that "community values" have some value and anyone violating those values is trying to hurt said community.

E: Anyone trying to hurt said community must be doing it out of malice to the community.  IE: Gay marriage must be out of malice to the community that values different sex marriage.  Did he burn down the church to hurt someone in particular or did he dislike the values they teach?

[Fenrir]

In doing so, you are saying that "community values" have some value...

No, they can only have value to someone. I might care what the community thinks, or I might not.

...and anyone violating those values is trying to hurt said community.

That may not be their intent, but they may cause that community some distress if those values are strong enough, yes.

[Andir]

In doing so, you are saying that "community values" have some value...

No, they can only have value to someone. I might care what the community thinks, or I might not.

...and anyone violating those values is trying to hurt said community.

That may not be their intent, but they may cause that community some distress if those values are strong enough, yes.

So we are judging people based on community distress rather than intent?

[Fenrir]

So we are judging people based on community distress rather than intent?

If that is what you think I am saying, I am obvously doing something wrong. G-Flex does not need me to defend his arguments — he is smarter than me anyway, so I shall leave this here.

[Andir]

I'm just saying that it's a bad precedent to place intrinsic value on anything because a community values it, then judge a person based on that community value.

[Rose]

If not community value, what other value is there?

[Darvi]

Material? Symbolic?

[Rose]

Those are both coming from the community.

The community considers gold to be valuable, therefore it is.

[penguinofhonor]

But... if a community values something, then it's possible to destroy it to attack the community. The community value is important here. And if you're attacking the community because it's a black community, then you're committing a hate crime. I don't see the problem here?