Talk:Matthew Shepard - Revision history

LordNelsonRepub at 17:15, May 16, 2009

2009-05-16T17:15:33Z

Rocky: re:/* Definition of a hate crime */

2008-05-12T21:44:52Z

re:Definition of a hate crime

Jinxmchue: /* Definition of a hate crime */

2008-05-05T04:36:44Z

Definition of a hate crime

Rocky: Definition of a hate crime

2008-05-03T19:20:51Z

Definition of a hate crime

Kiss20 at 01:21, January 9, 2008

2008-01-09T01:21:44Z

Maestro at 18:11, December 18, 2007

2007-12-18T18:11:12Z

Karajou at 13:02, December 18, 2007

2007-12-18T13:02:03Z

Karajou at 12:59, December 18, 2007

2007-12-18T12:59:42Z

Incide at 19:17, December 17, 2007

2007-12-17T19:17:02Z

Karajou at 17:38, December 17, 2007

2007-12-17T17:38:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, May 16, 2009
Line 33:		Line 33:

	::The men were not convicted of a hate crime because there was no law in place at the time stating that killing a homosexual for any reason besides they were a homosexual was a hate crime. Also, as was once stated in the article (I guess someone deleated it), it stated that they wanted to rob a homosexual man. This means that they did not just target Sheppard, but any homosexual man. Also, I only put that in there because of the conversation above because I wanted to make it clear what was a hate crime for them.		::The men were not convicted of a hate crime because there was no law in place at the time stating that killing a homosexual for any reason besides they were a homosexual was a hate crime. Also, as was once stated in the article (I guess someone deleated it), it stated that they wanted to rob a homosexual man. This means that they did not just target Sheppard, but any homosexual man. Also, I only put that in there because of the conversation above because I wanted to make it clear what was a hate crime for them.
		+
		+
		+	== Mention of gay bar, other important factors ==
		+	Why is so little detail given into the context of the murder? There is no mention of the men being straight, Shepard being gay, the bar they were in being a gay bar, the testimonies of the girlfriends of the killers saying that the murder was premeditated? I understand the agenda of CP, but these seem like important aspects of the case, even if they do knock down the rest of the article, which is a house of cards built on the omission of these facts.
		+	[[User:LordNelsonRepub\|LordNelsonRepub]] 1:15PM, May 16, 2009

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, May 12, 2008
Line 31:		Line 31:

	:Irrelevant. At no point was the crime portrayed by the prosecution as a hate crime and the men were never convicted of any hate crime. The only people who called this a hate crime were pro-gay activists who were more concerned with promoting their agenda and forcing their views upon the public than with the facts of the case or even with Mr. Shepard's life. [[User:Jinxmchue\|Jinxmchue]] 00:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT)		:Irrelevant. At no point was the crime portrayed by the prosecution as a hate crime and the men were never convicted of any hate crime. The only people who called this a hate crime were pro-gay activists who were more concerned with promoting their agenda and forcing their views upon the public than with the facts of the case or even with Mr. Shepard's life. [[User:Jinxmchue\|Jinxmchue]] 00:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::The men were not convicted of a hate crime because there was no law in place at the time stating that killing a homosexual for any reason besides they were a homosexual was a hate crime. Also, as was once stated in the article (I guess someone deleated it), it stated that they wanted to rob a homosexual man. This means that they did not just target Sheppard, but any homosexual man. Also, I only put that in there because of the conversation above because I wanted to make it clear what was a hate crime for them.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:36, May 5, 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:
	n. A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group<ref>hate crime. Dictionary.com. ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.'' Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate crime] (accessed: May 03, 2008).		n. A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group<ref>hate crime. Dictionary.com. ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.'' Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate crime] (accessed: May 03, 2008).
	</ref>		</ref>
		+
		+	:Irrelevant. At no point was the crime portrayed by the prosecution as a hate crime and the men were never convicted of any hate crime. The only people who called this a hate crime were pro-gay activists who were more concerned with promoting their agenda and forcing their views upon the public than with the facts of the case or even with Mr. Shepard's life. [[User:Jinxmchue\|Jinxmchue]] 00:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, May 3, 2008
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)		::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
	:::::::::It's a private website, Incide, they control the content, and do not have to justify deletions. Unlike wikipedia, where more than one opinion is allowed and you can only be banned by blatant vandalism. [[User:Maestro\|Maestro]] 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)		:::::::::It's a private website, Incide, they control the content, and do not have to justify deletions. Unlike wikipedia, where more than one opinion is allowed and you can only be banned by blatant vandalism. [[User:Maestro\|Maestro]] 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	== Definition of a hate crime ==
		+
		+	Look, before discussing any ferther, I would like to just simply put down the definition of a hate crime. Here is, according to the American Heratige Dictionary (verbatim out of it):
		+
		+	n. A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group<ref>hate crime. Dictionary.com. ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.'' Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate crime] (accessed: May 03, 2008).
		+	</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, January 9, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I'm almost looking forward to reading about a bunch of gay dudes that murder a straight guy because he is straight and see how quickly right-wingers pull out the 'hate crime' card.		I'm almost looking forward to reading about a bunch of gay dudes that murder a straight guy because he is straight and see how quickly right-wingers pull out the 'hate crime' card.
		+
		+	:Conservapedia's quote from 20/20 is completely irrelevant. If these two individuals are so lacking in morals that they are willing to kill (based on Shepard's sexuality or not) they would obviously be willing to lie as to their motives to avoid a potential hate crime prosecution. Hate crime is a substantially more punishable offense then a non-hate crime. I am sure their lawyer was involved in that statement. [[User:Kiss20\|Kiss20]] 20:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

	{{unsigned\|incide}}		{{unsigned\|incide}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, December 18, 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:

	::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)		::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
		+	:::::::::It's a private website, Incide, they control the content, and do not have to justify deletions. Unlike wikipedia, where more than one opinion is allowed and you can only be banned by blatant vandalism. [[User:Maestro\|Maestro]] 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:02, December 18, 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:
	:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide\|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)		:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide\|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)
	::::::::Then tell me, Incide...do you have a First Amendment right to come on to this website and force your opinion on others? I don't think you do. The only reason you are here is because you cannot stand conservatism; you cannot stand those who criticise homosexuality for what it is and what it could do to people; you cannot stand those who created this website to promote those values you claim are archaic...and if we object to what you say and how you say it, well, then you complain it's your First Amendment rights that are violated. Have a nice day! [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 07:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)		::::::::Then tell me, Incide...do you have a First Amendment right to come on to this website and force your opinion on others? I don't think you do. The only reason you are here is because you cannot stand conservatism; you cannot stand those who criticise homosexuality for what it is and what it could do to people; you cannot stand those who created this website to promote those values you claim are archaic...and if we object to what you say and how you say it, well, then you complain it's your First Amendment rights that are violated. Have a nice day! [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 07:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, December 18, 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)		::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)
	:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide\|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)		:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide\|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)
		+	::::::::Then tell me, Incide...do you have a First Amendment right to come on to this website and force your opinion on others? I don't think you do. The only reason you are here is because you cannot stand conservatism; you cannot stand those who criticise homosexuality for what it is and what it could do to people; you cannot stand those who created this website to promote those values you claim are archaic...and if we object to what you say and how you say it, well, then you complain it's your First Amendment rights that are violated. Have a nice day! [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 07:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, December 17, 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:::::A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?		:::::A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?
	::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)		::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)
		+	:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide\|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, December 17, 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:::::No. clearly, you've misunderstood what i wrote. but i'm guessing that there is very little i can do to convince you otherwise.		:::::No. clearly, you've misunderstood what i wrote. but i'm guessing that there is very little i can do to convince you otherwise.
	:::::A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?		:::::A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?
		+	::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou\|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)