Hate crimes definition

If Super Heroes/Heroines & Super Villains are your game, discuss them here.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
wyrmraker
Hero
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:52 pm

Hate crimes definition

Unread post by wyrmraker »

The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?

That depends on how you want your world to work.
In my C.A.P.E.S. world there is a current civil rights campaign to get full equal rights protection for "Anthros" (genetically created life, basically mutant animals) with a lesser but related campaign to recognize AIs as people. I purposefully didn't provide the protections to make for a gritty world with lots of shades of grey.

In another game, where I want a more utopian flavor? I might make the law nicer and recognize everyone equally.

Neither is right, neither is wrong.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
wyrmraker
Hero
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:52 pm

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by wyrmraker »

I understand your point with GELFs, but I was referring to a kind of catch-all referring to non-terrestrial life forms. Given the fluff in Century City, I would think that the US government might add that provision to prefent irritating off-world dignitaries.
User avatar
ShadowLogan
Palladin
Posts: 7401
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Location: WI

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by ShadowLogan »

wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?

Is there a need to put the phrase in though?

Any one of the four could be seen as applying to sentient extra terrestrials unless the text specifies it only applies to humans, in which case it would need to be amended to expand it to extra-terrestrials. Though I would imagine there might be cases of unintended consequences either in raw or amended form (ex. could other intelligent animals (mutant or not) be "protected" by this law?).
User avatar
wyrmraker
Hero
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:52 pm

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by wyrmraker »

As for a need, yes, there would be. 'Race' is a sub-set of a species, whereas I'm seeing them add 'Species' to the Hate Crimes list once they are properly aware of extra-terrestrials. Legally, it makes sense to properly nail that one down.
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Nightmask »

ShadowLogan wrote:
wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?

Is there a need to put the phrase in though?

Any one of the four could be seen as applying to sentient extra terrestrials unless the text specifies it only applies to humans, in which case it would need to be amended to expand it to extra-terrestrials. Though I would imagine there might be cases of unintended consequences either in raw or amended form (ex. could other intelligent animals (mutant or not) be "protected" by this law?).


Unfortunately yes you would need to include the extra text because there are most certainly people who would insist in and outside the legal system that without it all those non-humans would be considered to have lives worth no more than an animal and killing them quite acceptable and legal.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

There are three routes to this actually.
The first is you can do it through legislations by amending the hate crime law

The second is you can have your courts do it by reviewing cases and ruling that the term "anyone" and especially "race" (now in its proper use!) to mean that the law applies to all sentient life and that species is a protected class.

The third is backdoor it in as a term of The Accord that was signed. Besides banning off world technology and what ever... it could have a clause about recognizing all life and applying the same legal code to all lifeforms as the local ones. Basically outlawing two tier justice. So it doesn't say you have to have a hate crime law. But if you do have one it applies to everyone equally.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Stone Gargoyle
Virtuoso of Variants
Posts: 9990
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:18 pm
Comment: "Your inferiority complex might be justified."
Location: Lurking on rooftops like a proper gargoyle should, in and around Tacoma, WA.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Stone Gargoyle »

It would definitely be something I would address in-game. One side would argue against it since it is easier to control and combat aliens if you don't give them equal rights. The other would argue that they should have equal rights as sentient species. There would always be those arguing that aliens cannot be considered sentient, and so on and so forth.
"SG, you are a limitless fountain of Butt-Saving Advice. You Rock, Stone and Concrete." ~ TrumbachD
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

wyrmraker wrote:As for a need, yes, there would be. 'Race' is a sub-set of a species, whereas I'm seeing them add 'Species' to the Hate Crimes list once they are properly aware of extra-terrestrials. Legally, it makes sense to properly nail that one down.


So then there is hate crimes against cows because we target their particular species for hamburgers. Even though it would be cruel to not cook them seeing as how they are the only animal I know of other than humans who go toward smoke instead of away from it, so they must want to be cooked as I doubt they're trying to go put out the fire.
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

Hey if it was easy there would not be a need for judges or lawyers you could just eyeball it and know who was guilty and what the proper penalty was.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

Stone Gargoyle wrote:It would definitely be something I would address in-game. One side would argue against it since it is easier to control and combat aliens if you don't give them equal rights. The other would argue that they should have equal rights as sentient species. There would always be those arguing that aliens cannot be considered sentient, and so on and so forth.


As far as arguing sentience. If an alien is able to communicate concepts and argue that they have the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively, which is a definition of sentience, in an age where that definition is accepted then one can not argue one is going on in another's head. They can deny it but they can not make a resonable argument against it.
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
User avatar
wyrmraker
Hero
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:52 pm

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by wyrmraker »

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Stone Gargoyle wrote:It would definitely be something I would address in-game. One side would argue against it since it is easier to control and combat aliens if you don't give them equal rights. The other would argue that they should have equal rights as sentient species. There would always be those arguing that aliens cannot be considered sentient, and so on and so forth.


As far as arguing sentience. If an alien is able to communicate concepts and argue that they have the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively, which is a definition of sentience, in an age where that definition is accepted then one can not argue one is going on in another's head. They can deny it but they can not make a resonable argument against it.

Isn't that what lawyers are for? Making reasonable arguments against anything?

Of course, the entire point of this was a funny image in my head. An Immortal Demon Lord pressing Hate Crime charges against a demon hunter.
User avatar
Pepsi Jedi
Palladin
Posts: 6955
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:11 am
Comment: 24 was the start... We are Legion.
Location: Northern Gun

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Pepsi Jedi »

wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?



Likely not. In the 'HU" world Aliens are wildly unpopular. Only slightly better than mutants. (If not worse, depending on area.) You don't see it mentioned much in the core book but in Century Station, the main 'setting' book for HU it pops up there. (And explains why).

Long story short, HU Earth is treated like the stupid little red headed step brother of the Galaxy and humans like dumb children that can't be trusted (There's... plenty to prove that argument, but still) and when an alien DID come to earth and give us advances, the "Alien cops" showed up and yanked them all away, and basically twapped Humanity on the nose with a rolled up news paper for it and now We (Humans/Earth) Are grounded, with a babysitter watching us.

So all in all, Aliens in HU are not just accepted and given rights. They're specifically NOT. Like Mutants are not 'people' and don't have 'rights' in HU World (Seen in Century Station and Mutant Underground)
Image

Lt. Nyota Uhura: I'm impressed. For a moment there, I thought you were just a dumb hick who only has sex with farm animals.

James Tiberius Kirk: Well, not _only_...
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?



Likely not. In the 'HU" world Aliens are wildly unpopular. Only slightly better than mutants. (If not worse, depending on area.) You don't see it mentioned much in the core book but in Century Station, the main 'setting' book for HU it pops up there. (And explains why).

Long story short, HU Earth is treated like the stupid little red headed step brother of the Galaxy and humans like dumb children that can't be trusted (There's... plenty to prove that argument, but still) and when an alien DID come to earth and give us advances, the "Alien cops" showed up and yanked them all away, and basically twapped Humanity on the nose with a rolled up news paper for it and now We (Humans/Earth) Are grounded, with a babysitter watching us.

So all in all, Aliens in HU are not just accepted and given rights. They're specifically NOT.

Citation? As in book and page where this is stated? (If it is specifically then it needs to be just that... specific)


Pepsi Jedi wrote:Like Mutants are not 'people' and don't have 'rights' in HU World (Seen in Century Station and Mutant Underground)

yes mutants are treated badly in the later versions of the HU world (as much as there is an HU world since the pre Century Station and post Century Station books tend to have irreconcilable differences on how the world is set up and runs)
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
wyrmraker
Hero
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:52 pm

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by wyrmraker »

Zer0 Kay wrote:
wyrmraker wrote:As for a need, yes, there would be. 'Race' is a sub-set of a species, whereas I'm seeing them add 'Species' to the Hate Crimes list once they are properly aware of extra-terrestrials. Legally, it makes sense to properly nail that one down.


So then there is hate crimes against cows because we target their particular species for hamburgers. Even though it would be cruel to not cook them seeing as how they are the only animal I know of other than humans who go toward smoke instead of away from it, so they must want to be cooked as I doubt they're trying to go put out the fire.

Actually, if you think about it, cows could be considered geniuses. Think about this: They are protected against being randomly murdered, given better health care than humans receive, in some places entirely prohibited from being harmed, all under penalty of law. In some places harming a cow is a religious crime, whereas in most of the US it's a felony level crime to kill a cow unless it's either in an approved slaughterhouse or the animal is too far beyond veterinary science to save.

All for a small sacrifice of their numbers per year.

Just a funny side bit to consider.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

wyrmraker wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
wyrmraker wrote:As for a need, yes, there would be. 'Race' is a sub-set of a species, whereas I'm seeing them add 'Species' to the Hate Crimes list once they are properly aware of extra-terrestrials. Legally, it makes sense to properly nail that one down.


So then there is hate crimes against cows because we target their particular species for hamburgers. Even though it would be cruel to not cook them seeing as how they are the only animal I know of other than humans who go toward smoke instead of away from it, so they must want to be cooked as I doubt they're trying to go put out the fire.

Actually, if you think about it, cows could be considered geniuses. Think about this: They are protected against being randomly murdered, given better health care than humans receive, in some places entirely prohibited from being harmed, all under penalty of law. In some places harming a cow is a religious crime, whereas in most of the US it's a felony level crime to kill a cow unless it's either in an approved slaughterhouse or the animal is too far beyond veterinary science to save.

All for a small sacrifice of their numbers per year.

Just a funny side bit to consider.

Imagine if they were a hive intelligence...
Then they wouldn't even be loosing any numbers, just a tiny portion of their body...
...world wide psychic cow...
*scribbles* I think I may just have to use this
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Stone Gargoyle
Virtuoso of Variants
Posts: 9990
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:18 pm
Comment: "Your inferiority complex might be justified."
Location: Lurking on rooftops like a proper gargoyle should, in and around Tacoma, WA.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Stone Gargoyle »

eliakon wrote:Imagine if they were a hive intelligence...
Then they wouldn't even be loosing any numbers, just a tiny portion of their body...
...world wide psychic cow...
*scribbles* I think I may just have to use this
Genius!
"SG, you are a limitless fountain of Butt-Saving Advice. You Rock, Stone and Concrete." ~ TrumbachD
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by taalismn »

eliakon wrote:[
Imagine if they were a hive intelligence...
Then they wouldn't even be loosing any numbers, just a tiny portion of their body...
...world wide psychic cow...



AAaaaaannnnndddd...this is why you shouldn't overuse antibiotics on livestock.....

Actually the stinker could be that the hive mind deliberately sacrifices those components of itself that are ailing or defective..the 'ailment' being the diminishment of the mental links that make an individual cow an integral seamless part of the whole.
Furthermore, the hive-cow intelligence uses low-powered psychic persuasion on its human wranglers to make them believe that they are the ones chosing specific cows for slaughter, when in fact it is the hive-mind that is directing them to remove specific diseased cells of its greater psychic body form the circuit before their degeneration corrupts and compromises the greater gestalt.
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Daniel Stoker
Knight
Posts: 4832
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Comment: Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis
Location: Jewdica

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Daniel Stoker »

What if the psychic cows are modifying their own milk so that humans specifically are enticed to drink/use more of it in their food preparation and in turn raise even more cows for the Hivemind?


Daniel Stoker
Judaism - More Old School than either Christianity or Islam.
User avatar
Pepsi Jedi
Palladin
Posts: 6955
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:11 am
Comment: 24 was the start... We are Legion.
Location: Northern Gun

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Pepsi Jedi »

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?



Likely not. In the 'HU" world Aliens are wildly unpopular. Only slightly better than mutants. (If not worse, depending on area.) You don't see it mentioned much in the core book but in Century Station, the main 'setting' book for HU it pops up there. (And explains why).

Long story short, HU Earth is treated like the stupid little red headed step brother of the Galaxy and humans like dumb children that can't be trusted (There's... plenty to prove that argument, but still) and when an alien DID come to earth and give us advances, the "Alien cops" showed up and yanked them all away, and basically twapped Humanity on the nose with a rolled up news paper for it and now We (Humans/Earth) Are grounded, with a babysitter watching us.

So all in all, Aliens in HU are not just accepted and given rights. They're specifically NOT.

Citation? As in book and page where this is stated? (If it is specifically then it needs to be just that... specific)


Pepsi Jedi wrote:Like Mutants are not 'people' and don't have 'rights' in HU World (Seen in Century Station and Mutant Underground)

yes mutants are treated badly in the later versions of the HU world (as much as there is an HU world since the pre Century Station and post Century Station books tend to have irreconcilable differences on how the world is set up and runs)


Citation on the Aliens is in Century station, you see it all through the book but specifically it starts on page 25. It talks about how most every citizen holds them in a negative light. They even talk about lynchmobs forming to string up and kill aliens. It goes into it for detail for a page or two but you see it through out the 'history' of the city and such too.

You see further citation of the anti-alien bias in Mutant Underground, where in, when answering the question (General) "Where the heck did all these mutants come from?" one of the possible 'answers/theories' was "Aliens?" Indicating they're either alien offspring or purposefully created by aliens, as there 'are' aliens known to be around, it circles back around to the anti-alien bias.

Later on in the same book there's a number of aliens that take advantage of the Mutant underground.

Those are two of three setting books we have for HU. Which back up the general concept. One is very specific around Century station, but speaks in general, The other is more general overall, but links back around to the thought on the street, being negative to aliens and how they should be rounded up and kicked off planet because they may be responsable for the mutant problem and bringing them/making them/trying to invade with them, etc.


In short. HU isn't all embracing the aliens like Superman and the Green Lantern Corps.

In general (in HU) They're not much liked.

You can see this further indicated/proven by the "Alien watch groups" in HU, presented in the Aliens Unlimited book. Even 'good guys' or peaceful aliens are hunted down, captured, examined, and imprisoned, then interrogated. It says that common perception of the aliens is such that Project Tyche even exceeds the laws, breaks them, and has little concern for collateral damage when capturing aliens. "How ever the public image of the project is one of protecting innocent humans from marauding alien defenders"

Later on it talks about how the captured aliens are imprisoned and studied and only a small number are ever given the ability to live openly on earth. Those that are are urged heavily to work for the government super teams and what not and those that don't are watched (Even illegally)

When it addresses no earth governments having been officially approached, it states "Sadly, dangerous aliens have far outweighed the number of friendly peaceful alien visitors, which fules the flames of parinoia and gives Project tyche more political clout.

So in general, in the HU setting, Aliens on HU earth are feared, and or hated for the most part. There's a notation in CS on how they can 'overcome' that perception (it's not easy, and half of it is hiding that you ARE an alien) But that indicates that the preconceived notion needs to be overcome to start with.
Image

Lt. Nyota Uhura: I'm impressed. For a moment there, I thought you were just a dumb hick who only has sex with farm animals.

James Tiberius Kirk: Well, not _only_...
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
wyrmraker wrote:The US Civil Rights Act brings us the definition of Hate Crimes as any action "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." That has become the foundation for such crimes.

In a Heroes Unlimited world, should the phrase "sentient species" be added, based on the government's knowledge of extra-terrestrials?



Likely not. In the 'HU" world Aliens are wildly unpopular. Only slightly better than mutants. (If not worse, depending on area.) You don't see it mentioned much in the core book but in Century Station, the main 'setting' book for HU it pops up there. (And explains why).

Long story short, HU Earth is treated like the stupid little red headed step brother of the Galaxy and humans like dumb children that can't be trusted (There's... plenty to prove that argument, but still) and when an alien DID come to earth and give us advances, the "Alien cops" showed up and yanked them all away, and basically twapped Humanity on the nose with a rolled up news paper for it and now We (Humans/Earth) Are grounded, with a babysitter watching us.

So all in all, Aliens in HU are not just accepted and given rights. They're specifically NOT.

Citation? As in book and page where this is stated? (If it is specifically then it needs to be just that... specific)


Pepsi Jedi wrote:Like Mutants are not 'people' and don't have 'rights' in HU World (Seen in Century Station and Mutant Underground)

yes mutants are treated badly in the later versions of the HU world (as much as there is an HU world since the pre Century Station and post Century Station books tend to have irreconcilable differences on how the world is set up and runs)


Citation on the Aliens is in Century station, you see it all through the book but specifically it starts on page 25. It talks about how most every citizen holds them in a negative light. They even talk about lynchmobs forming to string up and kill aliens. It goes into it for detail for a page or two but you see it through out the 'history' of the city and such too.

You see further citation of the anti-alien bias in Mutant Underground, where in, when answering the question (General) "Where the heck did all these mutants come from?" one of the possible 'answers/theories' was "Aliens?" Indicating they're either alien offspring or purposefully created by aliens, as there 'are' aliens known to be around, it circles back around to the anti-alien bias.

Later on in the same book there's a number of aliens that take advantage of the Mutant underground.

Those are two of three setting books we have for HU. Which back up the general concept. One is very specific around Century station, but speaks in general, The other is more general overall, but links back around to the thought on the street, being negative to aliens and how they should be rounded up and kicked off planet because they may be responsable for the mutant problem and bringing them/making them/trying to invade with them, etc.


In short. HU isn't all embracing the aliens like Superman and the Green Lantern Corps.

In general (in HU) They're not much liked.

You can see this further indicated/proven by the "Alien watch groups" in HU, presented in the Aliens Unlimited book. Even 'good guys' or peaceful aliens are hunted down, captured, examined, and imprisoned, then interrogated. It says that common perception of the aliens is such that Project Tyche even exceeds the laws, breaks them, and has little concern for collateral damage when capturing aliens. "How ever the public image of the project is one of protecting innocent humans from marauding alien defenders"

Later on it talks about how the captured aliens are imprisoned and studied and only a small number are ever given the ability to live openly on earth. Those that are are urged heavily to work for the government super teams and what not and those that don't are watched (Even illegally)

When it addresses no earth governments having been officially approached, it states "Sadly, dangerous aliens have far outweighed the number of friendly peaceful alien visitors, which fules the flames of parinoia and gives Project tyche more political clout.

So in general, in the HU setting, Aliens on HU earth are feared, and or hated for the most part. There's a notation in CS on how they can 'overcome' that perception (it's not easy, and half of it is hiding that you ARE an alien) But that indicates that the preconceived notion needs to be overcome to start with.

While these sources do say that people don't like them, and that they face problems with mob justice
There isn't anything to support your claim of them being explicitly said to NOT have rights.
To make a comparison. In the 1950s United States there was a lot of discrimination against blacks in the south. They faced persecution, discrimination and lynching...
...that didn't mean that they did not have rights. Just that the southerners were not recognizing them.
HUGE difference.

I will grant that they are not accepted that was never in question
I will grant that they are often feared, persecuted and even reviled.
I do NOT grant that they are explicitly said to have no legal rights. THAT claim, the claim that there is an explicit claim of the specific denial of rights (which is what saying that they are specifically not given rights is saying) needs exactly that, the explicit claim of the denial of rights. Those words in a book. With out those words you do not have an explicit claim. You may be able to argue that there is an implicit claim but not an explicit one.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Pepsi Jedi
Palladin
Posts: 6955
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:11 am
Comment: 24 was the start... We are Legion.
Location: Northern Gun

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Pepsi Jedi »

Did you miss the part where there's agencies that activly hunt them down, exceeding legal authority, and not careing about whom they hurt or kill in doing so to beat up, capture, imprison, interrogate on, experiment on and hold indefinately with out trial or representation, at their digression?

I'm not being a smartass here. I'm honestly asking, because that indicates they have no rights.

If they had rights, they would not be subject to....

Being hunted,
Being accosted and beaten up by governmental officals (Or civillians in mobs)
Being captured, and taken against their will (Kidnapping)
Being detained. (unlawful inprisonment)
Being held with out trial.
Being questioned with out legal representation (interrogation)
Being experimented on. (Assault and battery)
Being killed with out trial (Murder, as no nation has a formal declaration of 'war' on aliens.)
Being enslaved. (Held in prision unless they agree to do that govenrment's bidding as a member of their super team etc)


So.... I'm curious as to what 'right' you think aliens have that's not really covered by the above. Or if they have rights, how all of the above are done in gross violation of the law. That's from ther US. Not some crazy Putin russia or something. The 'good guys' do that stuff. The bad guys likely more.

Seriously if you can do all of the above, with out ending up on death row for it, or life in prison yourself. What rights do the aliens have?
Image

Lt. Nyota Uhura: I'm impressed. For a moment there, I thought you were just a dumb hick who only has sex with farm animals.

James Tiberius Kirk: Well, not _only_...
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Did you miss the part where there's agencies that activly hunt them down, exceeding legal authority, and not careing about whom they hurt or kill in doing so to beat up, capture, imprison, interrogate on, experiment on and hold indefinately with out trial or representation, at their digression?

I'm not being a smartass here. I'm honestly asking, because that indicates they have no rights.

Ummm what part of 'exceeding legal authority' proves that the law is on their side?

Pepsi Jedi wrote:If they had rights, they would not be subject to....

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being hunted,
Being accosted and beaten up by governmental officals (Or civillians in mobs)

Like lynchings?
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being captured, and taken against their will (Kidnapping)
Being detained. (unlawful inprisonment)
Being held with out trial.
Being questioned with out legal representation (interrogation)

Good thing that no one ever arrested blacks in the south for "breathing while black" during the civil rights era
And its a good thing that the US didn't run Internment Camps for Japanese Americans in WWII

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being experimented on. (Assault and battery)

Tuskegee experiment? Look it up
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being killed with out trial (Murder, as no nation has a formal declaration of 'war' on aliens.)

Lynching again thanks

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being enslaved. (Held in prision unless they agree to do that govenrment's bidding as a member of their super team etc)

That isn't what the word 'enlaved' means...
...but its a good thing that there wasn't a 442 regimental combat team in WWII that was the only option for Japanese Americans to get out of the camps...

So.... I'm curious as to what 'right' you think aliens have that's not really covered by the above. Or if they have rights, how all of the above are done in gross violation of the law. That's from ther US. Not some crazy Putin russia or something. The 'good guys' do that stuff. The bad guys likely more.

Seriously if you can do all of the above, with out ending up on death row for it, or life in prison yourself. What rights do the aliens have?

And not to be a smart ass here but
Have you READ about what they were doing to blacks in the south during the civil rights era?
About what the US government has done to Native Americans, or the Japanese Americans in WWII?

I mean by this logic Blacks, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, et multiple cetera have no civil rights because they have been mistreated...
...and since we KNOW this is false it suggests that any argument predicated on the exact same case would be equally false.
Not having your rights respected is MUCH different than having the law explicitly say you do not have those rights.
You have proven the first yes. You have done zero to prove the second.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Pepsi Jedi
Palladin
Posts: 6955
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:11 am
Comment: 24 was the start... We are Legion.
Location: Northern Gun

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Pepsi Jedi »

You should read the indicated sections.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Did you miss the part where there's agencies that activly hunt them down, exceeding legal authority, and not careing about whom they hurt or kill in doing so to beat up, capture, imprison, interrogate on, experiment on and hold indefinately with out trial or representation, at their digression?

I'm not being a smartass here. I'm honestly asking, because that indicates they have no rights.

Ummm what part of 'exceeding legal authority' proves that the law is on their side?


They're a sponsored and popular governmental agency. They operate openly in the execution of their charter and duties. This proves that law is on their side.

eliakon wrote:


Pepsi Jedi wrote:If they had rights, they would not be subject to....

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being hunted,
Being accosted and beaten up by governmental officals (Or civillians in mobs)

Like lynchings?


No. The US Government does it via the before mentioned Agency. That's why it's clear that aliens, in HU don't share the rights of humans.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being captured, and taken against their will (Kidnapping)
Being detained. (unlawful inprisonment)
Being held with out trial.
Being questioned with out legal representation (interrogation)



Good thing that no one ever arrested blacks in the south for "breathing while black" during the civil rights era


Good thing HU Isn't set during the civil rights era or you might have partially a point, but no. Not really, as it would more prove the point than anything. Reguardless. HU isn't set in the civil rights era and all the above is done by the US governmental agents. They're not locked up for doing their jobs, thus it's legal for them to do, which indicates that the aliens don't share the rights of humans, in HU.

eliakon wrote:
And its a good thing that the US didn't run Internment Camps for Japanese Americans in WWII


HU is also not set during WWII, and that is currently seen as one of the darkest elements of our history and universially accepted as wrong. Well almost universally. Someone running for office in a couple of days might be down for it, but for the most part that was seen as wrong, and a human rights violation.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being experimented on. (Assault and battery)

Tuskegee experiment? Look it up


I don't need to look it up. I know all about Tuskegee, it would be currently against the law. Because people have broken the law, it's not indicative that the law didn't exist.
That was also... 84-44 years ago.

In 1974 Congress passed the National Research Act, and created a commission to make regulations governing the studies etc. The OHRP was established. Studies now require informed consent and have review boards and the like.

So.. again Not valid in the HU setting. You're speaking of things that happened in the past that are currently illegal and would get people locked up if they did them.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being killed with out trial (Murder, as no nation has a formal declaration of 'war' on aliens.)

Lynching again thanks


Lynching is illegal.

I'm speaking of the US government, and it's agencies doing so to the aliens 'legally'.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being enslaved. (Held in prision unless they agree to do that govenrment's bidding as a member of their super team etc)

That isn't what the word 'enlaved' means...


It's not? Lets see shall we?

Slave: 1: A person that is the property of and wholly subject to another; A bound servant
2: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.

If you capture and imprison someone and give them one option. To work for you, or to stay in prison, how does that not make them entierly under the domination of some influence or person?

If you have the control to give them that choice, are they not your bound servant? Faced with imprisonment or subjection? Thus.. Slavery?

If you make them a slave.. you have thus, ENSLAVED THEM.

Yes... that's what the word means.

eliakon wrote:
...but its a good thing that there wasn't a 442 regimental combat team in WWII that was the only option for Japanese Americans to get out of the camps...


And already covered above, but again. We're not in WWII are we? The "setting" of HU is modern times, though you could argue it's 1980s. Which still wouldn't be WWII by quite a stretch.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:So.... I'm curious as to what 'right' you think aliens have that's not really covered by the above. Or if they have rights, how all of the above are done in gross violation of the law. That's from ther US. Not some crazy Putin russia or something. The 'good guys' do that stuff. The bad guys likely more.

Seriously if you can do all of the above, with out ending up on death row for it, or life in prison yourself. What rights do the aliens have?

And not to be a smart ass here but
Have you READ about what they were doing to blacks in the south during the civil rights era?


Yes..... and thus has been deemed illegal since then. If you do such things you go to jail. They would be considered human rights violations. They were crimes, and are crimes still. The fact that they happened in history doesn't mean that black people don't currently have rights in our society. Rights that are withheld from Aliens in HU.

eliakon wrote:
About what the US government has done to Native Americans, or the Japanese Americans in WWII?


As stated above. We're not in WWII, and those would be crimes. I'm not saying humanity has never been aholes to one another. Clearly they have, but you're saying because things happend 50-100+ years ago, those same people don't have rights today? they do.

eliakon wrote:

I mean by this logic Blacks, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, et multiple cetera have no civil rights because they have been mistreated...


And at varying points in history they didn't. But they do now.

You're trying to say that because people were abused and treated as not having rights in the past thaty they don't currently.

I'm pointing out that they DO have rights currently, but the Aliens do not.

At some point in HU's future, they might GIVE Aliens on earth, human rights, but as of now, they do not currently possess them. Time matters. Setting matters. The "Default" setting for HU is current (or 1980s if you go by publication)

eliakon wrote:

...and since we KNOW this is false it suggests that any argument predicated on the exact same case would be equally false.


No, because your assumption is based on humanity not experiencing the passage of time. Which, it does. Dr Strange, you're not. :)

eliakon wrote:
Not having your rights respected is MUCH different than having the law explicitly say you do not have those rights.
You have proven the first yes. You have done zero to prove the second.
[/quote]

I have proven the second. You're addressing CRIMES and violations and times in history when the people you're referencing, did not infact 'have' rights via the law. It sucks, but the past sucked for that sort of thing. We're a little better now. (Still working on it)

The 'fact' is that as written, Aliens currently have no rights in HU, otherwise the actions of the US government would be ..... A (Sentient being?) Rights violation, as... they're doing all the above listed crimes in violations of the 'Rights' You're assuming that the aliens are granted.

The actions above are public. They're not ultra secret. The agency is even popular for doing them. Thus they're not hidden. The people know. These things are happening and noone's calling the US and other governments out for rights violations (Of the aliens) Therefore, in setting, there are no 'rights' being violated.

Thus.. clearly in HU, aliens are not afforded "Human Rights".

If it's "legal" for the government to openly Kidnap, detain, interrogate, hold with out trial, torture, experiment upon and ultimately enslave or kill aliens..... then clearly Aliens are not afforded the same rights as you or I.
Image

Lt. Nyota Uhura: I'm impressed. For a moment there, I thought you were just a dumb hick who only has sex with farm animals.

James Tiberius Kirk: Well, not _only_...
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by eliakon »

Spoiler:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:You should read the indicated sections.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Did you miss the part where there's agencies that activly hunt them down, exceeding legal authority, and not careing about whom they hurt or kill in doing so to beat up, capture, imprison, interrogate on, experiment on and hold indefinately with out trial or representation, at their digression?

I'm not being a smartass here. I'm honestly asking, because that indicates they have no rights.

Ummm what part of 'exceeding legal authority' proves that the law is on their side?


They're a sponsored and popular governmental agency. They operate openly in the execution of their charter and duties. This proves that law is on their side.

Err no. When you are violating your legal authority then you do NOT have the law on your side. You may have public opinion on your side but that is different. The KKK had public opinion on their side and operated openly, that did not mean they were legal

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:


Pepsi Jedi wrote:If they had rights, they would not be subject to....

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being hunted,
Being accosted and beaten up by governmental officals (Or civillians in mobs)

Like lynchings?


No. The US Government does it via the before mentioned Agency. That's why it's clear that aliens, in HU don't share the rights of humans.

Again demonstrating that someone is being Lynched does not prove the Lynching is legal.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being captured, and taken against their will (Kidnapping)
Being detained. (unlawful inprisonment)
Being held with out trial.
Being questioned with out legal representation (interrogation)



Good thing that no one ever arrested blacks in the south for "breathing while black" during the civil rights era


Good thing HU Isn't set during the civil rights era or you might have partially a point, but no. Not really, as it would more prove the point than anything. Reguardless. HU isn't set in the civil rights era and all the above is done by the US governmental agents. They're not locked up for doing their jobs, thus it's legal for them to do, which indicates that the aliens don't share the rights of humans, in HU.

It doesn't MATTER when HU is set. The point is that we can point to multiple examples of the exact same behavior in our history where we know that the victims had rights that were being deliberately ignored by the State. That demonstrates that simply ingnoring the rights of a person does not prove that those rights do not exist.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
And its a good thing that the US didn't run Internment Camps for Japanese Americans in WWII


HU is also not set during WWII, and that is currently seen as one of the darkest elements of our history and universially accepted as wrong. Well almost universally. Someone running for office in a couple of days might be down for it, but for the most part that was seen as wrong, and a human rights violation.

Again it doesn't matter when HU is set. The point is that HU is set during a period when the government is doing something. In the future the actions may be seen as being as dark or darker than the internment camps. Or put another way. In a game set in WWII you could not argue that the Japanese Americans had no rights. You could argue that their rights were being ignored but they still had them. Same thing here.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being experimented on. (Assault and battery)

Tuskegee experiment? Look it up


I don't need to look it up. I know all about Tuskegee, it would be currently against the law. Because people have broken the law, it's not indicative that the law didn't exist.
That was also... 84-44 years ago.

In 1974 Congress passed the National Research Act, and created a commission to make regulations governing the studies etc. The OHRP was established. Studies now require informed consent and have review boards and the like.

So.. again Not valid in the HU setting. You're speaking of things that happened in the past that are currently illegal and would get people locked up if they did them.

Your deliberately missing the point. The actions that were done in the past were illegal. They violated the rights of those people at the time they were done. The victims had rights that were ignored they victims did NOT have no rights. THAT is the point that is important here. The situation right now is the EXACT SAME ONE. The current situation is just as illegal, and just as horrific and likely to eventually be seen as such... but right NOW the people are commiting the crimes because they don't feel that they have to follow the laws. During Tuskegee black people had a right to not be murdered, the doctors though felt that since they were 'only blacks' that they didn't really have that right. HUGE difference.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being killed with out trial (Murder, as no nation has a formal declaration of 'war' on aliens.)

Lynching again thanks


Lynching is illegal.

I'm speaking of the US government, and it's agencies doing so to the aliens 'legally'.

I am sure that all the people that the US government/agents thereof has extra-judicially killed, or had sentenced to death in unfair courts, or had exterminated as threats to the citizenry are very happy to know that it was illegal and never happened.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being enslaved. (Held in prision unless they agree to do that govenrment's bidding as a member of their super team etc)

That isn't what the word 'enlaved' means...


It's not? Lets see shall we?

Slave: 1: A person that is the property of and wholly subject to another; A bound servant
2: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.

If you capture and imprison someone and give them one option. To work for you, or to stay in prison, how does that not make them entierly under the domination of some influence or person?

If you have the control to give them that choice, are they not your bound servant? Faced with imprisonment or subjection? Thus.. Slavery?

If you make them a slave.. you have thus, ENSLAVED THEM.

Yes... that's what the word means.

Then I am glad to know that the entire population of the US is slaves. (since they are e
By your definition
Oh, and the entire Military during WWI, WWII and Vietnam was slave labor and thus pure evil
Or perhaps in trying to reach to far your being overly broad?
Because no, holding a person prisoner and offering a work program as a parole is not slavery even if the work program is military in nature.
Especially since you have not demonstrated that the people in these work programs ARE slaves. (see below)

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
...but its a good thing that there wasn't a 442 regimental combat team in WWII that was the only option for Japanese Americans to get out of the camps...


And already covered above, but again. We're not in WWII are we? The "setting" of HU is modern times, though you could argue it's 1980s. Which still wouldn't be WWII by quite a stretch.

Again you can't just ignore the fact that we have precedents that demonstrate that actions have already been done and NOT taken away rights. That is what the word precedent means. If we already know that you can hold someone in an internment camp and only allow parole under military service, because it has been done AND we know that those people were not slaves, AND that the people so held had rights... we can pretty safely assume that if the exact same thing is done again in the future that it will not suddenly turn them into slaves with no civil rights.



Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:So.... I'm curious as to what 'right' you think aliens have that's not really covered by the above. Or if they have rights, how all of the above are done in gross violation of the law. That's from ther US. Not some crazy Putin russia or something. The 'good guys' do that stuff. The bad guys likely more.

Seriously if you can do all of the above, with out ending up on death row for it, or life in prison yourself. What rights do the aliens have?

And not to be a smart ass here but
Have you READ about what they were doing to blacks in the south during the civil rights era?


Yes..... and thus has been deemed illegal since then. If you do such things you go to jail. They would be considered human rights violations. They were crimes, and are crimes still. The fact that they happened in history doesn't mean that black people don't currently have rights in our society. Rights that are withheld from Aliens in HU.

And again the point is that just because people were doing it didn't make it legal did it?
Just because the KKK was openly lynching blacks didn't mean that those blacks had no rights. Even if they were not allowed to exercise those rights.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
About what the US government has done to Native Americans, or the Japanese Americans in WWII?


As stated above. We're not in WWII, and those would be crimes. I'm not saying humanity has never been aholes to one another. Clearly they have, but you're saying because things happend 50-100+ years ago, those same people don't have rights today? they do.

Your still missing the point.
The aliens are not in a unique situation. They are in a common situation that has occurred over and over in human history, heck it has several incarnations in just the United States. Thus we can go look at how it has been handled in our history to see what the legal status would be. The legal status of those previous events tell us what the legal status of this event is. Since in none of the previous events were the people actually legally stripped of their rights and relegated to non-right status by their treatment it follows that the treatment of the aliens would not do this either.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:

I mean by this logic Blacks, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, et multiple cetera have no civil rights because they have been mistreated...


And at varying points in history they didn't. But they do now.

You're trying to say that because people were abused and treated as not having rights in the past thaty they don't currently.

The points in time I was pointing to though they DID legally have those rights. They may not have been allowed to use them but legally they did have them.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:I'm pointing out that they DO have rights currently, but the Aliens do not.

And I am pointing out that you have not done any such thing. You have only shown that Aliens are not allowed to use rights. There is a big difference.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:At some point in HU's future, they might GIVE Aliens on earth, human rights, but as of now, they do not currently possess them. Time matters. Setting matters. The "Default" setting for HU is current (or 1980s if you go by publication)

Again your making an assumption that is not supported by the book. The rights issue is not, as far as I know, not explicitly settled one way or another. We can safely say that they are not treated as having rights, but you have not proven that they do not HAVE those rights. There is a huge difference.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:

...and since we KNOW this is false it suggests that any argument predicated on the exact same case would be equally false.


No, because your assumption is based on humanity not experiencing the passage of time. Which, it does. Dr Strange, you're not. :)

Umm you are aware of what the word 'precedent' means right?
The precedent is that simply ignoring peoples rights does not mean they do not exist. I am not saying that people do not experience the passage of time at all, so your snarky response is a total non sequitur. What I am saying is that we can look at how identical situations were handled in the past and draw a conclusion about how an identical situation will be handled in the present.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Not having your rights respected is MUCH different than having the law explicitly say you do not have those rights.
You have proven the first yes. You have done zero to prove the second.


I have proven the second. You're addressing CRIMES and violations and times in history when the people you're referencing, did not infact 'have' rights via the law. It sucks, but the past sucked for that sort of thing. We're a little better now. (Still working on it)

The 'fact' is that as written, Aliens currently have no rights in HU, otherwise the actions of the US government would be ..... A (Sentient being?) Rights violation, as... they're doing all the above listed crimes in violations of the 'Rights' You're assuming that the aliens are granted.

The actions above are public. They're not ultra secret. The agency is even popular for doing them. Thus they're not hidden. The people know. These things are happening and noone's calling the US and other governments out for rights violations (Of the aliens) Therefore, in setting, there are no 'rights' being violated.

Thus.. clearly in HU, aliens are not afforded "Human Rights".

If it's "legal" for the government to openly Kidnap, detain, interrogate, hold with out trial, torture, experiment upon and ultimately enslave or kill aliens..... then clearly Aliens are not afforded the same rights as you or I.[/quote]
No you have not proven anything
Those crimes of the past? Yeah, its the exact same situation today in HU. A crime is a crime... even if its popular and publicly condoned.
In WWII the government officially and publicly interned the Japanese. The Citizenry of the US was behind the program. The courts upheld it.
It was totally 100% a violation of their rights and illegal... but that didn't mean that it didn't happen.
Trying to argue that just because something is an official public program that is publicly supported means that it is legal... well
Hey lets go to today.
Enhanced Interrogation torture of terrorism suspects (not even convicts, just people that MIGHT be a terrorist, or just know something about them) was an official US government program for years. It was openly run, and a rather large majority of US citizens were supporters of it for years.
That doesn't mean that it was legal, or that those victims of it were not having their rights violated in systematic ways, or that the people responsible were not criminals. Just that no one cares enough to do anything about it. Maybe someday we will care enough to go back and redress the situation. maybe someday our government will issue a formal apology, maybe someday we will hold trials and hold people accountable... but in the mean time we can not simply claim that those rights ceased to exist because they were violated.


The problem here is two fold
First you are ignoring precedent by trying to claim that past examples don't matter because they are in the past
The past is important because by showing us how identical situations were handled it tells us how this situation will be handled. By telling us the status of rights in the past we can infer the status of rights in the present.

and Second you are conflating breaking a right with the nonexistence of that right

Like I have said repeatedly ALL you have done is prove that people are openly going around ignoring rights. This is NOT the same as saying that there is an explicit legal stance that those rights do not exist at all.
To put it in legal terms you are conflating de facto justifications and de jure ones.
De facto violations are ones that occur, regardless of their legality and are allowed because of things like public support, or antipathy to prosecution
De jure violations though are actually legally enshrined in the law such as slavery laws.

There is, with out a doubt a de facto absence of civil rights for Aliens. No one is arguing that.
What you have NOT proven is that there is a de jure one. That needs actually citations. You can't just point to a de facto situation and say that because it eixists that it is legal. De facto situations can (and often are) de jure illegal... they just are not prosecuted until after the fact (the classic example here are war crimes)

Now... can you provide evidence that this is de jure?
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Pepsi Jedi
Palladin
Posts: 6955
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:11 am
Comment: 24 was the start... We are Legion.
Location: Northern Gun

Re: Hate crimes definition

Unread post by Pepsi Jedi »

eliakon wrote:
Spoiler:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:You should read the indicated sections.

eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Did you miss the part where there's agencies that activly hunt them down, exceeding legal authority, and not careing about whom they hurt or kill in doing so to beat up, capture, imprison, interrogate on, experiment on and hold indefinately with out trial or representation, at their digression?

I'm not being a smartass here. I'm honestly asking, because that indicates they have no rights.

Ummm what part of 'exceeding legal authority' proves that the law is on their side?


They're a sponsored and popular governmental agency. They operate openly in the execution of their charter and duties. This proves that law is on their side.

Err no. When you are violating your legal authority then you do NOT have the law on your side. You may have public opinion on your side but that is different. The KKK had public opinion on their side and operated openly, that did not mean they were legal

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:


Pepsi Jedi wrote:If they had rights, they would not be subject to....

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being hunted,
Being accosted and beaten up by governmental officals (Or civillians in mobs)

Like lynchings?


No. The US Government does it via the before mentioned Agency. That's why it's clear that aliens, in HU don't share the rights of humans.

Again demonstrating that someone is being Lynched does not prove the Lynching is legal.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being captured, and taken against their will (Kidnapping)
Being detained. (unlawful inprisonment)
Being held with out trial.
Being questioned with out legal representation (interrogation)



Good thing that no one ever arrested blacks in the south for "breathing while black" during the civil rights era


Good thing HU Isn't set during the civil rights era or you might have partially a point, but no. Not really, as it would more prove the point than anything. Reguardless. HU isn't set in the civil rights era and all the above is done by the US governmental agents. They're not locked up for doing their jobs, thus it's legal for them to do, which indicates that the aliens don't share the rights of humans, in HU.

It doesn't MATTER when HU is set. The point is that we can point to multiple examples of the exact same behavior in our history where we know that the victims had rights that were being deliberately ignored by the State. That demonstrates that simply ingnoring the rights of a person does not prove that those rights do not exist.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
And its a good thing that the US didn't run Internment Camps for Japanese Americans in WWII


HU is also not set during WWII, and that is currently seen as one of the darkest elements of our history and universially accepted as wrong. Well almost universally. Someone running for office in a couple of days might be down for it, but for the most part that was seen as wrong, and a human rights violation.

Again it doesn't matter when HU is set. The point is that HU is set during a period when the government is doing something. In the future the actions may be seen as being as dark or darker than the internment camps. Or put another way. In a game set in WWII you could not argue that the Japanese Americans had no rights. You could argue that their rights were being ignored but they still had them. Same thing here.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being experimented on. (Assault and battery)

Tuskegee experiment? Look it up


I don't need to look it up. I know all about Tuskegee, it would be currently against the law. Because people have broken the law, it's not indicative that the law didn't exist.
That was also... 84-44 years ago.

In 1974 Congress passed the National Research Act, and created a commission to make regulations governing the studies etc. The OHRP was established. Studies now require informed consent and have review boards and the like.

So.. again Not valid in the HU setting. You're speaking of things that happened in the past that are currently illegal and would get people locked up if they did them.

Your deliberately missing the point. The actions that were done in the past were illegal. They violated the rights of those people at the time they were done. The victims had rights that were ignored they victims did NOT have no rights. THAT is the point that is important here. The situation right now is the EXACT SAME ONE. The current situation is just as illegal, and just as horrific and likely to eventually be seen as such... but right NOW the people are commiting the crimes because they don't feel that they have to follow the laws. During Tuskegee black people had a right to not be murdered, the doctors though felt that since they were 'only blacks' that they didn't really have that right. HUGE difference.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being killed with out trial (Murder, as no nation has a formal declaration of 'war' on aliens.)

Lynching again thanks


Lynching is illegal.

I'm speaking of the US government, and it's agencies doing so to the aliens 'legally'.

I am sure that all the people that the US government/agents thereof has extra-judicially killed, or had sentenced to death in unfair courts, or had exterminated as threats to the citizenry are very happy to know that it was illegal and never happened.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Being enslaved. (Held in prision unless they agree to do that govenrment's bidding as a member of their super team etc)

That isn't what the word 'enlaved' means...


It's not? Lets see shall we?

Slave: 1: A person that is the property of and wholly subject to another; A bound servant
2: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.

If you capture and imprison someone and give them one option. To work for you, or to stay in prison, how does that not make them entierly under the domination of some influence or person?

If you have the control to give them that choice, are they not your bound servant? Faced with imprisonment or subjection? Thus.. Slavery?

If you make them a slave.. you have thus, ENSLAVED THEM.

Yes... that's what the word means.

Then I am glad to know that the entire population of the US is slaves. (since they are e
By your definition
Oh, and the entire Military during WWI, WWII and Vietnam was slave labor and thus pure evil
Or perhaps in trying to reach to far your being overly broad?
Because no, holding a person prisoner and offering a work program as a parole is not slavery even if the work program is military in nature.
Especially since you have not demonstrated that the people in these work programs ARE slaves. (see below)

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
...but its a good thing that there wasn't a 442 regimental combat team in WWII that was the only option for Japanese Americans to get out of the camps...


And already covered above, but again. We're not in WWII are we? The "setting" of HU is modern times, though you could argue it's 1980s. Which still wouldn't be WWII by quite a stretch.

Again you can't just ignore the fact that we have precedents that demonstrate that actions have already been done and NOT taken away rights. That is what the word precedent means. If we already know that you can hold someone in an internment camp and only allow parole under military service, because it has been done AND we know that those people were not slaves, AND that the people so held had rights... we can pretty safely assume that if the exact same thing is done again in the future that it will not suddenly turn them into slaves with no civil rights.



Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:So.... I'm curious as to what 'right' you think aliens have that's not really covered by the above. Or if they have rights, how all of the above are done in gross violation of the law. That's from ther US. Not some crazy Putin russia or something. The 'good guys' do that stuff. The bad guys likely more.

Seriously if you can do all of the above, with out ending up on death row for it, or life in prison yourself. What rights do the aliens have?

And not to be a smart ass here but
Have you READ about what they were doing to blacks in the south during the civil rights era?


Yes..... and thus has been deemed illegal since then. If you do such things you go to jail. They would be considered human rights violations. They were crimes, and are crimes still. The fact that they happened in history doesn't mean that black people don't currently have rights in our society. Rights that are withheld from Aliens in HU.

And again the point is that just because people were doing it didn't make it legal did it?
Just because the KKK was openly lynching blacks didn't mean that those blacks had no rights. Even if they were not allowed to exercise those rights.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
About what the US government has done to Native Americans, or the Japanese Americans in WWII?


As stated above. We're not in WWII, and those would be crimes. I'm not saying humanity has never been aholes to one another. Clearly they have, but you're saying because things happend 50-100+ years ago, those same people don't have rights today? they do.

Your still missing the point.
The aliens are not in a unique situation. They are in a common situation that has occurred over and over in human history, heck it has several incarnations in just the United States. Thus we can go look at how it has been handled in our history to see what the legal status would be. The legal status of those previous events tell us what the legal status of this event is. Since in none of the previous events were the people actually legally stripped of their rights and relegated to non-right status by their treatment it follows that the treatment of the aliens would not do this either.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:

I mean by this logic Blacks, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, et multiple cetera have no civil rights because they have been mistreated...


And at varying points in history they didn't. But they do now.

You're trying to say that because people were abused and treated as not having rights in the past thaty they don't currently.

The points in time I was pointing to though they DID legally have those rights. They may not have been allowed to use them but legally they did have them.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:I'm pointing out that they DO have rights currently, but the Aliens do not.

And I am pointing out that you have not done any such thing. You have only shown that Aliens are not allowed to use rights. There is a big difference.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:At some point in HU's future, they might GIVE Aliens on earth, human rights, but as of now, they do not currently possess them. Time matters. Setting matters. The "Default" setting for HU is current (or 1980s if you go by publication)

Again your making an assumption that is not supported by the book. The rights issue is not, as far as I know, not explicitly settled one way or another. We can safely say that they are not treated as having rights, but you have not proven that they do not HAVE those rights. There is a huge difference.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:

...and since we KNOW this is false it suggests that any argument predicated on the exact same case would be equally false.


No, because your assumption is based on humanity not experiencing the passage of time. Which, it does. Dr Strange, you're not. :)

Umm you are aware of what the word 'precedent' means right?
The precedent is that simply ignoring peoples rights does not mean they do not exist. I am not saying that people do not experience the passage of time at all, so your snarky response is a total non sequitur. What I am saying is that we can look at how identical situations were handled in the past and draw a conclusion about how an identical situation will be handled in the present.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Not having your rights respected is MUCH different than having the law explicitly say you do not have those rights.
You have proven the first yes. You have done zero to prove the second.


I have proven the second. You're addressing CRIMES and violations and times in history when the people you're referencing, did not infact 'have' rights via the law. It sucks, but the past sucked for that sort of thing. We're a little better now. (Still working on it)

The 'fact' is that as written, Aliens currently have no rights in HU, otherwise the actions of the US government would be ..... A (Sentient being?) Rights violation, as... they're doing all the above listed crimes in violations of the 'Rights' You're assuming that the aliens are granted.

The actions above are public. They're not ultra secret. The agency is even popular for doing them. Thus they're not hidden. The people know. These things are happening and noone's calling the US and other governments out for rights violations (Of the aliens) Therefore, in setting, there are no 'rights' being violated.

Thus.. clearly in HU, aliens are not afforded "Human Rights".

If it's "legal" for the government to openly Kidnap, detain, interrogate, hold with out trial, torture, experiment upon and ultimately enslave or kill aliens..... then clearly Aliens are not afforded the same rights as you or I.

No you have not proven anything
Those crimes of the past? Yeah, its the exact same situation today in HU. A crime is a crime... even if its popular and publicly condoned.
In WWII the government officially and publicly interned the Japanese. The Citizenry of the US was behind the program. The courts upheld it.
It was totally 100% a violation of their rights and illegal... but that didn't mean that it didn't happen.
Trying to argue that just because something is an official public program that is publicly supported means that it is legal... well
Hey lets go to today.
Enhanced Interrogation torture of terrorism suspects (not even convicts, just people that MIGHT be a terrorist, or just know something about them) was an official US government program for years. It was openly run, and a rather large majority of US citizens were supporters of it for years.
That doesn't mean that it was legal, or that those victims of it were not having their rights violated in systematic ways, or that the people responsible were not criminals. Just that no one cares enough to do anything about it. Maybe someday we will care enough to go back and redress the situation. maybe someday our government will issue a formal apology, maybe someday we will hold trials and hold people accountable... but in the mean time we can not simply claim that those rights ceased to exist because they were violated.


The problem here is two fold
First you are ignoring precedent by trying to claim that past examples don't matter because they are in the past
The past is important because by showing us how identical situations were handled it tells us how this situation will be handled. By telling us the status of rights in the past we can infer the status of rights in the present. [/quote]

If you bring up times past, when not everyone HAD THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS, and point to it as 'proof' you need to understand the time frame and setting you're pointing to.

If you point to the treatment of african american's before the civil rights movement, you're not making your point, you're making mine. If they didn't have the same rights and were abused, that's crediting my side of the debate. Not your own.

If you point to things that 'Used' to be legal, but are legal no longer, you're not making your point. You're pointing to reasons why things are currently NOT LEGAL.

If they're NOT LEGAL TO DO, and they're being done to Aliens. that tells you that the aliens don't have the same rights as humans in HU

eliakon wrote:

and Second you are conflating breaking a right with the nonexistence of that right.


No. I'm saying if the things are being done 'legaly and openly by the government" then there's a non existance there. There's no indication that the government is breaking it's own laws pertaining to this. Nor is there indication that aliens HAVE been given rights on earth in HU

eliakon wrote:

Like I have said repeatedly ALL you have done is prove that people are openly going around ignoring rights. This is NOT the same as saying that there is an explicit legal stance that those rights do not exist at all


Of course it proves it.

If the rights existed, then the governmental agencies wouldn't be breaking them openly, with impunity. It would mention some where that the actions were illegal. It does not. Therefore they must be legal in HU and thus... aliens have no rights.

eliakon wrote:
To put it in legal terms you are conflating de facto justifications and de jure ones.
De facto violations are ones that occur, regardless of their legality and are allowed because of things like public support, or antipathy to prosecution
De jure violations though are actually legally enshrined in the law such as slavery laws.


I'm not confusing them at all. There is no indication what so ever that the governmental agencies are breaking their own laws when they do this. That would be needed for your claims to be true.

eliakon wrote:
There is, with out a doubt a de facto absence of civil rights for Aliens. No one is arguing that.
What you have NOT proven is that there is a de jure one. That needs actually citations. You can't just point to a de facto situation and say that because it eixists that it is legal. De facto situations can (and often are) de jure illegal... they just are not prosecuted until after the fact (the classic example here are war crimes)

Now... can you provide evidence that this is de jure?


The actions are performed openly with out one notation of illegality, and are shown to be common for the government. For your claims to be true there would need to be indication that the policies were against the law. Which there are not. The only conclusion that can be made, is that they are in fact 'legal', and as such, that Aliens do not possess the same rights on earth that humans do.

Again. If they had rights, they would not be subject to....

Being hunted,
Being accosted and beaten up by governmental officals (Or civillians in mobs)
Being captured, and taken against their will (Kidnapping)
Being detained. (unlawful inprisonment)
Being held with out trial.
Being questioned with out legal representation (interrogation)
Being experimented on. (Assault and battery)
Being killed with out trial (Murder, as no nation has a formal declaration of 'war' on aliens.)
Being enslaved. (Held in prision unless they agree to do that govenrment's bidding as a member of their super team etc)


Not by 'common people breaking the law' but by active and open governmental actions that do all of the above.

Both can't be true.
You can't claim 1) that they have rights and 2) That it's legal to hunt them, assault them, batter them, kidnap them, unlawfully imprison them, detain them with out trial, question them with out representations, experiment on them against their will, murder them, and or enslave them.

if they have rights, those things couldn't be done legally by the government.

Thus.. you are clearly wrong.
Image

Lt. Nyota Uhura: I'm impressed. For a moment there, I thought you were just a dumb hick who only has sex with farm animals.

James Tiberius Kirk: Well, not _only_...