Nobody is "excluded" in being covered by hate crime legislation.
Whites can be victims of hate crimes.
Straights can be victims of hate crimes.
Christians can be victims of hate crimes.

If you look at the FBI statistics, you can see that convictions exist for those circumstances as well.
Table 1 - Hate Crime Statistics 2005

A hate crimes case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, in which a unanimous court ruling established hate crimes were constitutional. involved black offenders and a white victim.

To say that people are "excluded" by hate crime legislation is like saying a "manslaughter" victim was not "covered" by murder legislation.


There was some talk regarding recognizing gross xenophobia or homophobia as mental illnesses. I think the gist was that it had to impair a person's life to the point it made them unable to function in normal society.

Another form of that attempt is the "gay panic" defense, which has been unilaterally rejected. The idea that somebody is so panicked over being hit upon by a gay person that it invokes violence.
I guess if it were legit, girls could use it for guys too then maybe...

From Wikipedia:

This article is about the book by Truman Capote. For other uses, see In Cold Blood (disambiguation).
''In Cold Blood: A True Account of a Multiple Murder and Its Consequences'' Author Truman Capote Original title IN COLD BLOOD Country United States Language English Genre(s) Novel Publisher Vintage Publication date 1965 Media type Print (Hardback and Paperback), e-book, audio-CD Pages 343 pp (Paperback edition) ISBN ISBN 0-679-74558-0 (Paperback edition) In Cold Blood is a 1965 book by American author Truman Capote.
It details the 1959 slaying of Herbert Clutter, a wealthy farmer from Holcomb, Kansas, his wife, and two children. When Capote learned of the quadruple murders before the killers were captured, he decided to travel to Kansas and write about the crime.

When I think about responding to you, I realize I will be saying the EXACT same things I have already told you. Nothing new.
You were too stupid to remember the last time I answered your question.

The "necessity" for hate crime legislation is that a majority in society want it, and in a democraticly governed society, the majority should get constitutional legislation.
The laws are "necessary" because a majority already want them.

And I've explained that to you before.

And part of the boring part of all this is that you don't even try to deny that nobody is excluded and everybody is included.
But in later posts, you'll claim the opposite, ignoring the last time you were proven wrong 'cause you're too 'tupid to remember.

If you're too stupid to remember the last several dozen times I told you, you're too stupid to talk to.

Apparently you've forgotten our response the last few times you trotted out this wholly irrelevant response:

1: Just because a majority supposedly want this superflous legislation doesn't make it right

2. Why do you reject this "majority rules" principle when it comes to homosexual marriage?

3. What about all the groups who are excluded from this preferential legislation?

When you can respond cogently and civilly to these points then go ahead.

If you actually allow him to bait you into repeating things for the dozenth time, I'm going to lose all respect for you.

Feh. Not gonna happen this time around.
Especially since the answer to his #2 question WAS IN THE VERY POST HE RESPONDED TO.

A lot of his junk isn't even an argument.

Again, if ANYBODY who isn't trolling thinks he has a point, I'll respond.
Otherwise, I'm not going to waste any more time on that idiot today.

"There was some talk regarding recognizing gross xenophobia or homophobia as mental illnesses. I think the gist was that it had to impair a person's life to the point it made them unable to function in normal society."

I don't think xenophobia and its various cousins (racism, homophobia) are themselves mental illness. They are social problems. Usually learned from parents. If little junior's first memories are of Daddy talking about "them damn queears, and ju-eews and neeegras," well then, obviously that's going to twist his little world view in negative directions.
But, I think taking that to the level of sadistic violence could involve some disorders in some cases.

Another form of that attempt is the "gay panic" defense, which has been unilaterally rejected. The idea that somebody is so panicked over being hit upon by a gay person that it invokes violence.
I guess if it were legit, girls could use it for guys too then maybe...

Oh, sure, I agree. That's stupid. Personally, I've had gay guys hit on me only a couple of times. Really, it wasn't bothersome; little flattering, maybe, but no big deal.

But, to use that reasoning, I guess I could also use a "gross chick" defense. Because there's been a couple of times rather gross chicks have made advances toward me. So if I "panicked" and beat the crap out of one of them.. it wasn't really my fault, now, was it?

You guys just so aren't getting what a hate crime is.

Do you need tristan to repost the definition?

And by the same reasoning, a lesbian should be free to beat the crap out of every guy who comes on to her.

It is ridiculous. Unless someone is trying to rape or otherwise assault you, unwanted romantic or sexual come-ons deserve a stern, "no thank you!" not violence.