And YOU'VE completely failed -- to say ANYTHING.... This is what usually happens when liberal Leftists run out of both spew and facts.... Question: how would YOU like for an obnoxious nagger to interrupt YOUR dinner tonight...? If the naggers did do this, would YOU tell them that "they failed"...? Hint: yes, there are 'white naggers', too!
Since the word is used billions of times a day, mostly by the people who claim to be offended by it, then I say it should just be another word we can all use. There is no shortage of words we can't say because it might offend someone on the left, but there is no shortage of words they can't use against those they hate. Name one word that's not allowed to be used on white people.
When you say Asian, are you referring to Japanese, Indians, Russians or Iranians? Orientals is perfectly descriptive just like Middle Easterners is perfectly descriptive. Why is Jap bad, but Brit, Pole and Aussie good?
I don't use any of the tasteless descriptions like (kaffer and ******) - shock horror.... surely the so called racist would use these words nope... I don't but it's my choice not to.
This turns out not to be the case. In fact, the effect makes the crime. There was a case last year where a man fatally shot a kid trying to steal his car. the boy's friends were charged with felony murder. Obviously there was no intent on their part to kill the boy.
I'm pretty sure it's the effect that makes the crime. To cite another example, Trump's actions that led to his impeachment had bad intent behind them, but didn't break any laws.
It can be either. Sometimes the intent doesn't matter, but it usually does. That the impeachment failed means a failure to convict, not that he didn't break laws, which he most assuredly did.
Not really. I can't think of a crime in which intent matters other than attempted murder. Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute doesn't really address intent; it is an assessment made based on the amount of dope on the suspect. I didn't see anything in the articles of impeachment that accused Trump of a crime. They seemed to be about him being a bad person. For the record, I am no Trump partisan.
Its not a free country. When I worked security, we got called to a fight at an employee dorm where a Native American called an African American the n word in an argument over the TV. The African American responded by beating the Native American with a 'rock in a sock.' When Federal LE showed up (it was in a Nat. Park), they took the Native American to jail for a hate crime, after rendering first aid for his wounds, of course. Thats why that option is not an option.
"Under the common law there are two general categories of crimes referred to as specific and general intent crimes. All crimes have two key parts known as the "actus reus" and the "mens rea". The actus reus refers to the requisite act of crime, and the "mens rea" refers to the requisite mental element of the crime. The main difference between specific and general intent crimes comes down to the "actus reus" and "mens rea" components of each crime. Specific intent crimes require the individual to have a desire to commit the act, as well as, an intent to achieve a specific result. Comparably, general intent crimes, you need only intend to commit an act which the law makes criminal. Meaning, you can be convicted of a general intent crime just by committing the crime." https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/specific-and-general-intent-crimes.html
I could not vote in your poll. The word is acceptable without limitations. It's covered by the First Amendment. Those who censor it cannot call themselves Americans.
It would definitely be weird for a white guy to call another white guy a (banned word). If one white is playing on the stereotypes of black people, he would call the white guy a wigger. But, the problem there is that modern whites are taking on those stereotypes today and are even worse than the black stereotype. So, the terminology is rather meaningless. It's just a freaking word.
According to the article you cited, a criminal act is still an essential component of the crime as well as the intent.
Option 8: only Blacks can use it... Various ointments and salves available for white butts should they feel inconvenienced
It's an old legal maxim that's talking about specific intent crimes. The problem is not with the maxim.
The problem is with the idea it is false to fact. Intent to commit a crime is not a crime. However, it is possible to commit crimes without intending to. I googled your maxim and couldn't find it. can you show me where it is?
Americans of Asian descent don't like it. If you read a lot of old stuff, and I do, oriental is a lovely old word. But American-Asians have rather different memories of it.
Actually, intent can be a crime. I don't know why you are making an issue of this, there is simply no controversy here. "Intent is defined in law by the ruling in R v Mohan ([1976] QB 1) as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence." A range of words represents shades of intent in criminal laws around the world. The mental element, or mens rea, of murder, for example, is traditionally expressed as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "willful" vary between pure intent and recklessness or negligence,[citation needed] depending on the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed and the seriousness of the offence. The intent element of a crime, such as intent to kill, may exist without a malicious motive, or even with a benevolent motive, such as in the case of euthanasia.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)
Once again, intent must be followed by a criminal act for there to have been a crime. The reason I am making an issue is that you are spreading false info. Leaving the way open to thought police.
