Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION => THE COFFEE HOUSE ((( SOCIAL - ROOM ))) => Topic started by: Kathyp on May 23, 2017, 07:04:43 pm

Title: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Kathyp on May 23, 2017, 07:04:43 pm
First we have rewritten the history of the civil war.  Now we have removed the monuments to those who fought in it on the side of the south. 
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: jvalentour on May 23, 2017, 08:26:05 pm
There is a certain segment of the population, who's right to be important supercedes others right to exist.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Hops Brewster on May 23, 2017, 08:30:51 pm
The democrats are trying to erase their own history so that you can't see they haven't changed, except from promoting slavery to the planters to promoting slavery to the government elite.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: herbhome on May 23, 2017, 10:25:47 pm
The democrats are trying to erase their own history so that you can't see they haven't changed, except from promoting slavery to the planters to promoting slavery to the government elite.

Actually an intrigueing concept, Hops.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: beecanbee on May 23, 2017, 10:58:00 pm
Fairly common for the victors to write the history...
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: MikeyN.C. on May 24, 2017, 10:31:00 am
You have to do alot of reading an research to get the real story.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Michael Bush on May 24, 2017, 11:55:22 am
Healines like: "Robert E. Lee statue is final monument ?celebrating white supremacy" "

Apparently they don't know anything about Robert E. Lee...
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: jvalentour on May 25, 2017, 12:18:23 am
Apparently they don't know anything about Robert E. Lee...

Agreed.
Not in the public school history books.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: tycrnp on May 25, 2017, 12:58:37 am
It's just sad.   :sad:
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: sawdstmakr on May 25, 2017, 01:55:53 pm
It is more than sad, it is wrong. And the democratic party that demanded slavery is the ones covering it up and acting like it was the Republican party's doing.
Jim
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Michael Bush on May 25, 2017, 04:05:15 pm
> And the democratic party that demanded slavery is the ones covering it up and acting like it was the Republican party's doing.

Yes.  I find that interesting.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: bwallace23350 on May 26, 2017, 09:51:01 am
Lee was an honorable and tragic man. If only the world could produce more men like Lee.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Eric Bosworth on May 26, 2017, 12:26:19 pm
I find the whole idea of slavery abhorrent. The reason that it is abhorrent is because it denies civil rights.
So my confusion is based on the concept that if the denial of civil rights to slaves is so bad then why isn't the denial of free speech just as bad? This idea of "safe spaces" and the that there is no right to "hate speech" is just as abhorrent as slavery. What I really don't understand is how these people who think that hate speech should be banned can't believe that the only successful method to fight it is with more speech.

Then again... What do I know... I live in a state with a US senator that claims that the world is coming to an end every time the president says anything. Chuckie seems to be more up in arms over things that the president says that I agree with. I guess that sums up the reason I hate the government... I want to  live my life without interference from the government... Chuckie wants me to work for the government...
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: beecanbee on May 26, 2017, 06:10:18 pm
One serious problem with hate speech is that it encourages or emboldens illegal harmful physical action by some, who otherwise would not take that action.  Hate speech would likely be moderated if the speaker/influencer was also charged for the physical crime under conspiracy laws.  The `hater` could still say whatever he wanted, given the freedom to speech, but pay the same penalty as the criminal actor if it could be shown that his speech/blog/book/etc. likely influenced the criminal.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: iddee on May 26, 2017, 07:51:05 pm
beecan, would you agree that the same would extend to movie producers, directors, and stars?
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: beecanbee on May 26, 2017, 08:29:19 pm
beecan, would you agree that the same would extend to movie producers, directors, and stars?

Of course, but please do expand upon this question if you can.  Is it a matter of degree, maybe time since `influence` or maybe time since the hate speach occured, etc.?
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Michael Bush on May 26, 2017, 10:02:45 pm
Alabama just made it a crime to remove Confederate monuments.. :)
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: sawdstmakr on May 27, 2017, 12:30:44 am
Finally, a state that has the balls to stand up to this politically correct garbage. I'll bet they would not have been able to do that I Trump was not the Preston
Jim
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: tycrnp on May 27, 2017, 12:48:24 am
Alabama just made it a crime to remove Confederate monuments.. :)
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: jvalentour on May 27, 2017, 02:33:07 am
One serious problem with hate speech is that it encourages or emboldens illegal harmful physical action by some, who otherwise would not take that action.  Hate speech would likely be moderated if the speaker/influencer was also charged for the physical crime under conspiracy laws.  The `hater` could still say whatever he wanted, given the freedom to speech, but pay the same penalty as the criminal actor if it could be shown that his speech/blog/book/etc. likely influenced the criminal.  Beecan

The problem with moderators is bias.  Who decides what is hate speech and what is reasonable.  I say Brian Cardinal spews hate speech, but, he has the right to say it.  Not on a private forum, if the owners decide, but in public, whenever and wherever he chooses.  As long as he does no harm. 

The US government has no right to moderate my, or other free speech.  In Europe that is not true.  You can be silenced by the government easily for warming comments, anti-islamic comments, pro nazi comments. 
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: beecanbee on May 27, 2017, 03:28:00 am
One serious problem with hate speech is that it encourages or emboldens illegal harmful physical action by some, who otherwise would not take that action.  Hate speech would likely be moderated if the speaker/influencer was also charged for the physical crime under conspiracy laws.  The `hater` could still say whatever he wanted, given the freedom to speech, but pay the same penalty as the criminal actor if it could be shown that his speech/blog/book/etc. likely influenced the criminal.  Beecan

The problem with moderators is bias.  Who decides what is hate speech and what is reasonable.  I say Brian Cardinal spews hate speech, but, he has the right to say it.  Not on a private forum, if the owners decide, but in public, whenever and wherever he chooses.  As long as he does no harm. 

The US government has no right to moderate my, or other free speech.  In Europe that is not true.  You can be silenced by the government easily for warming comments, anti-islamic comments, pro nazi comments.

I didn`t suggest a moderator - just legal co-responsibility for crimes committed on the basis of speech that encourages those crimes.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: Kathyp on May 28, 2017, 11:09:52 pm
Quote
One serious problem with hate speech is that it encourages or emboldens illegal harmful physical action by some, who otherwise would not take that action.  Hate speech would likely be moderated if the speaker/influencer was also charged for the physical crime under conspiracy laws.  The `hater` could still say whatever he wanted, given the freedom to speech, but pay the same penalty as the criminal actor if it could be shown that his speech/blog/book/etc. likely influenced the criminal.

  If it can be shown that you incited behavior that is criminal or damaging it can already be charged.  Anything other than that is trying to make one person responsible for the behavior choices of another.  That's nuts. 
If I say I hate cats and I think everyone should hate cats, then my neighbor goes and kills a bunch of cats, I am not responsible for his choice. 

conspiracy requires 2 or more people to plan or act together.  If someone acts on what they hear and they are not directed to act, or the act is not planned,  it is not a conspiracy.
Title: Re: The removal of confederate monuments
Post by: beecanbee on May 29, 2017, 01:41:18 am
... conspiracy requires 2 or more people to plan or act together.  If someone acts on what they hear and they are not directed to act, or the act is not planned,  it is not a conspiracy. 

Agreed - that is the way the law works today.  But my suggestion is to expand that - to cover cases where it can be demonstrated that the criminal has been embolden to take action based upon hate speech.  For example, at a hate rally (KKK, anti Muslim, anti government, etc.), speaker says - Go out there and kill some xyz`s, or prints the same in their blog, newsletter, etc., and a criminal or mentally deficient person does exactly that, and it is shown that the criminal read or heard that admonition, and it is reasonable to presume that they would not have acted had they not read or heard - EVEN tho said speaker/writer and said criminal never directly spoke together, nor planned together - THEN I would include said speaker/writer within the conspiracy.  Claiming no responsibility due to free speech, IMO, is nonsense.