Well, how does fucking in public compare to putting a Confederate flag on the grave of a Confederate soldier? That's not exactly going out of your way to be offensive.Bertster7 wrote:
This is what it all boils down to.
No one is banning insulting Islam. There are laws in place in many European countries banning inciting racial or religious hatred. That's very different to banning insulting Islam. All such laws in place in the UK (I'm not so familiar with the laws of other European countries) cover all religions.
We are not really talking about banning stuff here anyway. You are not making the important distinction between banning things and imposing restrictions on things. People find sex offensive, obviously sex isn't illegal, but doing it in public is. Do you oppose that as an infringement of your right to fuck wherever you want? How far do you want to go?
That was a fairly extreme example, but you take my point.Turquoise wrote:
Well, how does fucking in public compare to putting a Confederate flag on the grave of a Confederate soldier? That's not exactly going out of your way to be offensive.Bertster7 wrote:
This is what it all boils down to.
No one is banning insulting Islam. There are laws in place in many European countries banning inciting racial or religious hatred. That's very different to banning insulting Islam. All such laws in place in the UK (I'm not so familiar with the laws of other European countries) cover all religions.
We are not really talking about banning stuff here anyway. You are not making the important distinction between banning things and imposing restrictions on things. People find sex offensive, obviously sex isn't illegal, but doing it in public is. Do you oppose that as an infringement of your right to fuck wherever you want? How far do you want to go?
Some things are deemed socially unacceptable. Perhaps having Confederate flags on graves is becoming one of those things. Public opinion and therefore what is socially acceptable changes, these things are not set in stone. In some instances legislation also needs to change to account for this.
Maybe this is one of those instances and maybe not. That is for the forum of public opinion to decide.
I would like to make one small point here that's important.Bertster7 wrote:
That was a fairly extreme example, but you take my point.Turquoise wrote:
Well, how does fucking in public compare to putting a Confederate flag on the grave of a Confederate soldier? That's not exactly going out of your way to be offensive.Bertster7 wrote:
This is what it all boils down to.
No one is banning insulting Islam. There are laws in place in many European countries banning inciting racial or religious hatred. That's very different to banning insulting Islam. All such laws in place in the UK (I'm not so familiar with the laws of other European countries) cover all religions.
We are not really talking about banning stuff here anyway. You are not making the important distinction between banning things and imposing restrictions on things. People find sex offensive, obviously sex isn't illegal, but doing it in public is. Do you oppose that as an infringement of your right to fuck wherever you want? How far do you want to go?
Some things are deemed socially unacceptable. Perhaps having Confederate flags on graves is becoming one of those things. Public opinion and therefore what is socially acceptable changes, these things are not set in stone. In some instances legislation also needs to change to account for this.
Maybe this is one of those instances and maybe not. That is for the forum of public opinion to decide.
The OP mentions that the councilman was reacting according to the complaints of a few people. A few complaints do not constitute a majority. The same is true with the restrictions that are being placed on speech in Europe.
What both Europe and America ought to do if they really see these things as a major issue is to have referendums. Then, and only then, will you actually have the justification for saying something is offensive to the majority.
Until then, it would seem that it only takes a few complainers to get the government to do something, which is NOT democracy in action.
I can sympathize with majority rule, but I can't sympathize with this sort of thing.
I agree that it should definitely be majority rule, although I don't think referendums are necessary. If something is not clear cut enough as to require a referendum then perhaps it should not be restricted.Turquoise wrote:
I would like to make one small point here that's important.Bertster7 wrote:
That was a fairly extreme example, but you take my point.Turquoise wrote:
Well, how does fucking in public compare to putting a Confederate flag on the grave of a Confederate soldier? That's not exactly going out of your way to be offensive.
Some things are deemed socially unacceptable. Perhaps having Confederate flags on graves is becoming one of those things. Public opinion and therefore what is socially acceptable changes, these things are not set in stone. In some instances legislation also needs to change to account for this.
Maybe this is one of those instances and maybe not. That is for the forum of public opinion to decide.
The OP mentions that the councilman was reacting according to the complaints of a few people. A few complaints do not constitute a majority. The same is true with the restrictions that are being placed on speech in Europe.
What both Europe and America ought to do if they really see these things as a major issue is to have referendums. Then, and only then, will you actually have the justification for saying something is offensive to the majority.
Until then, it would seem that it only takes a few complainers to get the government to do something, which is NOT democracy in action.
I can sympathize with majority rule, but I can't sympathize with this sort of thing.
With regards to restrictions put on free speech in Europe, I have already tried to distinguish between this and legislation in place to avoid people being offended. The laws surrounding inciting racial and religious hatred are a very different case to this. This is an instance where it is in the best interests of the country to have these laws in place so that those causing trouble can be more easily dealt with (which I've worded very badly and makes it sound a bit sinister, but I don't believe it is) - it being particularly directed at imams inciting congregations to terrorism - Abu Hamza is an example of someone arrested under this legislation.
I agree that anything actually inciting violence or other illegal activity should be restricted or punished.Bertster7 wrote:
I agree that it should definitely be majority rule, although I don't think referendums are necessary. If something is not clear cut enough as to require a referendum then perhaps it should not be restricted.
With regards to restrictions put on free speech in Europe, I have already tried to distinguish between this and legislation in place to avoid people being offended. The laws surrounding inciting racial and religious hatred are a very different case to this. This is an instance where it is in the best interests of the country to have these laws in place so that those causing trouble can be more easily dealt with (which I've worded very badly and makes it sound a bit sinister, but I don't believe it is) - it being particularly directed at imams inciting congregations to terrorism - Abu Hamza is an example of someone arrested under this legislation.
I'm still very wary of any restrictions on what is deemed offensive, but I see where you're coming from.
That's the key mindset. Life's all about what you think.Macbeth wrote:
“It’s offensive to me,” he said. “To me, it represents the Ku Klux Klan and racism.”
A valid enough question, and deserving of my rambling answer:Mekstizzle wrote:
I never understood why all the southern american states are allowed to display all that confederate crap. You constantly deride the Germans and the Japanese whenever they do something that resembles or links to anything from their WW2 days, but you can't do the same to the people who do it in your own country from the Civil War days
Your civil war wasn't that long ago in a modern context
They're allowed to because of freedom of speech, expression and because that part of our history is almost impossible to whitewash. To some, the Confederate flag is a symbol of states rights rather than slavery. But comparing the US Civil War to WW2 is like comparing a propane torch to a regional forest fire.
The JMSDF still uses the sunburst flag and I don't hear many complaints about it in the states. A modified version is even seen in Red Alert 3. The swastika, on the other hand, is stigmatized despite its unrelated-to-Nazi-Germany origins, but is more heavily suppressed in Germany than the states (video game censorship being a good example). The hammer and sickle, on the other hand, holds ostalgic clout even in the States.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-04-25 15:27:47)
Lived in the South much, have you?Poseidon wrote:
Oooooh yes they do, FEOS. It's not highly prevalent but there are quite a number of people in the south who still believe it's going to happen.FEOS wrote:
People don't seriously think that...at least not in the sense of secession, the Civil War, and such.Poseidon wrote:
As long as these freaks stop thinking that the "South shall rise again", I'm fine with flags on the graves.
Got lots of family in the South, have you?
I've lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line for all but 6 years of my life...which is still probably twice as long as you've been alive. All of my family lives in the South. I think I know of what I speak, Poseidon.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, and yes.FEOS wrote:
Lived in the South much, have you?Poseidon wrote:
Oooooh yes they do, FEOS. It's not highly prevalent but there are quite a number of people in the south who still believe it's going to happen.FEOS wrote:
People don't seriously think that...at least not in the sense of secession, the Civil War, and such.
Got lots of family in the South, have you?
I've lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line for all but 6 years of my life...which is still probably twice as long as you've been alive. All of my family lives in the South. I think I know of what I speak, Poseidon.
And you've got to be very naive to think there isn't atleast a small pocket of people in the entire south that doesn't think the south is going to rise again.
Of course there is a very, very small minority that thinks that. You could put any position out on just about anything and find at least one person in the world who would agree with it. It's the whole "room full of chimps with typewriters" argument.Poseidon wrote:
No, and yes.FEOS wrote:
Lived in the South much, have you?Poseidon wrote:
Oooooh yes they do, FEOS. It's not highly prevalent but there are quite a number of people in the south who still believe it's going to happen.
Got lots of family in the South, have you?
I've lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line for all but 6 years of my life...which is still probably twice as long as you've been alive. All of my family lives in the South. I think I know of what I speak, Poseidon.
And you've got to be very naive to think there isn't atleast a small pocket of people in the entire south that doesn't think the south is going to rise again.
I was merely pointing out that, taken as a whole, the South does not think that way.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
SealXo wrote:
what does the confederate flag have to do with racism? For most of the war the Union had slaves, and their generals had slaves. The only reason they 'freed' the slaves is because they were getting their ass kicked and needed soldiers from somewhere. If the confederate were getting their asses kicked i think they would have done the same.xBlackPantherx wrote:
I think it was acceptable for him to remove the flags. The confederate flag stands for succession, racism and the confederate was a domestic enemy. I think it's fine as a joke (like on a shotglass or flask) but not in serious belief because with it most likely comes discrimination of many sorts.Macbeth wrote:
So you all agree it's perfectly acceptable to remove flags from graves because you don't agree with what the flag stands for?
- The south didn't want to give up slavery and didn't try to abolish it a many people in the south (even mid-US) are more racially inclined today ['including but not restricted to'].
- One, at what sustainable point was the north 'getting their asses kicked' by the south? True, the south did almost reach the Union capitol, but that was most certainly after the north started abolishing slavery. Besides, most of the battles took place on 'confederate' soil.
- Two, the south was and did get their 'asses kicked' (in case you didn't hear, the Union won). They still didn't try to free/use slaves.
- Lincoln and many northerners, including generals and officers, genuinely supported equal rights. Go watch the movie 'Glory" for some examples. Hell of a great movie. They didn't try to free slaves for more soldiers.
In my honest opinion, your post was very ill-informed and mislead.
Actually, where my friend moved to in Georgia, it happens to seem like it's a majority (yet not entirely outspoken) majority. "Location location location".FEOS wrote:
Of course there is a very, very small minority that thinks that. You could put any position out on just about anything and find at least one person in the world who would agree with it. It's the whole "room full of chimps with typewriters" argument.
I was merely pointing out that, taken as a whole, the South does not think that way.
Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-04-25 17:39:42)
Never said it (the South) did. Apologies if that's how what I said came across as.FEOS wrote:
I was merely pointing out that, taken as a whole, the South does not think that way.
The North suffered some pretty high losses by the end of the war. Roughly speaking, the North lost twice as many people as the South did. In general, the South had better generals as well.xBlackPantherx wrote:
One, at what sustainable point was the north 'getting their asses kicked' by the south? True, the south did almost reach the Union capitol, but that was most certainly after the north started abolishing slavery. Besides, most of the battles took place on 'confederate' soil.
The North won primarily by overwhelming forces and by cutting off the South's already limited resources. When it came to strategy, however, the South was generally superior.
Glory is highly inaccurate in its portrayal of the war. It is a good movie, but it's not a good source for historical record.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Lincoln and many northerners, including generals and officers, genuinely supported equal rights. Go watch the movie 'Glory" for some examples. Hell of a great movie. They didn't try to free slaves for more soldiers.
To give you an idea of how little the North cared about blacks, they refused to trade prisoners for their captured black soldiers.
You know the only reason the North won was because it had way more resources, men, and infrastructure.xBlackPantherx wrote:
[*] One, at what sustainable point was the north 'getting their asses kicked' by the south? True, the south did almost reach the Union capitol, but that was most certainly after the north started abolishing slavery. Besides, most of the battles took place on 'confederate' soil.
If you'd look at the causality rate a lot more northerners died than southerners. So if it hadn't been for that huge resource advantage the south would have likely won.
Freedom of speech does not protect the speech you love. It protects the speech you hate. Those people had every right to put those flags on their relatives' graves. Don't like it? Tough shit. That's the price of freedom.
Not according to this and this, among others. There is a relatively low difference between the number of casualties and, actually, the confederates had a higher ratio of soldiers hit per every 1000.Macbeth wrote:
You know the only reason the North won was because it had way more resources, men, and infrastructure.xBlackPantherx wrote:
[*] One, at what sustainable point was the north 'getting their asses kicked' by the south? True, the south did almost reach the Union capitol, but that was most certainly after the north started abolishing slavery. Besides, most of the battles took place on 'confederate' soil.
If you'd look at the causality rate a lot more northerners died than southerners. So if it hadn't been for that huge resource advantage the south would have likely won.
I'm not exactly sure where you get your information, but I assure you Glory is a true and historically accurate film. Of course, it is a movie and they weren't there at the time, so some smaller/personal details may be added/changed/stretched but it is academically and historically accurate.
From you own linkxBlackPantherx wrote:
Not according to this and this, among others. There is a relatively low difference between the number of casualties and, actually, the confederates had a higher ratio of soldiers hit per every 1000.Macbeth wrote:
You know the only reason the North won was because it had way more resources, men, and infrastructure.xBlackPantherx wrote:
[*] One, at what sustainable point was the north 'getting their asses kicked' by the south? True, the south did almost reach the Union capitol, but that was most certainly after the north started abolishing slavery. Besides, most of the battles took place on 'confederate' soil.
If you'd look at the causality rate a lot more northerners died than southerners. So if it hadn't been for that huge resource advantage the south would have likely won.
I'm not exactly sure where you get your information, but I assure you Glory is a true and historically accurate film. Of course, it is a movie and they weren't there at the time, so some smaller/personal details may be added/changed/stretched but it is academically and historically accurate.
Comparison of Union and CSA
Union CSA
Total population 22,000,000 (71%) 9,000,000 (29%)
Free population 21,567,414 5,500,000
1860 Border state slaves 432,586 NA
1860 Southern slaves NA 3,500,000
Soldiers 2,100,000 (67%) 1,064,000 (33%)
Railroad miles 21,788 (71%) 8,838 (29%)
Manufactured items 90% 10%
Firearm production 97% 3%
Bales of cotton in 1860 Negligible 4,500,000
Bales of cotton in 1864 Negligible 300,000
Pre-war U.S. exports 30% 70%
If you could field more men of course you'll get more hits.
MOAR
U.S. C.S.A.
Strength
2,100,000 1,064,000
Casualties and losses
110,000 killed in action 93,000 killed in action
360,000 total dead 260,000 total dead
275,200 wounded 137,000+ wounded
Seems the C.S.A managed to do pretty well with what they had.
Ok? They did comparatively well then. It still doesn't change my points or the fact it negates everything you've saidMacbeth wrote:
Seems the C.S.A managed to do pretty well with what they had.
Uh if it wasn't for the amount of resources the north had they would have lost because according to the causalities count even though they were outnumbered and under equipped to fight they still produced more causalities on the north then the north was able on them before the war was over, this goes to the fact that the south was better trained and had better leadership.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Ok? They did comparatively well then. It still doesn't change my points or the fact it negates everything you've saidMacbeth wrote:
Seems the C.S.A managed to do pretty well with what they had.
Yea and if Russia had 3 million less soldiers in WWI it probably wouldn't exist today since that was pretty much the only way they could help. It doesn't matter what could have happened. Which is what you're not getting; you keep going off 'if's and 'would have's.Macbeth wrote:
Uh if it wasn't for the amount of resources the north had they would have lost because according to the causalities count even though they were outnumbered and under equipped to fight they still produced more causalities on the north then the north was able on them before the war was over, this goes to the fact that the south was better trained and had better leadership.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Ok? They did comparatively well then. It still doesn't change my points or the fact it negates everything you've saidMacbeth wrote:
Seems the C.S.A managed to do pretty well with what they had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(film)xBlackPantherx wrote:
I'm not exactly sure where you get your information, but I assure you Glory is a true and historically accurate film. Of course, it is a movie and they weren't there at the time, so some smaller/personal details may be added/changed/stretched but it is academically and historically accurate.
Observe the history section of this page.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-04-26 06:00:15)
While hypotheticals don't change the outcome of a war or history, they are necessary in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a force.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Yea and if Russia had 3 million less soldiers in WWI it probably wouldn't exist today since that was pretty much the only way they could help. It doesn't matter what could have happened. Which is what you're not getting; you keep going off 'if's and 'would have's.Macbeth wrote:
Uh if it wasn't for the amount of resources the north had they would have lost because according to the causalities count even though they were outnumbered and under equipped to fight they still produced more causalities on the north then the north was able on them before the war was over, this goes to the fact that the south was better trained and had better leadership.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Ok? They did comparatively well then. It still doesn't change my points or the fact it negates everything you've said
The Confederate flag means Dukes of Hazard to me so I would have beat his ass if he messed with a Dukes of Hazard flag I put at MY* gravesite for a family member.
* Denotes ownership/Possesion
* Denotes ownership/Possesion
Confederate flag spurs argument that led to shooting
Right that racist totally got what was coming to him
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 … /904261055A Friday-night argument between two teenagers -- one white and one black -- over the Confederate flag ended with one in the hospital with a gunshot wound and the other in jail, facing felony charges.
The shooting occurred about 10:30 p.m. in downtown Sarasota near Links and Main streets. The site is across from the Hollywood 20 movie theater and is a popular nighttime gathering spot for teenagers.
According to police and eyewitness reports:
Michael J. Mitchell, 18, a student at the Sarasota Military Academy, was with a group of friends when Dan A. Azeff, also 18 and a student at Sarasota High School and Sarasota County Technical Institute, walked by with another group.
Azeff wore a hat with the Confederate symbol and carried a Confederate flag measuring about 5 feet by 3 feet.
Mitchell and a friend questioned Azeff about the hat and flag, asking if he was a racist. Azeff told them no, he was just exercising free speech.
The fight escalated and the groups exchanged racial slurs. Mitchell reportedly pulled out a handgun and shot Azeff once in the chest, then ran off.
Right that racist totally got what was coming to him
Do people really believe the war was fought over just slavery?
Unfortunately, yes. And our schools don't do much to teach the myriad of issues involved out of fear that it might make slavery seem like the sideshow issue that it was.AussieReaper wrote:
Do people really believe the war was fought over just slavery?
PC police strike again.
Last edited by FEOS (2009-04-26 19:33:39)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular