The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:32 pm

> They were outlawed as Hate Speech.

Obviously then the enforcement was insufficient. Had it not been, the Nazi leaders would have spent most of their time in prisons and the NSDAP would have been verboten.

Surprise, surprise: in order to work the law must be enforced.

> Yes, but to communicate/discuss/improve these ideas in your head you have to have Free Speech...spoken or written, heard or seen.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China given that the limits of free speech is exactly the issue under discussion?

>> Speech is action.
> Not in the legal sense which is the only relevant context.

We were obviously talking in a general sense and whether or not the legal sense should follow from that.

Saying what you said is both trivial (since it's the discussion of whether or not words should count as actions in the legal sense and hence an appeal to their alleged current legal status is begging the question) and only locally and conditionally true (e.g. not true in Europe).

> You would outlaw saying kill the jews but not denying the fact of their killing?

Obviously.

> Can you explain the distinction you draw?.

Shouldn't it rather be you explaining what is there remotely similar between the two?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:46 pm

mercy rule
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:03 pm

Just one non-sequitur following another and as SM is fond of saying: everything I post is quite trite and obvious. Should be easy to understand..........so assuming the obvious........I further assume a spoof. Not well done, the default position of someone who can't support what they say, which is really weak given its just an issue about preferences.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:08 pm

See, this is why I have bobbo on ignore.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:51 am

CHAPTER TWO:
Balsamo wrote:Bobo:
I don't track on how the history of the issue establishes the issue as anything but a values question. Your history explains, justifies, supports the Why of how the value is established. It is interesting that USA has a history of great atrocities.........but we don't admit them. No Nuremberg trial??????? Makes a big difference. But YES: History = experience = values. USA uniquely has a FIRST AMENDMENT THAT ENSHRINES FREE SPEECH. That IS my history..... my values.


Again, you like to make amalgams, to oversimplify things.
In order to accept the kind of simplification, like "History=experiences=values", we should supposed that there is a common history so to speak shared by every European individuals. Not that simple. Europe has the characteristic to have way too many cultures and history grouped in quite small territory.
It is also wrong that the USA uniquely has such an amendment as it was incuded in the French revolutionary "Declaration of Human rights" of 1789 (note that the first A had been added in 1791). And it is also to be found in the "Universal Declaration of Human rights" of 1948 (article 18, irrc").

As far as i know, Sergey's opinion is not based on purely personal opinion (how he defines its limit clearly IS, though), nor is it opinion of a personal or national history...If there is a value involved, that would be a legal one that is the very same "Universal declaration of human rights" not just taken at face value but in a way that...and that should sound nice to you...is pragmatic.
There is a common conclusion from countries that do not share common history or value that agree that ONE article granting a right (here article 18) cannot and should bot be used to justify actions that would put at risk ONE of or ALL the others articles of the very same declaration by over-extending one.


1. Again, you like to make amalgams, to oversimplify things. //// Hardly an amalgam, more an equivalency or a chain of causation? Trying to explain why this issue is a contest of VALUES which can be AS STATED explained, justified and supported by History BUT THAT DOESN’T CHANGE the fact that the issue is still a Values issue. Lets refer to my Bible, the dictionary:

Amalgam: a mixture of things. //// I made no mixture. If you disagree, name the ingredients.
Values: Beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something) /// Aren’t we discussing whether we are for or against Free Speech or for or against Hate Speech with the various subtleties and shades of meaning involved?
History: The aggregate of past events

So, I don’t see any “simplification” not that that is a bad thing. If you can’t explain a subject to a 12 year old in simple terms, you probably don’t understand the issue. Simplification is a goal, not a label to put on something and dismissed.

Rereading, I see you actually said “over simplification.” I agree, over and under should always be avoided. Let’s see if you explain what was over simplified and how that missed the key gravamen.

2. In order to accept the kind of simplification, like "History=experiences=values", we should supposed that there is a common history so to speak shared by every European individuals. Not that simple. Europe has the characteristic to have way too many cultures and history grouped in quite small territory. //// Read the definition: History is the AGGREGATE OF PAST EVENTS. Your post is an amalgam of correct statements when made in a vacuum and complete nonsense when put into the context of this discussion. Ie: YES: everyone’s experience is unique, but you inconsistently say legislation against hate speech is justified by the History of Europe. Everyones experience is unique but everyone’s History is that there was a WW2, oppression of Jews, Exterminations Camps and so forth. Amusing you would argue against your own premise.

3. It is also wrong that the USA uniquely has such an amendment as it was incuded in the French revolutionary "Declaration of Human rights" of 1789 (note that the first A had been added in 1791). And it is also to be found in the "Universal Declaration of Human rights" of 1948 (article 18, irrc"). /// Whatever was once declared has not been supported as time progressed. Europe has all kinds of restrictions on Free Speech, “anti-defamation” laws and so forth that fall short of the enshrined value of Free Speech as it is actually practiced in the USA. Simple fact of the matter. Your actual better argument is that USA has taken Free Speech too far. Over applied it if you wish a construct on par with over simplification.

4. As far as i know, Sergey's opinion is not based on purely personal opinion (how he defines its limit clearly IS, though)//// Wut? An opinion held by and advocated by a person is not “purely personal?” I’d like to see what distinction you think applies. You know…just because the source of the opinion is History, or Law, or Church Doctrine and shared by many others does not mean its not also your pure personal opinion…….or are we arguing the definition of purity? Lets see as you contine:

5. , nor is it opinion of a personal or national history.../// Gee, you really are stretching this out to increase the tension. What else but pure personal opinion can be amalgamated here?

6. If there is a value involved, .///// “If?” Oh Lordy, poor boy has becoming totally unhinged.

7. that would be a legal one that is the very same "Universal declaration of human rights" not just taken at face value but in a way that...and that should sound nice to you...is pragmatic. /// I don’t understand what point you are making. I can “make it” make sense, but don’t want to put words in your mouth. Sense in your head?=>yes. OF COURSE, values are informed/formed by legalities and declarations of all sorts whether Universal or Not. We then, by way of our VALUES, choose what we accept as our own values and reject that which we think amalgamates an oversimplified concept. Other people do the same according to their druthers and we wind up with a full range of difference of opinion. No exceptions.

8. There is a common conclusion from countries /// “Countries” may sign onto Declarations. That does not mean that any given person within that country agrees. The VERY POINT, that you seem to miss of this discussion…again, so very “statist” you are. We often call that sheeplike behavior….willing/demanding to be led by strong leaders. Lets ban speech we don’t like and so forth.

9. that do not share common history /// see the definition and distinction above

10. or value /// How does a country sign a declaration that does not agree with their values? Have they been bribed or threatened with invasion if they don’t sign? What point do you fail to make here, ….. or are you just on a verbal roll?

11. that agree that ONE article granting a right (here article 18) cannot and should bot be used to justify actions that would put at risk ONE of or ALL the others articles of the very same declaration by over-extending one. //// Yes, that is the contest of VALUES we are talking about.

All you have done is make erroneous generalities that actually conflict with the point you should be making otherwise and restate in various ways the very premise of the argument that has been contested. ie: No engagement. Just repetition. I have to give your argument a total fail.

I do assume you can do better. I'd like to see it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balmoral95 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:14 am

Yet another thread bites the dust.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:21 am

Devastating comeback. Don't forget to put me on ignore..............The rest of the Chapters to come.

I invite you to actually engage the issue. But so far, its mostly "cross talk" as we all agree that hate speech that actually incites harm is all ready illegal. The live discussion is characterizing where that line is drawn: how speech is actually separated from a call to action.

Its a fact distinction heavily swayed by values.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:14 am

Well, Bobbo dragged it down with his inanities. It helps that I can put him on ignore but I can’t stop him from posting.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balmoral95 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:25 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Well, Bobbo dragged it down with his inanities. It helps that I can put him on ignore but I can’t stop him from posting.


His head is so far up his arse he thinks my last was a "comeback". :roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:34 am

there are two groups of people: those who search out spirited dialectic argument to exercise their minds. Others, only want to be agreed with.

comeback: the response to a position.

.................Present or not present? Who can argue????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balmoral95 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:18 am

It keeps blathering.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:33 am

Yes...........and "it" always will. Your ab hominem attacks only underline your faulty analysis. I thought you were going to give it a go.

..........................Low energy. Soft ego.

There is "truly" a lot you could learn about being precise and to the point. Sloppy generalities fall apart on direct response.

Well.......every post marks the direction, self realization, you choose to undertake.

More Chapters to come. Still looking for a good argument, recognition, fact. You came close with the Free Speech Laws not be unique to USA. Its on my list to look up the UN Declaration. Generally, they sound nice, but as they are never (?) actually implemented, mostly irrelevant.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:13 am

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. /// Well, thats subject to reality for those tenets that actively discriminate/hurt other people quite often the Kiddies as in using prayer instead of medicine...and much more. On topic: teaching hatred from the pulpit.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interferenceand to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. /// Again, the applicability of hate speech vs incitement to action. Its debateable where that line should be.........if anyone has any comeback at all.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. //// Very absolutist in expression. IN REALITY: all rights must be "impinged" in order to give life/balance/import to other rights that conflict in one way or another. Free Speech Rights/Right to Practice Religion/Incitement good examples conflicting with the Right to be Left Alone (sic!).
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:29 am

Well, he still hasn't responded to me, so I guess there's a new wall of text coming.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:11 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Well, he still hasn't responded to me, so I guess there's a new wall of text coming.

See above: "Just one non-sequitur following another and as SM is fond of saying: everything I post is quite trite and obvious. Should be easy to understand..........so assuming the obvious........I further assume a spoof. Not well done, the default position of someone who can't support what they say, which is really weak given its just an issue about preferences."

aka: the slippery slope that is repeatedly demonstrated is that laws prohibiting hate speech are used to prohibit Free Speech. EG: Wiemar Germany. the non-sequitur is to say as you did: " Obviously then the enforcement was insufficient. Had it not been, the Nazi leaders would have spent most of their time in prisons and the NSDAP would have been verboten."

I don't even know why you boys are upset at all. You aren't even being disagreed with: you just can't take anything except dog howling as agreement. Really........kinda pathetic.

Prove me wrong: engage the argument. Take a line....copy and paste it, DIRECTLY respond to it. ............ Doors of perception won't immediately open, but they never will without such an effort.....
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:13 pm

The problem with you, bobo is that a discussion with you ends up systematically with the same question: "What the {!#%@} is his point?"
It is not the first discussion about freedom of speech.

Look, 99% of the members here DO NOT support "Anti-Denial Laws", which is legally assimilated to "Hate speech", including Sergey who repeated it. That means the same 99% oppose the ban of "hate speech" and consider that it should be allowed in the name of freedom of speech.

The fact some of those members do not include "Hate INCITEMENT" in this fundamental right that is "freedom of speech" does NOT make them ennemies of this right.
And this is what your posts tend to imply, which is why i reacted.
It is simply a false accusation. And this is what is upseting!

You are just posing as the only defensor of Freedom of Speech when you are just NOT.
If you want to continue on this issue, please open a new thread...

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:56 pm

Yes, please open a new thread, bobbo. You can babble there to your heart’s content.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:24 pm

Thanks Balsamo, you clearly state your dissatisfaction with me. and as happens so often, anyone's complaint says more about them, than the one being complained about. I say that not to be defensive but because its a nice route of analysis that applies to varying degrees, ie: from 0 to 10.

1. The problem with you, bobo is that a discussion with you ends up systematically with the same question: "What the {!#%@} is his point?" /// The point should be exactly what I say it is. I suppose.......it could get lost after initial proposition by the various sidetracks most discussions go down. Said sidetracks: supposed to be of interest. Perhaps, the point is not stated emphatically enough and gets swamped by its presumed opposition? Probably both and varies from issue to issue, point to point. I certainly hope I don't flood the zone with pointless punditry?

2. It is not the first discussion about freedom of speech. /// I don't recall other Free Speech discussions. I often stress FREEEEEEEEEDOM, which is often the basis for my regular emphasis that we should leave each other alone as much as possible. So, yeah....FREEEEEEEEEDOM requires letting other people talk and no matter how much we disagree, to leave them alone?....No ab hominem attacks. No requesting them to eat {!#%@} and die? No attempt to bully as in "I have you on ignore and recommend everyone else does too." That kind of FREEEEEEEEEEEDOM inculcating value.

3. Look, 99% of the members here DO NOT support "Anti-Denial Laws", which is legally assimilated to "Hate speech", including Sergey who repeated it. That means the same 99% oppose the ban of "hate speech" and consider that it should be allowed in the name of freedom of speech. /// My understanding is that Sergey said he was not a fan of the Free speech and that he supported the ban of hate speech. Pretty plain English...already covered above.

4. The fact some of those members do not include "Hate INCITEMENT" in this fundamental right that is "freedom of speech" does NOT make them ennemies of this right. /// You lost me with the last two words. I do not include Hate Incitement as part of freedom of speech......but I can't tell which right some members are not enemies of. If I understand your drift...if anyone were in favor of allowing hate incitement speech then they would be an absolutist Free Speech Advocate of a sort. OF A SORT, because as I have posted, Free Speech as legally understood in the USA does NOT INCLUDE Hate Incitement. I think the distinction is Free Speech is about IDEAS, whereas Hate Incitement is about taking action. A distinction with varying degrees of legitimacy depending on the words and the context.

5. And this is what your posts tend to imply, which is why i reacted. //// I don't know what you think I am implying when I try to make my position expressed. But I don't quite see what equation you have set forth above. As I stated: I am very comfortable living in societies with rules that include or exclude this or that. My analysis just goes to what kind of society such rules will tend to bring forth.

6. It is simply a false accusation. /// With the ambiguity present, and my very liberal and accommodating attitude....I don't know. Also, if what I said to you is properly only an "implication" then its over active to call it an accusation...whether true or false. Given what Sergey posted, what is the false accusation you perceive? "Is it clear to everyone that Sergey who said "1st Amdt., of which I'm not a fan in any case....." is somehow still to be thought of as supporting Free Speech?....... and if I imply that he is not, then I'm making a false accusation? ///Makes no sense.

7. And this is what is upseting! //// Ah....and there is what "I" react to. No reason to ever be upset. Why not enjoy the disagreement? Pick at is logic. Look for the inconsistencies. Have fun with it. Discussing ideas in the comfort of our man caves and lairs should always be enjoyable. Find the pleasure.

8. You are just posing as the only defensor of Freedom of Speech when you are just NOT. /// You very uniformly extend a valid, almost valid, and semi valid point to the extreme of making up Straw Men. Is that the trigger you need to get all "upset?" Your hormonal high???? I'm not posing: I am expressly a defender of Free Speech. Certainly not the only one and you can find NO LANGUAGE AT ALL that implies that expressly or subconsciously........not with Tall Boy taking a more pro speech attitude than I have.

9. If you want to continue on this issue, please open a new thread.../// Why would I do that when the discussion is HERE? "The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"==>all about people getting upset. Over many things, some quite horrible and understandable and even unavoidable. But NOT WHEN discussing ideas.

Context: people strangers to one another voluntarily exchanging ideas on a forum: and getting upset. Imagine if we were shooting at each other from time to time as well????? The irony...... just ooozes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:33 pm

> See above

A bare claim without a demonstration is not a response, hope you understand.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:25 pm

Ok Bobo,
See at least i do not have you on ignore...
To get to the point:
You wrote:
My understanding is that Sergey said he was not a fan of the Free speech and that he supported the ban of hate speech. Pretty plain English...already covered above.

Wrong.
He wrote that he was not a fan of the 1st Amendment, not of "free speech".
He did not say he was supporting the ban of "hate speech", but that he support the ban of "Hate incitement" (like in "The Jews should all be killed") which are two different things. Like the example i gave...Many countries consider Holocaust denial as "Hate speech" and Sergey does not support Anti-Denial legislation. So you cannot conclude that he support all "Hate speech" legislation.
That is basically it.

You keep posting things based on you wrong understanding.

Now of course, you are free to have your opinion that the 1st Amendment should be as extensive as possible or sacred, that it has a priority on all others liberties granted by your constitution or the declaration of 1948... It is your absolute right, of course.

I tried to explain why we don't think that way in Europe. That is about it.
I don't say that Europe currently is right to over extending the notion of "Hate speech", quite the contrary. And if i understood correctly, Sergey was defending the right to boycott regimes like the South African one without having to face punishment...

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:13 pm

Balsamo wrote:Ok Bobo,
See at least i do not have you on ignore...
To get to the point:
You wrote:
My understanding is that Sergey said he was not a fan of the Free speech and that he supported the ban of hate speech. Pretty plain English...already covered above.

Wrong.
He wrote that he was not a fan of the 1st Amendment, not of "free speech".
Yes, those were the words he used "but" in the USA the 1st amendment is synonymous with free speech. No difference at all other than the First includes other freedoms as well:

First amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Only the USA has a First Amendment so....you make an argument that reveals objective error on your part, and a few Straw Men and your entire position collapses.

I was informed reading the UN Declaration of Human Rights just how much of it copied the Bill of Rights. Course...the BOR borrowed heavily from the writings of famous Europeans. USA can't take all the credit......

Balsamo wrote: He did not say he was supporting the ban of "hate speech", but that he support the ban of "Hate incitement" (like in "The Jews should all be killed") which are two different things.
Yes, but with lots of overlap. As I detailed earlier "The Jews should all be killed" is interpreted as FREE SPEECH protected by the First Amendment WHEN THE SPEAKER is not in a position to cause any harm. The same words are actionable if harm to persons or property is reasonably foreseeable, meaning the speaker or his listeners are in a position to act on the hate speech. YES.......a very thin/debatable line SHOWING the reverence Free Speech is given by the USA.

Balsamo wrote: Like the example i gave...Many countries consider Holocaust denial as "Hate speech" and Sergey does not support Anti-Denial legislation. So you cannot conclude that he support all "Hate speech" legislation.
That is basically it.
I never said he supported all hate speech legislation. There is your Straw Man standing tall. In essence: you get upset over things never said, never intended. .......... emotions. It is interesting. Denying the Holocaust while it can be hate speech is not if someone were simply taught wrong.....and key to any discussion on the point: it does not incite action. It may be included in the package of racism and antisemitism, but it is just most often Hate Speech. Or is it? Is really stupid clearly erroneous speech really hateful, or just a talking point of people that are hateful? I see HD as "so" stupid as to not capable of nurturing something as powerful as hate. Its a marker, humorously, for the moronic.

Balsamo wrote: You keep posting things based on you wrong understanding.
You haven't successfully made that argument yet. Its your attitude, reaction, belief. Just not a fact. The reverse has been proven: First Amend = Free Speech. Now, the interesting self actualization is: how will you change your analysis when you see some of your base line assumptions are simply wrong?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:06 pm

Bobo:
Only the USA has a First Amendment so....you make an argument that reveals objective error on your part, and a few Straw Men and your entire position collapses.


Well i never pretended to be an expert on your country where it is a liberty to own guns and apparently "to use them" when your are upset.
At the core, you consider the 1st Am = Freedom = free speech.
In my foreign view it is just an interpretation of those liberties. Now, as it seems to me, the 1st Am definition of this liberty includes the right to "call for killing other people", well sorry it is insane to me, just as is the possibility to buy a automatic rifle in a supermarket.
So if one do not support this very definition of freedom of speech, one does oppose the right and the principle? Is that it?
You do understand that "calling for mass murder" does not fit with any religious or civil rights, do you?
Again, i do not want to convince you.
I am just saying that in our European experiences, we do remember that without such calls, which seems covered by the freedom of speech as "defined by the 1st Amendment", there would have been no pogroms or riots targeting minorities (ethnic, religious, whatever). The UN established that "Radio des milles collines" had a responsibility in the genocide/ massive massacres in Rwanda...Do you consider this judgment unfair? If such a nasty radio was in America, would you consider it as protected by the 1st Amendment?

Well as far as i know, no civil liberties should pose the risks of such terrible consequences... Then, in my view there is a big wrong in the definition of the right! And it is legitimate to contest it.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:23 pm

Balsamo:

In my foreign view it is just an interpretation of those liberties. Now, as it seems to me, the 1st Am definition of this liberty includes the right to "call for killing other people", well sorry it is insane to me, just as is the possibility to buy a automatic rifle in a supermarket.
So if one do not support this very definition of freedom of speech, one does oppose the right and the principle? Is that it?


Balsamo, there are multiple court rulings that clearly define the limits to “free speech.”

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/landmark-cases/freedom-of-speech-general/

I am always very specific because of this. So, to me, Holocaust denial is protected (in the US) as long as it doesn’t slip over the line.

So, for example, if I say the Holocaust didn’t happen and all Jews are liars that is protected. If I say the Holocaust didn’t happen so I’m going to kill the next Jew I come across, that’s not protected.

See the difference? I also get that Europe is different and has different free speech traditions than the US has.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:33 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Balsamo:

In my foreign view it is just an interpretation of those liberties. Now, as it seems to me, the 1st Am definition of this liberty includes the right to "call for killing other people", well sorry it is insane to me, just as is the possibility to buy a automatic rifle in a supermarket.
So if one do not support this very definition of freedom of speech, one does oppose the right and the principle? Is that it?


Balsamo, there are multiple court rulings that clearly define the limits to “free speech.”

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/landmark-cases/freedom-of-speech-general/

I am always very specific because of this. So, to me, Holocaust denial is protected (in the US) as long as it doesn’t slip over the line.

So, for example, if I say the Holocaust didn’t happen and all Jews are liars that is protected. If I say the Holocaust didn’t happen so I’m going to kill the next Jew I come across, that’s not protected.

See the difference? I also get that Europe is different and has different free speech traditions than the US has.


Thanks, i guess we all agree on that. That was my point. I am not defending how Europe is over extending its definition of hate speech, quite the contrary. It is absurd.
I am, and most of us are, against anti denial legislation. And we do agree that a call to kill whoever should not be protected.

So i am kind of lost, as Bobo seems to think that a call for murder is protected by the 1st, at least depending of if someone died as a result or not.

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:15 pm

Poor thing has fallen off the radar. Ah well.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:49 pm

Balsamo wrote:
So i am kind of lost, as Bobo seems to think that a call for murder is protected by the 1st, at least depending of if someone died as a result or not.


I think what bobbo is confused on is incitement. So, if I send a call on the internet for people who follow me to start killing Jews en masse and someone takes me up on it then that speech is not protected and I can be prosecuted.

It doesn’t matter that I didn’t do it myself, my words caused another to commit the act.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:51 pm

Of course there is this:

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for “imminent lawless action.”
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:53 pm

Sorry, the opinion on that case makes things a bit clearer.

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7974
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:54 pm

My phone is getting to die so I’ll have to continue this later.
“Today I saw one of those places, saw it in all of its horror, all its filth, all its death.”
Soldier entering the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:02 am

Balsamo wrote:Bobo:
Only the USA has a First Amendment so....you make an argument that reveals objective error on your part, and a few Straw Men and your entire position collapses.


Well i never pretended to be an expert on your country where it is a liberty to own guns and apparently "to use them" when your are upset.
At the core, you consider the 1st Am = Freedom = free speech.
In my foreign view it is just an interpretation of those liberties. . . . .

Your foreign view comports well with my 'merican view. The friggin' first amendment has been contested through history. You're right, Balsamo . . . free speech is not synonymous with the first amendment, not even in the parochial USA. The standard articulated in Schenck (1919) revised earlier understandings of what the first amendment meant - and, at a high level, Schenck was further refined/revised in Brandenburg (1969).
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:53 am

Balsamo wrote: I am, and most of us are, against anti denial legislation.
Thats three negatives in a row....not sure what you mean. More directly: I am against HD legislation....or any other "denial" legislation because I value free speech that much: The American Value. As stated: USA is wrong on so many things but has Free Speech just about right in championing speech as a cherished value among all the values/rights/freedoms. Still: not an absolute, but coming pretty close. That said, I'll repeat for a subtlety not generally discussed: I would not be upset if anti-HD legislation was passed and upheld in the USA BECAUSE: IT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION....not open to "opinion" or values. Not true with who we should kill.......

Balsamo wrote: And we do agree that a call to kill whoever should not be protected.
Well, I actually agree with this value statement as killing, especially "all", is "factually hard" to create a hypothetical where such action would be legitimate....so it fails factually as opposed to opinion or values. BUT...the SCOTUSA has taken a different tact adding the element of ability to undertake the action. This once again elevates the sanctity of "pure" speech while recognizing the distinction when "action" is involved. Two different things. This actually raises what I have called the "Billy Budd" conundrum: do you want a law that is easy to understand and apply that results in a few predictable bad outcomes, or do you want a law that cannot be understood and applied that while avoiding one kind of rarely occuring harm slops over into causing all kinds of harm not originally contemplated?

When you "err" on the side of Free Speech as arguably the Supremes have done, you have made a rule that is easy to apply. Very few people act on any call to go out and kill people (espcially "all" of any group). So, the law has a practical limitation in reality. BUT: as we can see through the creep of Political Correctness, trying to pick and choose what speech falling short of a call to incitement should be outlawed is quite problematic.

And ALWAYS with any law: do we really want to give the Gubment another way to put people in Jail? Reasonable people can disagree.

Balsamo wrote: So i am kind of lost, as Bobo seems to think that a call for murder is protected by the 1st, at least depending of if someone died as a result or not.
No...people can die directly and incontrovertibly because of an incitement to murder and the first amendment protects that speech. Lots of lawsuits try to sue a movie, book, video game, The Bible for causing someone to act out. Those suits generally fail as the source of the motivation is protected by the First Amendment. but quite correctly, the prohibition on hate incitement to violence is made to prevent any death as a result. No waiting required.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:57 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Of course there is this:

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for “imminent lawless action.”

Thanks for finding that case. Yes........its holding/values/enshrinement is exactly what I am saying and remembering without recalling the source.

From now on, I'll try to use the phrase "imminent lawless action" instead of "hate incitement" or "call to action" as I have variously done.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:12 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Your foreign view comports well with my 'merican view. The friggin' first amendment has been contested through history.
What do you mean by "friggin"? A vague general disdain along the order of "1st Amdt., of which I'm not a fan in any case,..." without offering any analysis. You are taking on the role of turd in the punchbowl, which is my specialty.

Statistical Mechanic wrote: You're right, Balsamo . . . free speech is not synonymous with the first amendment,
That is correct.....until arguendo that connection is made as in saying: "I value Free Speech as has been practiced in the USA. or: "as enshrined by the First Amendment" and so forth. CONTRA (see the analysis?): take the UN Declaration of Human Rights and all it says is "freedom of speech." What does that mean? And in the vacuum that exists in that mere statement (((to be fair, there must be supporting papers, discussions, legislative history..... lawsuits?))) I would assume the maximum most absolutist position possible.........and in practice, that would be the USA version, so practically speaking, the connection is made....absent being fair.

Statistical Mechanic wrote: not even in the parochial USA.
Wrong. NAME what free speech instance in the USA exists that is not 100% synonymous with the First Amendment? In practical application, they are exactly the same thing. PROVE ME WRONG: or I'll put you on ignore. ((ha, ha.....what an empty stupid vacuous threat.....))

Statistical Mechanic wrote: The standard articulated in Schenck (1919) revised earlier understandings of what the first amendment meant - and, at a high level, Schenck was further refined/revised in Brandenburg (1969).
And what distinction/understanding applies?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:21 am

Chapter Three
Bobo still:
I disagree totally, and assume you will too on a moments reflection. Society, capital S, is the Laws. But are we not all individuals as well?..............I think so. Its actually what values/morals are all about: what you do on your own without conforming to the laws as the controlling element.

This is pure Bull {!#%@}, sorry.
Society with or without a bid S, is not the law.
//// Yes, it is. Painfully so. Too Subtle?
Society: with Capital S: A formal association of people with similar interests. The “laws” are what makes the association “formal.”
Society: with small s: The state of being with someone, ie: the distinguishing reference I make to being individuals as well.
EDIT: OF NOTE I think: even if you disagree with my Big S approach, my meaning should have been clear? Not constructive or healthy to get hung up on words or to get upset over someones misuse or other usage? Take melange for instance? Wrong......but I had fun playing with it. aka: Never a reason for different or opposing IDEAS or expressions thereof to cause the "pure Bull {!#%@}" card to be played. but .... lots of people enjoy getting upset. ymmv.


Society with a big S issues LAWS in order to maintain civil peace among it.
[/quote] //// That’s one goal but there are many others.

And it does so by respecting democratic rules (that is in a democratic society).
[/quote] /// I wish that were true. Most laws are the result of special interests gaining their objective over the majority (democratic?) will. Gun control, an example you have touched upon, is a good example. Same with Maurijuana, Tax Policy, Foreign Military Engagements and so forth====practicably: most issues.

By saying what you say, you just defend the 1st Amendment while disregarding the others.
/// I never disregard the complexity/layered ness of an issue. Too much projection on your part, the Straw Man your constant shadow.

Or in my logic, promoting article 18 disregarding article 11 and all those that follows.
Remember this one?
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.
/// I don’t understand the relevance of this. I note it is a restatement of the USA version: “There shall be no ex post facto laws.” Everyone should agree with this…..never heard any objection to it at all. Easy to find “new interpretation” of laws already on the books, so the issue does arise.


Bobo:
All true...............BUT.............. ALL.....still a choice. UNLIKE race and ethnicity. You have not breached the distinction.

Well depending who makes the definition when persecuting.
/// No. Objective facts are just that. Not the same as opinion no matter how closely held that opinion is.

But that is not what you said. You said:
"racial and ethnic are categories applied by people with or without the consent/choice of those so labeled"
So you are still missing the point, that - again to take the Jewish example - it did not matter if the Jew was a believer or not.
//// Yes….that is the very point!!!! I see you are clearly confused.

When someone says that all Muslims are terrorists, well then everyone who chose to listen to him will consider a Muslim as a terrorist and therefore justify whatever might happened to this individual Muslim.
//// Yes, and they would be wrong. What’s your point?

This is precisely the kind of logic that kind of allowed the Holocaust to take place.
[/quote] /// well that, and it was done in secret and via military force.

Even Himmler in his Posen speech recognized that every Germans, even among the Nazis had his "Prima Jude", the good one, all the other were of course evil, but this Schlomo was a good guy...Well mathematically, following this logic, no Jude should have been prosecuted as there was at least 20 times more Nazis than Jews...So Himmler concluded that no exception should be made...
[/quote] //// I agree, but still don’t see what point you are trying to make. I think you fail to appreciate the distinction that I clearly set forth.

This is the result of using concept like "inherent and collective guilt", if this concept is not accepted, then no genocide is possible...if it is then everything is possible...and become acceptable...And this is the idea of the opposition against "Hate Incitements"...
[/quote] //// Ahhhhh…..there it is. …… and I agree. The holocaust is the reason for anti-holocaust denial legislation. Seems rather obvious, straight forward, and circular to me. It doesn’t avoid the analysis that there are Pros and Cons to every idea/law/value/statement/position that there is. If all you do is consider one value and not the other…..the conclusion drawn is by definition “unbalanced.” I have a hazy recollection of making this point or near to it before.

Again, i repeat, as i am repeating for the last 20 years, i do not agree with the way this sane objective is pursued, but that is another thing,
[/quote] //// Yes, reasonable people can disagree. As stated: I tend to support it as it is a very hateful subject but mostly: a factual issue. The question is close enough that I’m happy to let the majority rule….the democracy you reference? Lets see….totally hypothetically….but how would I vote myself??????..........ha, ha……..so evenly balanced in my mind, it would probably come down to my mood that day or what prior discussions /arguments/experiences were had immediately before the vote?

bobbo: We agree. The still live, I assume repeated question is: what should the remedy be?

Well this is precisely what i meant by "another thing". I think our "western societies" have a too limited view. You can easily "systematically prosecute" everyone who express "politically incorrect idea", but that will never erase where this idea comes from. And it seems that we are contented with this superficial approach.
/// Gee, I was going with you there until you called it superficial. Superficial? Maybe but only if “every” approach is superficial? Really, a silly thing to think/say/post.

I tried to explain the "public perception" vs "reality" many times across the discussions of this forum, but i agree that there are no easy answers.
//// Ummmm….that is the implication of calling something superficial.

I tend to think that a democratic society should show its strength by letting people scream out their hatred, at least in order to identify the problem and conceive a remedy to it.
[/quote] //// Or, in addition as experience shows prudent, have a psychiatric social safety net intervene instead of Swat Teams.

I would rather have 20 million people allowed to scream "i hate the Jews i want them killed" than to have " a dozen sentenced to jail" when this awful idea is shared in silence by million of unknown followers.
[/quote] //// Hmmmm…interesting formulation you have here. 20 Million screaming I would think would be a clear and present threat almost certainly resulting in the deaths of many Jews. Something earlier in the social development should have been curtailed??? I suspect you are thinking of something different than what you post, but….I would prefer to have 12 in jail than 20 million people screaming anything. I think you are tripping all over your hyperbole. A good idea…..taken too far.

But that is what i call a pragmatic approach, contrary to the idealistic approach saying that "it should be a right to promote killing Jews"...sense the difference?
[/quote] /// I’m a bit “caught” here as if we concede there is a right in the USA to scream such IDEAS……..when there is no “risk of imminent illegal behavior” then you are right…..Two Points: 1. If 20 Million people are screaming….I think the requirement of imminent illegal behavior is firmly established. 2. I don’t support the uttering of the idea at all but my remedy is more speech. More speech in opposition. Hmmm….okay…I’m deviating from what a right is. Usually…..I support people exercising their rights. Hate speech an exception where I think people should be criticized and obstracized for such behavior: ha, ha….including sicking the psychiatrists onto them.

Well that might be the main difference between Sergey and many others and me...But that does not mean that i defend the right to call for the killing of Jews or whatever other communities based on ethnicity, "race" or religion or sexual orientation, political stances, etc.
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]/// That’s exactly what your 20 Million people screaming hypothetical does. Are you following your own argument?

DESIDERATA: I ended Chapter Two with: "I do assume you can do better. I'd like to see it." and you have come thru admirably. I assume some of the confusion I note on your part is partially my own. I hope not to get caught in a vortex of either of trying to explain what was meant?......exceptions allowed: always for clarity.

I also went on longer than I should have, on a roll. also stopped abruptly. The roll: stopped. I hope there is only one more chapter to go? RESPONDING TO EVERY QUESTION ASKED: is a rigor of discourse/thinking that does anyone open to new ideas/changing their mind a method of analysis that is unmatched by any other raw technique. I see people who disagree rarely able to respond to the arguments that show their position to be untenable. out of sight, out of mind: allowing the person to continue in their rut.

I encourage everyone to use this technique for their own analysis, whether it leads to posting anything thereafter or not. Only takes a little bit of work, and on occasion: a change of mind. Growth. A deeper understanding. What a wonderful thing.

EDIT: I tried to clean up the excessive punctuation/formatting re "quotes" but everything I tried introduced some other error. I would normally just use typed in quotes and such but I know people here favor the highlighted approach...and it does look better. There's just a learning curve when quotes within quotes start to be used. My bad.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:47 am

Tomorrow it's supposed to rain here. Bit worried the plants aren't getting enough water.Veggies seem okay. Anyway, the subject of classical music came up recently. I'm rather partial to the Boston Symphony Orchestra's recordings from the '80's.

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:39 am

Continuing on to the conifers on the property, the hemlocks do seem a bit better despite the blight which has affected hem in past years. Cherry trees seems very healthy this spring, as do apples, crabapples and white pines.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:18 am

I have two 40 foot tall redwoods in my back yard....about 20 feet apart from one another. One is totally healthy. The other has a dead top for about 5 feet...just bare branches. Some guy said all the trees in Sacramento are under stress due to the extended drought........even if they get enough water at their roots (which I assume) they are susceptible to the air being too dry. They like morning fog when they can get it which is rare here and even less during the drought.

I want to keep both trees for their Majesty but once the diameter of the tree at 4 feet elevation exceeds some value (40 inches?) you have to get permission to cut down the "old growth." Before 40 inches....you just cut it down as you please. I have one inch to go........ I assume that is about 5 years? Maybe 10 in the drought?

Are you into edible landscaping? Very controversial in my over regulated community. Hate speech to argue for carrots as a lawn edging.........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:44 am

for most trees....I think if the top dies for some reason most trees will send up a second main trunk? Don't know if that is true for Redwoods....often unique they are. ..... and why would one tree be fine and the other stressed (I hope not in the process of dying...but how can you tell?). I assume the trees "share" a common root cachement area, so if one tree gets enough water, the other one would too? And my sprinkler is between them...so....should not be an issue. But...how could dry air affect one tree and not the other? A: direction of the prevailing air flow and the one tree grabs all the moisture before the other one can?.....Heh, heh....the trees are aligned east to west and the wind blows perpendicular to that most times.

Must be magic.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:47 am

Darn, I live in the city, with a yard that is about 10 ft x 10 ft. We don't have an orchard or even a small garden, but we do get bunnies, who hide in the English ivy ground cover, quite often. OTOH my wife and I have season's tickets to the CSO - we will be going there Saturday evening. Speaking of Boston, we used to live there, and the current creative director of the CSO was a close friend of our former next-door neighbor, who was one of our best friends in Boston, and he was frequent visitor to hour friend's home. He also plays cello - that's what he's primarily known for - and will be performing Saturday. As you can imagine, we're excited about Saturday's concert.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:47 pm

I started another thread still active on Loving Trees, which I do. Quiet guardians of the home front. But as in ALL THINGS: there are Pros and Cons. The con here is that I would have gone total solar for home energy and car 20 years ago but those Magnificent Trees block the sun. Sure, not totally, but enough to make going solar not: pragmatic.

Pros and Cons to all we do.

So.....If I do have to cut down one tree due to illness (whatever), then I probably would take out the second one as well to avoid the petition process that would be required due to its size (I said 40 diameter in error as it is the circumference that controls). And I'd try to focus on the positive and be happy I could now go solar. I won't experience the Return on Equity...or, that would be another reason to exercise more? Damn Pros and Cons.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests