🤷‍♀️🧙‍♂️ True or false? 🙄❓

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️For today I have two statements and i am curious what you think:

1️⃣ If countries took art from colonies or other countries, they have to give it back when it is requested.

2️⃣ If there are statutes of a hero from colony powers, it cannot be removed by protestors.

I think for statement 1 it is true if for example it was stolen. But false if it was taken but it would be destroyed and therefore it was protected (for example if it was taken away from a country where it would be destructed).

And for statement 2 i think it is true and protestors cant do that. If people want to remove a statute it should be discussed and also if somebody did something wrong because what we think now it is different than if in that time it was not wrong how people saw it. But it can never be destroyed because some people think it, but there should first be discussion about it.

What do you think about these statements? True ✅ or false ❌ ?

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️For today I have two statements and i am curious what you think:

1️⃣ If countries took art from colonies or other countries, they have to give it back when it is requested.

2️⃣ If there are statutes of a hero from colony powers, it cannot be removed by protestors.

I think for statement 1 it is true if for example it was stolen. But false if it was taken but it would be destroyed and therefore it was protected (for example if it was taken away from a country where it would be destructed).

And for statement 2 i think it is true and protestors cant do that. If people want to remove a statute it should be discussed and also if somebody did something wrong because what we think now it is different than if in that time it was not wrong how people saw it. But it can never be destroyed because some people think it, but there should first be discussion about it.

What do you think about these statements? True ✅ or false ❌ ?

For the first statement:

My opinion is that there is a lot of truth in it, because countries that took art or heritage from their colonies or other countries must respect the right of these countries to restore their cultural property if they request it.

Art and heritage represent part of people's identity, and it is unfair for them to remain outside their original places.

But there can be exceptions, such as if the art is better preserved or available to the world where it currently is, then compromises can be sought that satisfy both parties.

For the second statement:

I think it is half true, because statues of heroes of colonial powers represent part of the heritage and history, just like the Roman occupation of Egypt or other occupations that left behind traces that we preserve until now. These statues may be considered a record of a certain period of history, and help attract tourists to understand that era.

However, if the people feel insulted or that the presence of these statues symbolizes injustice, they have the right to demand their removal, provided that this is done in a peaceful manner that respects heritage and society.

I will replay when the little one sleep @Yue_

Thank you very much @Fleurke!! 🙏 🙂

And I agree with a lotttt that you wrote @psysarah15!! And I think that it is a good example that you give for example about Roman heroes. Because if we judge them now maybe people dont agree what they did but at that time they were in their societies heroes so it becomes different and we dont want a lot of Roman statutes or buildings destroyed and why would it be different for other heroes of the past. But if a lot of people dont like a statute or something else like for example a painting they can together decide if it has perhaps to be removed. But in some countries statutes were destroyed by small groups of protestors and that is never good i think. 🙄🙄

Thank you very much @Fleurke!! 🙏 🙂

And I agree with a lotttt that you wrote @Sarahsalah27!! And I think that it is a good example that you give for example about Roman heroes. Because if we judge them now maybe people dont agree what they did but at that time they were in their societies heroes so it becomes different and we dont want a lot of Roman statutes or buildings destroyed and why would it be different for other heroes of the past. But if a lot of people dont like a statute or something else like for example a painting they can together decide if it has perhaps to be removed. But in some countries statutes were destroyed by small groups of protestors and that is never good i think. 🙄🙄

1/ its true they most return it . I do not agree with the 2nd because I am not in favor of statuses. For example, in Belgium the 1st king of the Belgians is everywhere in the picture in places, but he was not a good man. so I would rather not see his statue

Thank you very much for your answer @Fleurke!!! Do many people in Belgium also think like you about the 1st king?

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️

In another forum i was reminded of this True or False forum by @Etienne!! So i have a statement and I am curious what you think about it because it was a lot in the news in my country.

➡️ Trump said that countries of NATO must give a LOTTT more money each year to the army or he will not defend these countries.

Do you think that is right? And do we need more money for NATO to protect against wars? Or do you think that we already pay enough and that we need the money for other things? Or maybe do you think that more money for NATO will perhaps create more wars?

What do you think about this statement? True ✅ or false ❌ ?

False. First interesting etymology, the root word "pay" in "payment" comes from the Latin "pacare" (to pacify), from "pax", meaning "peace". Thus he wants to tell that "if you want peace, prepare your payment." Technically he sells "Pax Americana", nothing less, nothing more.

➡️ Trump said that countries of NATO must give a LOTTT more money each year to the army or he will not defend these countries.

I think he's somewhat right, the US spends significantly more money than its allies in the military. However they spend a lot because it does align with their own interests, not out of kindness. The right answer IMO would be for individual countries to invest in their own military rather than just give money to the US, but most countries will probably not consider that opinion

I think he's somewhat right, the US spends significantly more money than its allies in the military. However they spend a lot because it does align with their own interests, not out of kindness. The right answer IMO would be for individual countries to invest in their own military rather than just give money to the US, but most countries will probably not consider that opinion

In that case, eventually US should stop messing with those countries as well. In French, I think it would be legitimate to say that the US wants "le beurre, l'argent du beurre et la crémière" at this point. After all, being part of NATO (but also EU), for France, consist mainly in feeding foreign countries at the expense of its own nation with only very few benefits that are essentially targeting a privileged caste.

Hence, and to answer @Yue_ at the same time, I think I join your point about investing a little bit more for in our own military so that we switch from a "Pax Americana" like @diogenes_cask mention to a "Si vis pacem, para bellum" mindset.

Thank you very much for your answer @Fleurke!!! Do many people in Belgium also think like you about the 1st king?

Yes their are alot of people who think the same a couple of years-ago many people trying to destroy some monuments of him

False. First interesting etymology, the root word "pay" in "payment" comes from the Latin "pacare" (to pacify), from "pax", meaning "peace". Thus he wants to tell that "if you want peace, prepare your payment." Technically he sells "Pax Americana", nothing less, nothing more.

I did not know that. So if you pay you give peace or you get it because you have done that!!

And thank you very much too @Etienne, @Lianshen and @Fleurke!! 🙏🙏 Now America pays a LOTTT more than other countries. So if NATO protects all of us it is important that we help it too. But i also think that if we pay more to NATO than other countries will also pay more to the army and it only gets more dangerous. And in many countries there are a lot of things that are important but there is no money. So if you spend a lot on the army that will also be a problem for many other things i think. 🙄🙄

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️

Yesterday we had a discussion in our society class about Trump and Biden. Ok so we discussed this:

➡️ Biden has given pardons to several people and Trump will also do that. The President of America should NOT have that power anymore because it can be abused.

That was the statement and i think the statement is true because one person can now give a pardon and NOBODY can do anything about it if it is abused. That is not right I believe and for example in our country it is also not possible that the prime-minister gives a pardon.

What do you think about this statement? True ✅ or false ❌ ?

➡️ Biden has given pardons to several people and Trump will also do that. The President of America should NOT have that power anymore because it can be abused

I think I agree with that. Biden pardoned his own son despite the overwhelming evidence against him, and despite saying months (years?) ago that he wouldn't. I can't think of a tangible reason why it is a good thing, we have the same system in France too. There must be a reason but I haven't done my research!

I think I agree with that. Biden pardoned his own son despite the overwhelming evidence against him, and despite saying months (years?) ago that he wouldn't. I can't think of a tangible reason why it is a good thing, we have the same system in France too. There must be a reason but I haven't done my research!

I agree too but i think for BOTH Biden and Trump and also any other president in the future! Because only one person can decide it now with a pardon. BUTTT i think if it is one person it should be a judge.

In our society class the teacher said it was old fashioned because in the past it was because of a king who could do that but he had all the powers. But now a president is not a king. And still he can do that. I hope i understand that correctly but maybe @diogenes_cask knows more about it!! 😊😊

I agree too but i think for BOTH Biden and Trump and also any other president in the future! Because only one person can decide it now with a pardon. BUTTT i think if it is one person it should be a judge.

In our society class the teacher said it was old fashioned because in the past it was because of a king who could do that but he had all the powers. But now a president is not a king. And still he can do that. I hope i understand that correctly but maybe @diogenes_cask knows more about it!! 😊😊

First of all, we should understand the legal term of "executive clemency." The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States. A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred. Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state government has created such a board.

Latter we should understand the difference between "commutation of sentence" and "pardon". "A commutation of sentence reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, that is then being served, but it does not change the fact of conviction, imply innocence, or remove civil disabilities that apply to the convicted person as a result of the criminal conviction. A commutation may include remission (release) of the financial obligations that are imposed as part of a sentence, such as payment of a fine or restitution. A remission applies only to the part of the financial obligation that has not already been paid. A commutation of sentence has no effect on a person’s immigration status and will not prevent removal or deportation from the United States. To be eligible to apply for commutation of sentence, a person must have reported to prison to begin serving his sentence and may not be challenging his conviction in the courts."

"A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States. "

The crucial point in this difference, is that pardon "does not signify innocence." Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. The rationale behind this power might be explained like that the president may pardon someone held in criminal contempt because the punishment is "punitive." The president cannot pardon someone held in civil contempt because the punishment is "remedial." Royal prerogative of mercy is something else because it doesn't differ "punitive" or "remedial."

Last but not least, "Clementia" should be taken as "the merciful face of power." For example Seneca defines clementia as the following:

"Clemency is ‘restraint of the mind when it is able to take revenge,’ or ‘the leniency of the more powerful party towards the weaker in the matter of setting penalties.’ It is safer to propose several formulations, in case a single definition is not comprehensive enough, and so to speak, loses its case. So clemency can also be defined as a tendency of the mind towards leniency in the matter of exacting punishment."

Thank you very much for this explanation @diogenes_cask!! Our teacher said that a pardon how he called it just came from kings and how it was now used by Biden and Trump. 🙂 He did not make separations of the rules like you did. So that is super nice to read!! Do you think that the American rules now are good or should it be changed maybe? 🙄🙄

Thank you very much for this explanation @diogenes_cask!! Our teacher said that a pardon how he called it just came from kings and how it was now used by Biden and Trump. 🙂 He did not make separations of the rules like you did. So that is super nice to read!! Do you think that the American rules now are good or should it be changed maybe? 🙄🙄

We should have a time travel and get back into The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 in Pennsylvania. The uprising quickly disintegrated and subsequent trials resulted in the conviction of only two individuals. Washington pardoned both, and on his last day in office, extended clemency to 10 others in the region charged with "high treason." Then he said that: "It is ever my desire to temper the administration of justice with a reasonable extension of mercy." He could have smashed all by the hammer of law but to err is human. In some cases, the state needs a reasonable extension of mercy than the sharp sword of justice.