(August 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 21, 2017 at 1:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If you would like to go back and check, I offered a number of times, for someone to create a thread to discuss (to the point of pleading for someone to do so).  And I do plan on making one myself as time permits (we'll see how that goes).  So you are mistaking refusing to discuss, for refusing to discuss in a thread, that I did not wish to turn it into a debate.  As I told you before, I am happy to discuss, I just didn't want to do so in that thread.

Just a reminder - I'm not getting into this again with you.

Whatever you say, RR.  😉

Yeah that's not what i recall . I recall blather about starting another thread when the subject was relevant to the current one. where he could avoid answering anything and do a run around . And indeed we should not get into this again (Ironic as your complaint is about a lack of discussion along with wooter calling people he does not like Al Queda) Because you came out looking rather bad last time.

(August 21, 2017 at 4:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 21, 2017 at 3:12 pm)A Theist Wrote: Great timing, then.

No it isn't idiot. If you put someone on ignore, their name shows up without the post and says something like, "You cannot read this person's post because you have them on ignore." I saw his name between posts, just not the post itself. 

It was reading, no magic to it.

Lol. Well A Theist has already demonstrated his lack of reading comprehension skills in this thread alone so...  

The predictive power of evidence, yeah?  😁

(August 21, 2017 at 3:37 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Wooter and road like Scott Adams that's very telling . And as for discussion so far we kicked the pro statue sides ass . As for hysteria I'm sorry which sides raving about Stalinism and the erasing of history . And calling their opposition  Al Queda in America. Oh and labels I think apply here too.

I love how these crybabies stupidly think atheist have torches like the fucking Neo Nazis. Al Queda? That too is simply grasping at straws because they have an indefensible position.

Er, they both believe in an invisible sky-daddy.  Why on earth would anyone assume they were more lucid on other issues?  Adams is a creatard.  Still, Dilbert is funny and he almost never takes his eye off the business world in the strip.

(August 21, 2017 at 5:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Er, they both believe in an invisible sky-daddy.  Why on earth would anyone assume they were more lucid on other issues?  Adams is a creatard.  Still, Dilbert is funny and he almost never takes his eye off the business world in the strip.

They don't get to equate those standing up to bigotry as being the bigots themselves. 

And they still don't understand the difference between blasphemy and actual oppression.

Slavery and lynchings and segregation was oppression. Al Queda are oppressors. Funny how all that is holy book justified.

(August 21, 2017 at 3:06 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Or maybe they should just re-name statues like it's sometimes done. For instance in Swiss town of Bern there is a statue called Kindlifresserbrunnen which was erected back in 16th century and represents a Jew eating Catholic children. But as time passed and those history hatin' Antifa guys came along there was a sudden pressure to remove it, so people just started referring to it as an Ogre, not a Jew.

So people could also re-name Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues as Cowboys. "But what about their Southern uniform?" So what? Kindlifresserbrunnen wears Jewish hat and yet people call it Ogre.

I don't even think that is necessary (re-naming). I'm not going to pretend to know, the motivations of those who put up the statues (if it was for white supremacy; I don't think that Lee or Jackson was a very good choice given the history of the matter). However, even if it was was originally racially motivated, I think that with both men, it could be used to focus on the good that they stood for, rather than only fighting for the south (especially Lee and his promotion of unification after the war). Neither seem to be all about (or a symbol) for slavery and oppression from what I have read on them.

On the matter, I'm kind of neutral. These statues didn't bother me a year ago, and they don't bother me today. I think that if the city or location that owns them, wants to take them down, and it is done through proper procedures; I have no problem with that. If it is mobs tearing down or defacing statues because they don't like them; I think that is a different matter all together (more akin to the reference in the OP). I think that a rational case can be made for both sides and the proper people may make their decision from there. However when people won't even listen, or start trying to strong-arm politicians and such by calling anyone who disagrees a racist (unjustly); I do start leaning away from that side and supporting the other rather quickly.

(August 21, 2017 at 6:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 21, 2017 at 3:06 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Or maybe they should just re-name statues like it's sometimes done. For instance in Swiss town of Bern there is a statue called Kindlifresserbrunnen which was erected back in 16th century and represents a Jew eating Catholic children. But as time passed and those history hatin' Antifa guys came along there was a sudden pressure to remove it, so people just started referring to it as an Ogre, not a Jew.

So people could also re-name Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues as Cowboys. "But what about their Southern uniform?" So what? Kindlifresserbrunnen wears Jewish hat and yet people call it Ogre.

I don't even think that is necessary (re-naming).  I'm not going to pretend to know, the motivations of those who put up the statues (if it was for white supremacy; I don't think that Lee or Jackson was a very good choice given the history of the matter).  However, even if it was was originally racially motivated, I think that with both men, it could be used to focus on the good that they stood for, rather than only fighting for the south (especially Lee and his promotion of unification after the war).  Neither seem to be all about (or a symbol) for slavery and oppression from what I have read on them.

On the matter, I'm kind of neutral.   These statues didn't bother me a year ago, and they don't bother me today.  I think that if the city or location that owns them, wants to take them down, and it is done through proper procedures; I have no problem with that.  If it is mobs tearing down or defacing statues because they don't like them; I think that is a different matter all together (more akin to the reference in the OP).  I think that a rational case can be made for both sides and the proper people may make their decision from there.  However when people won't even listen, or start trying to strong-arm politicians and such by calling anyone who disagrees a racist (unjustly);  I do start leaning away from that side and supporting the other rather quickly.

There is that typical theist narcissism once again. Nobody gives a fuck that it doesn't bother you personally. We are still talking about the defense of a horrible institution, that of slavery, and that should bother any empathetic thinking human being. The fact that you say it doesn't bother you says more about you than it does to those who rightfully object to making heros out of slave owners. Those statues were not mere history lessons, they were put up to honor those who fought to keep slavery. THAT is the part you keep missing.

(August 21, 2017 at 6:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 21, 2017 at 6:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

---

I don't even think that is necessary (re-naming).  I'm not going to pretend to know, the motivations of those who put up the statues (if it was for white supremacy; I don't think that Lee or Jackson was a very good choice given the history of the matter).  However, even if it was was originally racially motivated, I think that with both men, it could be used to focus on the good that they stood for, rather than only fighting for the south (especially Lee and his promotion of unification after the war).  Neither seem to be all about (or a symbol) for slavery and oppression from what I have read on them.

On the matter, I'm kind of neutral.   These statues didn't bother me a year ago, and they don't bother me today.  I think that if the city or location that owns them, wants to take them down, and it is done through proper procedures; I have no problem with that.  If it is mobs tearing down or defacing statues because they don't like them; I think that is a different matter all together (more akin to the reference in the OP).  I think that a rational case can be made for both sides and the proper people may make their decision from there.  However when people won't even listen, or start trying to strong-arm politicians and such by calling anyone who disagrees a racist (unjustly);  I do start leaning away from that side and supporting the other rather quickly.

---

There is that typical theist narcissism once again. Nobody gives a fuck that it doesn't bother you personally. We are still talking about the defense of a horrible institution, that of slavery, and that should bother any empathetic thinking human being. The fact that you say it doesn't bother you says more about you than it does to those who rightfully object to making heros out of slave owners. Those statues were not mere history lessons, they were put up to honor those who fought to keep slavery. THAT is the part you keep missing.

See this is what I mean.... rather than making your case, and letting that stand for what it's worth. You start out by focusing on the person, and name calling. Then you try to make out like I'm defending slavery (which couldn't be further from the truth). As I said, I'm open to hearing from both sides. And if the only reason for, is to honor those who fought to keep slavery, then I think that is a fast sinking ship. But as I mentioned, if it is only about slavery and oppression of black people, then I think these where poor choices. But this type of crap that you are trying to pull here only weakens the point you are trying to make, it doesn't aid it.

I'm skeptical that these statues were erected to honor the post-defeat entreaties for unification, myself.

(August 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm skeptical that these statues were erected to honor the post-defeat entreaties for unification, myself.

Especially when there were massive spikes in the erection of these statues during Jim Crow in the early 1900's and during the civil unrest previous to the civil rights movements.