(September 10, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(September 10, 2017 at 6:59 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: All Ahole has are straw men Gawd. As for the removing statue idea why not .Invest the money used to make them into fixing America's infrastructure or education system.

Yeah. I've stated right along that I'm only concerned with those on property maintained by taxpayer money.

That's what I was asking you dumb fuck when you replied to CJ,

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you're concerned over maintaining statues and monuments with taxpayers' money are you suggesting then that all statues and monuments of every kind on public property that are funded by taxpayers be removed....and as CJ pointed out to you will those taxpayer funded statues and monuments include the removal of those that are dedicated to MLK, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln?

(September 11, 2017 at 3:51 am)A Theist Wrote:

(September 10, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Yeah. I've stated right along that I'm only concerned with those on property maintained by taxpayer money.

That's what I was asking you dumb fuck when you replied to CJ,

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you're concerned over maintaining statues and monuments with taxpayers' money are you suggesting then that all statues and monuments of every kind on public property that are funded by taxpayers be removed....and as CJ pointed out to you will those taxpayer funded statues and monuments include the removal of those that are dedicated to MLK, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln?

I dunno, since you're against gay marriage, are you suggesting all marriage be outlawed?

You're against legal marijuana, so you think alcohol should be outlawed as well.

You see the flaw in your thinking now? It's called a lack of nuance and it is indeed a form of strawman.

You can try to equivocate a statue of Lee and a statue of Jefferson all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Lee's statue is only up because he committed treason in defense of a state's right to allow slavery. Jefferson's on the other hand, is probably there for the fact that he wrote the DoI ... or, I dunno, it could be because he was a fairly successful president.

In both cases, the men are being honored for their life's work. In one of those cases, their life's work was defending the ownership of another human being.

(September 11, 2017 at 3:51 am)A Theist Wrote:

(September 10, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Yeah. I've stated right along that I'm only concerned with those on property maintained by taxpayer money.

That's what I was asking you dumb fuck when you replied to CJ,

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you're concerned over maintaining statues and monuments with taxpayers' money are you suggesting then that all statues and monuments of every kind on public property that are funded by taxpayers be removed....and as CJ pointed out to you will those taxpayer funded statues and monuments include the removal of those that are dedicated to MLK, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln?

Another fuckin' strawman argument. Troll on, little man.

I'm personally against the statue removal. I'd also be against the removal of Hitler statues in Berlin. I mean. . . you don't want to have too many of them, but seeing how important figures in history looked is interesting and educational.

This shit about things representing ideas is bullshit. So General Lee was a slaveholder. His statue isn't enslaving anyone, and its existence doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of slavery. He was an important player in American history, and I see no problem with his image being displayed. Now, I wouldn't call the park, "Southern Freedom Memorial Park" or something, but that's a different issue.

Would you be willing to pay for their maintenance?

(September 9, 2017 at 7:29 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 9, 2017 at 5:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If we only had monuments to perfect people there would be no monuments.

Pretty sure some imperfections are worse than others. Say, for instance, adultery versus chattel slavery?

Get to work, and explain why MLK is just as bad as REL.

Or, alternatively, think a little about the issue.

Your choice.

tl/dr: your false equivalence is unconvincing. Trai moar.

You're asking Wooters to think. He just might hurt himself with that one.

---

(September 11, 2017 at 8:53 am)bennyboy Wrote: I'm personally against the statue removal.  I'd also be against the removal of Hitler statues in Berlin.  I mean. . . you don't want to have too many of them, but seeing how important figures in history looked is interesting and educational.

This shit about things representing ideas is bullshit.  So General Lee was a slaveholder.  His statue isn't enslaving anyone, and its existence doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of slavery.  He was an important player in American history, and I see no problem with his image being displayed.  Now, I wouldn't call the park, "Southern Freedom Memorial Park" or something, but that's a different issue.

So let those things go into museums where people can go look at them if they choose. If people are being unfairly subjected to them because those images are on public sidewalks or in public parks, where those things are out in the open and in everyone's face, so to speak, it's no better than the religious pushing their beliefs on those of us who don't care for it. 

You know that saying... it's fine to have a penis and be proud of it, but you don't go waiving it around in everyone's faces....

What does it take to maintain a statue? It's not as if they do very much. Maybe someone coming around once a week to wash the shit and graffiti off.

(September 11, 2017 at 8:53 am)bennyboy Wrote: I'm personally against the statue removal.  I'd also be against the removal of Hitler statues in Berlin.  I mean. . . you don't want to have too many of them, but seeing how important figures in history looked is interesting and educational.

This shit about things representing ideas is bullshit.  So General Lee was a slaveholder.  His statue isn't enslaving anyone, and its existence doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of slavery.  He was an important player in American history, and I see no problem with his image being displayed.  Now, I wouldn't call the park, "Southern Freedom Memorial Park" or something, but that's a different issue.

Human thought is symbolic. The existence of those statues in a context when the subject is being honored is a de facto approval of his actions, and try as you might to dance around it, his actions -- namely, defending the right to own another human being -- those were odious. You even allude to the importance of context to symbolism in your last sentence, so I'm sure it's not that you're unaware of it, it's just that you're choosing to downplay it.

(September 8, 2017 at 11:25 pm)Court Jester Wrote: How emotionally fragile does someone have to be to get butt hurt over a statue?

Just ask Brian37 about that.

Statues of confederate heroes erected during the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's, were clearly not erected to honor the victims and the dead of the Civil War, nor where they erected to memorialize American patriots since they are American traitors. The fact that so many people still cling to these people as some sort of inspiration, is disturbing. You can learn about the history without having to memorialize it. You can honor the fallen and respect the soldiers who fought on both sides, without having to memorialize the traitors.