Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[bennyboy]

No, Benny, what you've been hammering on is that the folks who do not want these statues up need to get over their feelings.

I never said that. I said that the hysterical rhetoric is drummed up histrionics. I respect people's right to feel however they want about things.

But we aren't currently talking about rhetoric or feelings-- we're talking about voting and the process of determining which special rules should be applied in determining whether to move this statue, or the next one.

So. . . you feel I'm not a true enough Scotsman after all.  Whatever.

"Whatever" -- the last refuge of the thoughtless. You can read what I've written or not as you wish. I already understand that I cannot change your mind. The fact that you simply sweep away the views of those who disagree with you rather points that up:

The "whatever" was clearly about your attempt to discredit my opinion due to an obvious no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I don't need to be thoughtful about that-- it's a fallacy, it always was and will be a fallacy, and I pointed that out to you.

You're certainly not thinking enough to step outside your own box. You clearly have no understanding that others may not see things the way you do, and just as clearly, when they don't see things the way you do, rather than address their views, you prefer to label them "hysterical" as a means of, perhaps, not having to ask yourself difficult questions.

By "hysterical," I mean a tendency to form ideas around feelings rather than rational argumentation, and to assume that if someone seems hurt enough, all rational debate should be abandoned.

It's all good. You keep on being Benny, and I'll keep on replying as I see fit. But don't think for a moment that you sweeping the pieces off the board means others must accept your views.

I never asked you to accept my views. I respect what you've said in the past about free speech, and I know that my position with regard to the statues is not the popular one, at least here.

3)  remove some statues on specific principles-- an understandable choice, but potentially divisive as can easily be seen right now

Nice to see that you acknowledge that there are other views. Of course it can be divisive. Democracy is messy.

Okay, I guess we have a sliver of agreement then. I've stated my main reason for not choosing option 3 is that it's almost impossibly arbitrary. Who gets to decide, and on what basis should they be expected to decide, about how a city, state or nation expresses the ideas of its people? That's the discussion worth having, here, I think.

I've got no problem with this, although I'd add that when such disagreement compels one side to drive a car into a crowd we've probably confirmed that it is "sufficiently inflammatory".

One side didn't drive a car into a crowd. A crazy wingnut did. I think it's a legitimate concern that Republican/white supremacist/wingnut groups, especially online, will lead to similar events or much worse in the future. But each person has to be given the presumption of innocence, the freedom from guilt by association, and so on that are guaranteed under the constitution, or there's really not much left worth fighting for.

The fact is that the Supreme Court, for instance, levies unpopular opinions often enough as well. And if they lay one here against my own feelings, I will accept it for what it is -- a government mandate.

Fair enough, though I'm not really a big fan of the Supreme Court with its 5:4 party line votes. But yes, legal application and philosophical or social opinion are very different things.

I have certainly engaged in fallacious thinking here and elsewhere. But that doesn't give you a pass for doing the same, so if you don't want it pointed out, don't do it yourself.

We each are appealing to hypocrisy, here, and that is the name of the fallacy. I have zero problems with you pointing out logical fallacies if you find them; I have to learn either to approach things differently, or at least cover my tracks better.

---

Yes, because people go to parks to learn history, says the guy who's tossing frisbees that they have to dodge.

You can't have it both ways, Benny.

I can totally have it both ways. I can go to a park, learn some interesting history, admire General Lee's cool get-up, wonder what percent of Southern Americans were already getting sick of the moral problems with slavery. . . and then I can throw my frisbee.

Not having been there yet, I'm a little worried that my dog might not have the liberty to enter the park and catch it for me. But if he could I think he'd have your support, because the chances of him peeing on the General Lee memorial rapidly approach 100% with time spent in the park.