(September 15, 2017 at 10:01 am)Khemikal Wrote: For clarity...I get the impression that you are characterizing this as an exercise in which you took up some (or many) minority position(s) -relative to the boards- that you thought could be relevant but were not necessarily or explicitly your own or positions with which you agreed...and after having attempted to grant them an exhaustive rational defense...have concluded that those positions are untenable, or at least relatively weak.
Would this be accurate?
I often take what I perceive to be an unpopular opinion, because in my mind a majority opinion is often about one bad day away from 1984.
I wouldn't say I was just goofing around playing Devil's advocate, though. I believed keeping the monument was better than removing it, and made all the points I could think of to demonstrate this to be so. However, on the balance, I think most of my objections can be remedied while still removing the statue, while the same cannot be be said of keeping it. In short, your (I mean everyone I was debating) points were stronger than mine, or at least mattered more.
