White supremacists and counter protesters clash in Charlottesville

[Mr.wizard]

Why shouldn't the town have a say, it doesn't violate any constitutional rights and if the people there want the statue then they should be able to keep it, as well as if they don't want it then they they should be able to remove it. Slavery is bad no doubt about it, but that's not the issue here, the issue is should towns not be able to display statues of people who fought for the confederacy.

^^^^^ Is like saying, "Why cant Islamic countries throw gays off rooftops and deny women equal rights?"

This is about the pure fact that government property is the property of everyone, not one group, not one political party and should not be used to promote or glorify cruelty to other humans. Those who conducted the war in the south were not heros, they were the enemy.

You would not say that say, if Iran had a civil war, and out of the ashes a western democracy rose but some still kept the statues of those who clung to the past. 

If you defend the town/city in that fashion then you have no value for the bloodshed and struggle of those who supported the likes of MLK and what he did and died for to end segregation. To leave up statues of those who apposed the progress he died for is vile. 

The only context those statues should be kept around like I said, is in a museum of what not to do to your fellow human being.

You are not defending free speech by arguing like this. You are defending a vile history that nobody should want to glorify.

No Brian, it's not like saying "Why cant Islamic countries throw gays off rooftops and deny women equal rights?" . It's a question of a statue in a town and whether or not a town should be able to display it. I maintain if the statue is what the people of the town want and it doesn't violate any ones rights or laws then they should be able to have it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If a town wants to be seen as honoring a racist, I say let 'em. Tells me a lot about the place.

[Brian37]

^^^^^ Is like saying, "Why cant Islamic countries throw gays off rooftops and deny women equal rights?"

This is about the pure fact that government property is the property of everyone, not one group, not one political party and should not be used to promote or glorify cruelty to other humans. Those who conducted the war in the south were not heros, they were the enemy.

You would not say that say, if Iran had a civil war, and out of the ashes a western democracy rose but some still kept the statues of those who clung to the past. 

If you defend the town/city in that fashion then you have no value for the bloodshed and struggle of those who supported the likes of MLK and what he did and died for to end segregation. To leave up statues of those who apposed the progress he died for is vile. 

The only context those statues should be kept around like I said, is in a museum of what not to do to your fellow human being.

You are not defending free speech by arguing like this. You are defending a vile history that nobody should want to glorify.

No Brian, it's not like saying "Why cant Islamic countries throw gays off rooftops and deny women equal rights?" . It's a question of a statue in a town and whether or not a town should be able to display it. I maintain if the statue is what the people of the town want and it doesn't violate any ones rights or laws then they should be able to have it.

BULLSHIT, as much as you would like to claim "It is just a statue" that statue still is a representation of cruelty to other humans. 

Leaving those statues up on public property would be the same as using public property to display the Nazi flag. And if you were not paying attention to Charlottesville the murderer was a white nationalist who valued Hitler. 

Yep, according to you then lets also let cities and towns decide which race uses which water fountain and bathroom and where they sit on the bus.

How about no!

---

If a town wants to be seen as honoring a racist, I say let 'em. Tells me a lot about the place.

No, I know what you are trying to say, "If they do that it is out in the open that way we know whom to avoid."

Nice idea but if it worked like that we would not see the rise of 45. 

The other thing is that it also misses the point that there are liberals in even red states and in rural America that we would be abandoning by taking this "let em all rot" attitude. I know my Redneck friend in Oklahoma would love to see his state go blue and I would never abandon him as an individual despite the majority in his state voting red.

The town he lives in Norman Ok, is actually a liberal oasis in that state. He has described his co workers as being very diverse, gays and lesbians and even Arabs and Asians. If we want that kind of pluralism to go nation wide we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Same can be said for Austin, it is extremely liberal compared to rural Texas. Atlanta too. 

Even out hear in the sticks of NC on the coast, I have been here 12 years and the jobs I have had were full of diversity. 

The more I listen to my friend John, the more I know we cannot abandon the middle of the country because of the right wing. It to me is the same as telling someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Malala, well, look where you lived, while we appreciate you challenging your majorities, you are still on your own.

John represents the good in our species and I will not hold his rural upbringing against him because others are dicks. 

A human is a human is a human to me, and ultimately we still should treat individuals as such and not assume their geography makes them automatically deserving of condemnation. Hate and bigotry sure, but not geography.

[Mr.wizard]

Stop mis-representing my position it's annoying and dishonest. I never said anything about segregating water fountains, I clearly pointed out that if the statue doesn't violate any laws or rights then they should be able to display it. The statue is legal, I'm not sure why the choice to display it is being compared to human rights violations. The town has a right to display it or take it down and that is the right I'm defending.

[Alex K]

The notion that everyone who votes republican deserves to be abandoned because they support Nazis. That sounds a wee bit extreme.

[Brian37]

Stop mis-representing my position it's annoying and dishonest. I never said anything about segregating water fountains, I clearly pointed out that if the statue doesn't violate any laws or rights then they should be able to display it. The statue is legal, I'm not sure why the choice to display it is being compared to human rights violations. The town has a right to display it or take it down and that is the right I'm defending.

Yep and slavery was also at one time deemed constitutional. 

But ok, if you want to claim it is legal, fine, still a huge difference between legal and moral. Just because you can staple your nuts to the wall doesn't mean you should.

It still remains that any of the war figures in monument who defended the south were defending cruelty to other humans and ownership of other humans. What they represented did for far too long treat other humans WITH force of law as sub human. There is no polite way to put it. At one time most of our population including the courts saw it as perfectly legal to deny women the right to vote.

There is a reason we have separation of powers, and even with voters, we have also had a history of "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance". That means just because even if a majority wants something, does not mean they always get it. It is why even despite the GOP fight to keep gay marriage illegal it became legal. 

The argument over local vs federal is not a good argument. If it were, slavery would still exist and segregation would still exist. Those statues regardless still represent a horrible past regardless of "why shouldn't they be allowed."

All I am seeing in your argument is mob rule by virtue of popularity. That is now how our republic works and no, the majority should not get everything it wants all the time. it is why we have a Constitution. 

I doubt you would make the same argument if it were a Nazi flag a majority of a town wanted on public property.

[Kosh]

Stop mis-representing my position it's annoying and dishonest. I never said anything about segregating water fountains, I clearly pointed out that if the statue doesn't violate any laws or rights then they should be able to display it. The statue is legal, I'm not sure why the choice to display it is being compared to human rights violations. The town has a right to display it or take it down and that is the right I'm defending.

They should auction that staue off.  I'm sure some good ole southern folk would pay good money to proudly display it in their front yard.  It has no business on government or public property.

[Mr.wizard]

So we should remove all traces of anybody who had slaves or was on the side of slavery from government property? Going to have remove half of Washington D.C.

[Catholic_Lady]

Didn't robert e lee have the same views about blacks and slavery as Lincoln?

[Brian37]

Stop mis-representing my position it's annoying and dishonest. I never said anything about segregating water fountains, I clearly pointed out that if the statue doesn't violate any laws or rights then they should be able to display it. The statue is legal, I'm not sure why the choice to display it is being compared to human rights violations. The town has a right to display it or take it down and that is the right I'm defending.

They should auction that staue off.  I'm sure some good ole southern folk would pay good money to proudly display it in their front yard.  It has no business on government or public property.

Yep, in the same way most Americans would find a Nazi flag unacceptable on public property outside say the Holocaust Museum. 

The men who fought for the south were enemies defending the very cruel institution of slavery. So even if one wants to argue the legality of it, the point remains why would that be good even if legal. 

"It's legal" is not a good argument because lots of horrible laws existed that were once legal on paper.