petep
Legend
Posts: 26,021
|
Post by petep on Jul 6, 2020 22:51:21 GMT
Did wads hijack tl’s account?
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 7, 2020 5:29:57 GMT
It's called iconoclasm. Most of America worships in the iconoclastic tradition: churches with no images of Jesus or saints or holy relics. Just plain crosses. They put the "protest" into Protestantism. I was just saying this very thing to davejavu in another discussion. Disputation. It's all the rage. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 7, 2020 5:30:52 GMT
Did wads hijack tl’s account? Now, see that? That's funny. +1 petep! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 12:51:59 GMT
Did wads hijack tl’s account? Now, see that? That's funny. +1 petep! +2 for petep! Wads attempting to be TL would explain a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 7, 2020 13:01:41 GMT
Is this really the same thing? Were the Iraqis who toppled statues of Saddam participating in "cancel culture?" Methinks there's a little creative license being taken on the concept. Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 7, 2020 13:03:53 GMT
So you believe that it's okay to destroy other people's property, or govt property, if you approve of the motive behind doing that? Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by william on Jul 7, 2020 13:06:48 GMT
Is this really the same thing? Were the Iraqis who toppled statues of Saddam participating in "cancel culture?" Methinks there's a little creative license being taken on the concept. Queshank The creative license was taken in your description of the photo-op staged by Americans pulling down saddams statue. The picture did make it look like Iraqis dud it. |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 7, 2020 13:19:52 GMT
Are you saying that since it dates back to the beginning of our nation, that makes it more acceptable? I don't believe that we should accept the taking/destroying of someone's possessions, no matter what the purpose. Surely there's another way to make the same point. I'm just saying there is a long tradition in the US of destroying symbols of oppression. I agree that the destruction of property is not ideal. I suggest a month long moratorium on bringing these monuments down. Let's give the people who care about them time to raise money and move them to private grounds. Is that a compromise that sounds good to you? |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 7, 2020 13:25:45 GMT
My only requirement (when I rule the world) would be to officially and legally decide to remove the statues. If that means just moving them to a special area (e.g. statues of Confederate Heroes moved to the Confederate Cemetery (I think there is an official Confederate Cemetery ). If our political leaders think (and some of them do think at times) that those statues should be destroyed, then so be it. Just have the guts to make a legal and official decision that isn't decided by a mob of thugs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 16:22:17 GMT
I don't think leaving them alone is an option that is on the table. The conversation about the political nature of those confederate monuments is over. We found your arguments lacking when weighed next to the cold hard facts. We established that these monuments are indeed racist and political. You weren't convinced, but there is no evidence possible that would convince you of that. Moving on, I don't need BLM to make bullets out of statues to see the historical symmetry. Not *all* of those 16th and 17th century statue pull downs were done to make bullets. If a statue of Lincoln is bringing people grief and another group wants to fund the removal and care of it, I'm fine with that. "All of those 16th and 17th century statues"? The 17th century ended on December 31, 1699 (or 1700 by some reckonings). I'm afraid that the start of the Revolution was still seven+ decades into the future. Were they pulling down statues from 1500 AD-1699AD? SMH. Bad math from TL, just like last time.
This kind of math deficiency is the reason why you lost the argument on the other thread. As long as there are ignorant people around who still foolishly think that the Confederate monuments were "racist and political", this conversation will never be over. You failed to make your case last time. Not looking too good this time, either.
Symmetry? Not hardly. Here's some real symmetry for you. Roman thugs loped heads off of statues after a regime change. Visigoths and Vandals defaced ancient Roman places. French mobs destroyed statues in front of Notre Dame. Taliban filth destroyed ancient Buddhist statues in Iraq. ISIS obliterated ancient treasures near Mosul.
What's the common characteristic among these examples? All were perpetrated by low life, disgusting filth....animals....bent on destruction and violence. Just like the animals tearing down Confederate monuments today.
I think you realize that the removal of these monuments is wrong; you've started two threads to offer excuses as to why it's OK for the memorials to be attacked and torn down. If the effort was righteous, no excuses would be necessary.
And really, what does any of this have to do with the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota? Never let a crisis go to waste? These monuments had and have NOTHING to do with the police or any of the perceived economic inequities of which you speak. The destruction of these monuments is not hurting law enforcement or the elites that you say need correction. It's hurting the regular folks that happen to have an equally legitimate alternative interpretation of history.
It's erasing history by removing any symbols that might make curious folks do a little thinking and research on their own, even if they disagree with the historical interpretation reflected by the monuments.
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control,' they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.' - Orwell 1984
THAT'S what the monument destruction is all about.
That was a mistake, I should have said 17th and 18th centuries. Crucify me if you wish. Regarding the confederate statue debate, I smile at your posturing. You had nothing to say (other than outright dismissal) when presented with overwhelming evidence of the racial and political context. If you thought the argument was weak you should have made your case when the thread was active. And disregarding evidence and butchering the dictionary is not an argument. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 16:24:24 GMT
So you believe that it's okay to destroy other people's property, or govt property, if you approve of the motive behind doing that? Interesting. I believe its okay to destroy government property if it is used in an unjust way, or symbolizes injustice & you have exhausted peaceful means. If people stormed those ICE camps, freed everyone, and then raised the buildings, I would say thats okay. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 16:35:30 GMT
Notice what PC did. He jumped on the minor mistake and left the entire point untouched.
Paleo claims there isn't a parallel between what is happening now and what happened in the past because we aren't pulling down statues to make bullets in war time.
I remind him that not *all* of the 17th and 18th century pulldowns were done in a war context, yet bungle the dates in my response. He jumps on the mistake and ignores the point.
Typical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 18:17:26 GMT
That was a mistake, I should have said 17th and 18th centuries. Crucify me if you wish. Regarding the confederate statue debate, I smile at your posturing. You had nothing to say (other than outright dismissal) when presented with overwhelming evidence of the racial and political context. If you thought the argument was weak you should have made your case when the thread was active. And disregarding evidence and butchering the dictionary is not an argument. *Sigh*. This poster skedaddled from the debate on the previous thread after I refuted and debunked his statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence (and yes, that is the correct term). His "evidence" consisted of out-of-context paragraphs from a handful of guest politicians' speeches, but nothing from the people directly responsible for the monuments design, content and erection. The engraved messages on the monuments themselves refuted his "white supremacy" cause and effect propaganda. It was a mathematical fail on the part of TL and his ilk.
I'm still there. Let's dance.
Still waiting on this thread for statue take down examples from 1600-1699 (17th century).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 18:44:05 GMT
That was a mistake, I should have said 17th and 18th centuries. Crucify me if you wish. Regarding the confederate statue debate, I smile at your posturing. You had nothing to say (other than outright dismissal) when presented with overwhelming evidence of the racial and political context. If you thought the argument was weak you should have made your case when the thread was active. And disregarding evidence and butchering the dictionary is not an argument. *Sigh*. This poster skedaddled from the debate on the previous thread after I refuted and debunked his statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence (and yes, that is the correct term). His "evidence" consisted of out-of-context paragraphs from a handful of guest politicians' speeches, but nothing from the people directly responsible for the monuments design, content and erection. The engraved messages on the monuments themselves refuted his "white supremacy" cause and effect propaganda. It was a mathematical fail on the part of TL and his ilk.
I'm still there. Let's dance. fail? Are we abusing the dictionary, again? You are all set to dance but have no mind to discuss. What you did in that thread was ignore evidence, toss out insults and mangle the dictionary. No one found your arguments compelling, including myself. As far as I can tell, you had no response to the discussion in that thread. You ignored evidence endorsing "separate but equal" on the monuments themselves, after demanding to see evidence of racism on the monuments themselves. (what kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this?)  You also ignored the dedication speeches (and their celebration of the terror campaign waged by the KKK) and you ignored the political/cultural battles that contextualized the majority of these monuments. And for good reason. They are undeniable proof against your position, along with the Ordinances of Secession, owing to the fact they make it clear the south's cause was slavery and 2nd class status for blacks. You have nothing to say that is compelling or thoughtful about any of this. So there is no reason to continue discussing it with you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 18:45:33 GMT
That was a mistake, I should have said 17th and 18th centuries. Crucify me if you wish. Regarding the confederate statue debate, I smile at your posturing. You had nothing to say (other than outright dismissal) when presented with overwhelming evidence of the racial and political context. If you thought the argument was weak you should have made your case when the thread was active. And disregarding evidence and butchering the dictionary is not an argument. Still waiting on this thread for statue take down examples from 1600-1699 (17th century).
From OP: "The Americans were, in fact, following an old English tradition. A year after England’s King Charles I lost his actual head in 1649, Parliament ordered his statue at the Exchange in London “to be demolished, by having the head taken off, and the scepter [taken] out of his hand.” In 1689, Protestant soldiers in Newcastle removed a statue of Catholic King James II and dragged it through the streets before tossing it in the river." It might be a good idea to actually read the thread before posting. Just sayin. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 7, 2020 19:18:34 GMT
Still waiting on this thread for statue take down examples from 1600-1699 (17th century).
From OP: "The Americans were, in fact, following an old English tradition. A year after England’s King Charles I lost his actual head in 1649, Parliament ordered his statue at the Exchange in London “to be demolished, by having the head taken off, and the scepter [taken] out of his hand.” In 1689, Protestant soldiers in Newcastle removed a statue of Catholic King James II and dragged it through the streets before tossing it in the river." It might be a good idea to actually read the thread before posting. Just sayin.
Sure.. that would be excellent advice if you were dealing with someone capable of accepting reality when it runs contrary to his inherited tribalism .. If you can't accept the very words of those spearheading the acts in question I don't think reading the thread will have much effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:23:45 GMT
*Sigh*. This poster skedaddled from the debate on the previous thread after I refuted and debunked his statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence (and yes, that is the correct term). His "evidence" consisted of out-of-context paragraphs from a handful of guest politicians' speeches, but nothing from the people directly responsible for the monuments design, content and erection. The engraved messages on the monuments themselves refuted his "white supremacy" cause and effect propaganda. It was a mathematical fail on the part of TL and his ilk.
I'm still there. Let's dance. Mathematical fail? Are we abusing the dictionary, again? You are all set to dance but have no mind to discuss. What you did in that thread was ignore evidence, toss out insults and mangle the dictionary. No one found your arguments compelling, including myself. As far as I can tell, you had no response to the discussion in that thread. You ignored evidence endorsing "separate but equal" on the monuments themselves, after demanding to see evidence of racism on the monuments themselves. (what kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this?) You also ignored the dedication speeches (and their celebration of the terror campaign waged by the KKK) and you ignored the political/cultural battles that contextualized the majority of these monuments. And for good reason. They are undeniable proof against your position, along with the Ordinances of Secession, owing to the fact they make it clear the south's cause was slavery and 2nd class status for blacks. You have nothing to say that is compelling or thoughtful about any of this. So there is no reason to continue discussing it with you. Yep, mathematical failure because you do not have the statistical/empirical basis for the inane conclusion that you are peddling. You've done little more than try to hide your logical fallacies and lack of any real evidence by pontificating over a few indirect disjointed examples taken out of context from speeches by guest politicians! There were millions of Southerners who erected 1700 monuments. It's vacuous to draw your fictional conclusion about motivation for all Southerners and monuments based on a handful of incidental quotes and ONE 20th century memorial with separate water fountains!
You provided a single 1926 example (out of 1700 monuments) of a memorial TO ALL WARS that happened to have segregated water fountains, as if the memorial was erected solely for the fountains themselves. All of you speech excerpts are from bloviating politicians, not those who erected the monuments.
If you have a problem with my word usage, I'm open to correction, but in this case, I've used the words correctly. You're welcome to say otherwise, but let's see you back it up.
And finally, you've once again confused the Ordinances of Secession with the less common Declarations of Causes. I've already had to school you on the difference before and on the fact the the Ordinances don't speak to the causes of secession.
So, if you choose to skedaddle again, that's up to you; after all, I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:41:32 GMT
Still waiting on this thread for statue take down examples from 1600-1699 (17th century).
From OP: "The Americans were, in fact, following an old English tradition. A year after England’s King Charles I lost his actual head in 1649, Parliament ordered his statue at the Exchange in London “to be demolished, by having the head taken off, and the scepter [taken] out of his hand.” In 1689, Protestant soldiers in Newcastle removed a statue of Catholic King James II and dragged it through the streets before tossing it in the river." It might be a good idea to actually read the thread before posting. Just sayin. Yeah, I read those two examples of a government ordering a statue removed or destruction by government soldiers at a time of war, neither of which are comparable to the mob madness of today. By the way, the 1649 Parliament was under the control of a "rebel" named Cromwell who STILL has a statue in merry ole' England, despite the return of the monarchy after Cromwell's CIVIL WAR. Thanks for the segue to the fact that the UK allows monuments celebrating her former foes, just like we did....until the animal tear them down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:44:45 GMT
Mathematical fail? Are we abusing the dictionary, again? You are all set to dance but have no mind to discuss. What you did in that thread was ignore evidence, toss out insults and mangle the dictionary. No one found your arguments compelling, including myself. As far as I can tell, you had no response to the discussion in that thread. You ignored evidence endorsing "separate but equal" on the monuments themselves, after demanding to see evidence of racism on the monuments themselves. (what kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this?) You also ignored the dedication speeches (and their celebration of the terror campaign waged by the KKK) and you ignored the political/cultural battles that contextualized the majority of these monuments. And for good reason. They are undeniable proof against your position, along with the Ordinances of Secession, owing to the fact they make it clear the south's cause was slavery and 2nd class status for blacks. You have nothing to say that is compelling or thoughtful about any of this. So there is no reason to continue discussing it with you. Yep, mathematical failure because you do not have the statistical/empirical basis for the inane conclusion that you are peddling. You've done little more than try to hide your logical fallacies and lack of any real evidence by pontificating over a few indirect disjointed examples taken out of context from speeches by guest politicians! There were millions of Southerners who erected 1700 monuments. It's vacuous to draw your fictional conclusion about motivation for all Southerners and monuments based on a handful of incidental quotes and ONE 20th century memorial with separate water fountains!
You provided a single 1926 example (out of 1700 monuments) of a memorial TO ALL WARS that happened to have segregated water fountains, as if the memorial was erected solely for the fountains themselves. All of you speech excerpts are from bloviating politicians, not those who erected the monuments.
If you have a problem with my word usage, I'm open to correction, but in this case, I've used the words correctly. You're welcome to say otherwise, but let's see you back it up.
And finally, you've once again confused the Ordinances of Secession with the less common Declarations of Causes. I've already had to school you on the difference before and on the fact the the Ordinances don't speak to the causes of secession.
So, if you choose to skedaddle again, that's up to you; after all, I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
Let me see if I can't find a way to move us closer together. First, we have to drop the bit about these being mere anecdotes by "guest" politicians. These were dedication speeches by figures who were giving these symbols their meaning. It speaks to their context. We found numerous examples in these speeches celebrating the KKK's terror campaign during reconstruction, of support for a pure Anglo blood in the south, and references to legal separatism. We have to be able to agree that the monuments dedicated in that manner are problems, and that this is doubly true when they are in front of court houses. Now let me give you something. It is true that the speeches made at one monument do not taint them *all.* So let's be open to looking at these symbols one by one and make our judgements one step at a time. Let's review the monument itself, the dedication ceremony, the people who funded or organized it, its placement and so on and come to a conclusion that way. I am fine with that approach. The idea is to avoid making *hasty generalizations* based on *small* sample sizes. This is not a question of anecdotes as evidence because this is not anecdotal. We have textual evidence, and in some cases physical evidence on the monuments themselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:46:21 GMT
Mathematical fail? Are we abusing the dictionary, again? You are all set to dance but have no mind to discuss. What you did in that thread was ignore evidence, toss out insults and mangle the dictionary. No one found your arguments compelling, including myself. As far as I can tell, you had no response to the discussion in that thread. You ignored evidence endorsing "separate but equal" on the monuments themselves, after demanding to see evidence of racism on the monuments themselves. (what kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this?) You also ignored the dedication speeches (and their celebration of the terror campaign waged by the KKK) and you ignored the political/cultural battles that contextualized the majority of these monuments. And for good reason. They are undeniable proof against your position, along with the Ordinances of Secession, owing to the fact they make it clear the south's cause was slavery and 2nd class status for blacks. You have nothing to say that is compelling or thoughtful about any of this. So there is no reason to continue discussing it with you.
And finally, you've once again confused the Ordinances of Secession with the less common Declarations of Causes. I've already had to school you on the difference before and on the fact the the Ordinances don't speak to the causes of secession.
You have nothing to teach. There is mention of slavery in the Ordinances and the Declarations. blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/For someone who is really focused on this part of US history, you really have a hard time getting the facts straight. |
|
