Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 4:43:30 GMT
MLK didn't kill anyone or defend slavery. Context is important. That is irrelevant. As I said, these individuals were at one time regarded as heroes or worthy of having statues. You don’t have to like them, but that doesn’t give you the right to vandalize them or tear them down. I don't need such a right to know they are in poor taste, especially considering when they were put up and why. I would be okay with a 30 day moratorium on bringing them down. Let's give folks who care about these things some time to raise money and move them to private property. I'm fine with that. But its clear they have to go. They have no place in the public square. Especially not in front of a courthouse. We don't consider the ten commandments appropriate on court property because it smacks of an endorsement of religion. And we shouldn't tolerate monuments to slavery, the confederacy or the spirit of Jim Crow on court property because that would run contrary to any basic notion of fairness or equality before the law. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 25, 2020 4:43:50 GMT
Maybe they were built to pay tribute to great individuals?
Like the statues of Hitler, Tojo, Attila the Hun, and Genghis Khan in your front yard?
She didn't say or mean that. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 25, 2020 4:46:52 GMT
MLK didn't kill anyone or defend slavery. Context is important. That is irrelevant. As I said, these individuals were at one time regarded as heroes or worthy of having statues. You don’t have to like them, but that doesn’t give you the right to vandalize them or tear them down. Agreed. So what would have to happen to impart to me the same right to me to tear them down as was previously imparted to another to erect them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 4:48:33 GMT
"Great individuals?"
You mean generals who fought ... well and with *tremendous* passion ... to preserve the institution of slavery. Is that "great" in your eyes?
Do you still really have to wonder why people who espouse those viewpoints have an uphill battle to convince people they're not racists?
Queshank To the people that built and erected and financed these monuments, these figures were great people. That’s what matters. No. It's not. The people who have to pay to maintain the statues are what matters. Even the black ones. In fact, they probably matter just a little bit more. I could see an argument for why you should. I wonder sometimes if feminists actually gave a shit about women rather than doing everything they can to be more like men ... they wouldn't be tearing down the statues of men who shit on their wives. The women who raised their children and stood behind them while they were off being "great individuals." We don't need a statue of MLK supported by wives and mistreated women ... the n***er of the world to quote Mr. Lennon ... to remember the "I Have A Dream" speech. He won't be lost to the pages of history because a statue somewhere 99.9% of the population won't ever see is gone. Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jun 25, 2020 4:49:10 GMT
That is irrelevant. As I said, these individuals were at one time regarded as heroes or worthy of having statues. You don’t have to like them, but that doesn’t give you the right to vandalize them or tear them down. I don't need such a right to know they are in poor taste, especially considering when they were put up and why. I would be okay with a 30 day moratorium on bringing them down. Let's give folks who care about these things some time to raise money and move them to private property. I'm fine with that. But its clear they have to go. They have no place in the public square. Especially not in front of a courthouse. We don't consider the ten commandments appropriate on court property because it smacks of an endorsement of religion. And we shouldn't tolerate monuments to slavery, the confederacy or the spirit of Jim Crow on court property because that would run contrary to any basic notion of fairness or equality before the law. Isn’t “poor taste” a subjective thing? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 4:49:38 GMT
Statues are governments virtue signalling.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jun 25, 2020 4:50:26 GMT
To the people that built and erected and financed these monuments, these figures were great people. That’s what matters. i don’t have much regard for people like MLK, but I accept that a lot of people regard him as a great individual worth erecting a statue for. You certainly don’t see me trying to take it down. Where have you been, my love? A mean and stupid Jasmine has been using your account while you were away. That Jasmine sounds pretty awesome!  |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 25, 2020 4:51:18 GMT
Statues are governments virtue signalling. Queshank As time goes by, you won't think that as clever as you think it is now. Doesn't mean you'll be right or wrong. Just sayin'. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 25, 2020 4:52:32 GMT
Where have you been, my love? A mean and stupid Jasmine has been using your account while you were away. That Jasmine sounds pretty awesome! You are nothing if not incorrigible. So how are you, my dear? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 25, 2020 4:55:42 GMT
I don't need such a right to know they are in poor taste, especially considering when they were put up and why. I would be okay with a 30 day moratorium on bringing them down. Let's give folks who care about these things some time to raise money and move them to private property. I'm fine with that. But its clear they have to go. They have no place in the public square. Especially not in front of a courthouse. We don't consider the ten commandments appropriate on court property because it smacks of an endorsement of religion. And we shouldn't tolerate monuments to slavery, the confederacy or the spirit of Jim Crow on court property because that would run contrary to any basic notion of fairness or equality before the law. Isn’t “poor taste” a subjective thing?
Oh, you mean like the execution of people you happen to find ugly?
As you have proposed in the past?
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jun 25, 2020 4:56:33 GMT
I’m good, Bama. And U?
You disappeared in Solar’s forum. Did you leave, or were you banned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 4:57:36 GMT
I don't need such a right to know they are in poor taste, especially considering when they were put up and why. I would be okay with a 30 day moratorium on bringing them down. Let's give folks who care about these things some time to raise money and move them to private property. I'm fine with that. But its clear they have to go. They have no place in the public square. Especially not in front of a courthouse. We don't consider the ten commandments appropriate on court property because it smacks of an endorsement of religion. And we shouldn't tolerate monuments to slavery, the confederacy or the spirit of Jim Crow on court property because that would run contrary to any basic notion of fairness or equality before the law. Isn’t “poor taste” a subjective thing? It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone in front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste *if* equality before the law is a value we care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1896 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 25, 2020 4:59:30 GMT
Isn’t “poor taste” a subjective thing? It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste if equality before the law is a value you care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1890 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. Has Jasmine ever given the impression that she's in favor of "equality before the law"?
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 25, 2020 5:00:54 GMT
I’m good, Bama. And U? You disappeared in Solar’s forum. Did you leave, or were you banned? I'm not sure. I think my password was changed after I posted it on the open forum. Whatever, I could never log back on after that. Which was okay, because my job there was done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 5:01:00 GMT
It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste if equality before the law is a value you care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1890 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. Has Jasmine ever given the impression that she's in favor of "equality before the law"?
I'm not sure on that but I know its a value our society has held dear for a long time, especially the small government conservatives among us who like to talk about the rule of law. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jun 25, 2020 5:02:09 GMT
Isn’t “poor taste” a subjective thing? It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone in front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste *if* equality before the law is a value we care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1896 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. They say that, but there is always an accounting. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jun 25, 2020 5:04:22 GMT
Isn’t “poor taste” a subjective thing? It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone in front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste *if* equality before the law is a value we care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1896 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. I concede your point. I’m just now understanding the “public arena” part. So, yes, I can appreciate what you are saying. Still, I do *NOT* support thugs and mobs tearing these monuments down. There’s a right way and a wrong way to remove these statutes. These idiots are even bringing down statues of people who fought against slavery. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 25, 2020 5:10:35 GMT
I've always been unimpressed by commemorative statues of any kind.
They rarely if ever have any artistic merit.
They are more an attempt to deify people who generally don't deserve that honor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 5:14:38 GMT
It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone in front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste *if* equality before the law is a value we care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1896 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. They say that, but there is always an accounting. Yea, its hard to get away from that. And who knows? It might serve some kind of socio-cultural selection function. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 5:17:45 GMT
It certainly is but I think there is a pretty iron-clad case to be made that putting such figures in stone in front of court houses (in a time when Jim Crow was the legal standard) is in very poor taste *if* equality before the law is a value we care to convey respect for. It would be hard to square the message sent in 1896 with the one sent in 1964. I'd say they directly contradict each other. Its a "pick one" moment. So yeah... in poor taste if we care about legal equality. If not, then not. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. I concede your point. I’m just now understanding the “public arena” part. So, yes, I can appreciate what you are saying. Still, I do *NOT* support thugs and mobs tearing these monuments down. There’s a right way and a wrong way to remove these statutes. These idiots are even bringing down statues of people who fought against slavery. I can meet you half way and admit that some mistakes are being made which are actually quite embarrassing, and that a better approach would probably be more constructive. But part of me thinks there's only one way this actually happens. |
|
