Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 18:59:56 GMT
It's almost as if these Confederate apologists are cut from the same evidence-free cloth.
I'm afraid that it's Lincoln apologists like you that are short on evidence.
Let's do a little audit of the alleged "evidence" so far: a handful of controversial paragraphs taken out of context from lengthy speeches given by invited guest speakers, usually politicians, who had nothing to do with the design or erection of the monuments being dedicated....oh, and one instance of separate water fountains on a 1926 monument to all wars, not just Mr. Lincoln's war.
From such minuscule findings, the Lincoln apologists quickly declared victory. Do you actually think that that is sufficient evidence to condemn the entirely of the South and all of their monuments as being motivated by white supremacy?
Condemn the speakers who have said horrible things, not the rest who didn't say those things and not the monuments that don't say any of those things.
Enjoy.
You don't have eyes for anything which disputes your narrative. The first sentence is false. I'm not a Lincoln apologist. This is the same conceit that leads some lefties to label everyone to the right of Rand Paul a Nazi. What good company you keep! Secondly, we have pointed to virulently racist language at numerous dedication speeches. That's not mere anecdote. That's empirical evidence of the context and intent behind these monuments. Its not about condemning the entire south. Its about understanding the problematic nature of these monuments and why they have no place on court house grounds, nor are they something that the taxpayers should be subsidizing. You can't even keep track of what is being said here. And as far as the debate about what an anecdote is, I'd recommend you read your own link, especially this part: "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. "
Maestro is right. You don't know what the term means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 19:14:56 GMT
An official ceremony is not an incidental report. Thus the misuse of the word. Hell, we even have an instance of the racism being embedded in the monument itself. You are in denial. It's that simple. I came here to respond to him, but that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? The gulf between PC's understanding* of "anecdotal evidence" and the actual definition of the phrase is too great to be overcome, making further discussion kind of pointles because he bases his entire argument on that error.
*I should probably say "claimed understanding." His misunderstanding is so absurd, I'm not convinced he actually believes what he says. Simply grasping for any rhetorical spin he thinks helps him claim some kind of victory seems at least as likely. I've noticed that, when you and TL have lost the debate, you digress into discussing imagined deficiencies of the messenger. There is no error concerning "anecdotal evidence", unless the dictionary made it. And, yes, a small sliver of a speech lifted from one speaker at a dedication ceremony IS an isolated and obscure incident, TL. You've neither made your case about the monuments alleged connection to white supremacy nor any case of misuse of the phrase "anecdotal evidence".
Which brings us back to the logical fallacy called the "Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase". What is that, you ask? If any one of a series of trigger words or phrases are discovered in a few documents or in a speech, victory is immediately and unilaterally declared and the issue is alleged to be settled. Using this fallacious "logic", a single turn of phrase like "slave holding states" or the very mention of the word "slavery" causes the immediate unsubstantiated conclusion that all five million Southerners in 1860 were guilty of "fighting to preserve slavery". No empirical/statistical data nor repudiation based on a reading of the full context of documents or speeches, nor the facts about the rarity of slave owners nor the redeeming actions of the accused will budge said snowflake from his conclusion that every life moment of Southerners in the War Between the States was solely focused on the preservation of slavery and every moment after that war was about white supremacy.
Disagreement with, refutation of and/or presenting statistical countervailing evidence against this fallacy exposes that person to ridicule and possible cancellation.
And it's spelled "pointless", not "pointles".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 19:34:42 GMT
You don't have eyes for anything which disputes your narrative. The first sentence is false. I'm not a Lincoln apologist. This is the same conceit that leads some lefties to label everyone to the right of Rand Paul a Nazi. What good company you keep! Secondly, we have pointed to virulently racist language at numerous dedication speeches. That's not mere anecdote. That's empirical evidence of the context and intent behind these monuments. Its not about condemning the entire south. Its about understanding the problematic nature of these monuments and why they have no place on court house grounds, nor are they something that the taxpayers should be subsidizing. You can't even keep track of what is being said here. And as far as the debate about what an anecdote is, I'd recommend you read your own link, especially this part: "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. "
Maestro is right. You don't know what the term means. It's funny that you bristle at being called a "Lincoln apologist", but you don't have any problem calling me a "Confederate apologist". Your rhetoric is typical of the Lincoln worshipers. If you don't want to be labelled thus, stop acting like one.
In the statistical context of thousands of monuments erected, your few example paragraphs lifted from guest speakers is unreliable anecdotal evidence. As far as the definition of the words "anecdotal evidence", you DO realize that many words have multiple meanings, don't you? Oops.
anecdotal evidence(Noun)
A limited selection of examples which support or refute an argument, but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis.
And your courthouse/taxpayer example doesn't hold water, unless you support a pure equality, which means that we all individually could banish anything that might offend us. A stone memorial at a courthouse is harming no one, consuming nothing and is rarely in need of any but minimal maintenance. It's only costly when the leftists animals try to tear it down.
Whatever happened to the edict that we should just ignore the things that bother us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 20:26:31 GMT
You don't have eyes for anything which disputes your narrative. The first sentence is false. I'm not a Lincoln apologist. This is the same conceit that leads some lefties to label everyone to the right of Rand Paul a Nazi. What good company you keep! Secondly, we have pointed to virulently racist language at numerous dedication speeches. That's not mere anecdote. That's empirical evidence of the context and intent behind these monuments. Its not about condemning the entire south. Its about understanding the problematic nature of these monuments and why they have no place on court house grounds, nor are they something that the taxpayers should be subsidizing. You can't even keep track of what is being said here. And as far as the debate about what an anecdote is, I'd recommend you read your own link, especially this part: "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. "
Maestro is right. You don't know what the term means. It's funny that you bristle at being called a "Lincoln apologist", but you don't have any problem calling me a "Confederate apologist". Your rhetoric is typical of the Lincoln worshipers. If you don't want to be labelled thus, stop acting like one.
In the statistical context of thousands of monuments erected, your few example paragraphs lifted from guest speakers is unreliable anecdotal evidence. As far as the definition of the words "anecdotal evidence", you DO realize that many words have multiple meanings, don't you? Oops.
anecdotal evidence(Noun)
A limited selection of examples which support or refute an argument, but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis.
And your courthouse/taxpayer example doesn't hold water, unless you support a pure equality, which means that we all individually could banish anything that might offend us. A stone memorial at a courthouse is harming no one, consuming nothing and is rarely in need of any but minimal maintenance. It's only costly when the leftists animals try to tear it down.
Whatever happened to the edict that we should just ignore the things that bother us?
I'm not defending Lincoln. I haven't mentioned him until now. You, on the other hand, consider yourself a "paleoconservative" and routinely make arguments justifying the Confederacy, secession, monuments to slave owners and traitors, etc. So yes, your actions mark you as a Confederate apologist. You can label me however you wish but for the label to actually stick you might want to make sure it is relevant to me (and I have never been a big supporter of Lincoln). If I were you, I wouldn't be speaking about evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, until you back up your claim that the southern elites who put these statues up had racial beliefs that were not shared by common southerners. So far that claim has gone unsupported. As for the monument at the Wilson Co Court House, if you can't see how a monument featuring 2 fountains and the words “For White People” and “For Colored People,” (AGAIN, in front of a court house!) is an endorsement of legal separatism and racial hatred, I don't know what to say. You simply are not an honest broker in this conversation. You're not arguing in good faith. This is an explicit endorsement of 2- tiered justice. And you smile like you don't see it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 20:31:04 GMT
And your courthouse/taxpayer example doesn't hold water, unless you support a pure equality, which means that we all individually could banish anything that might offend us.
That right? So if we support equality before the law, we also have to support a " pure equality" which essentially means that no one has any rights at all? The choice is either an individual free-for-all or a system of separate but equal 2-tiered justice? Sorry. I call BS. That's a false choice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 21:38:04 GMT
I've noticed that, when you and TL have lost the debate...
PC, you notice nothing. I've seen you do this in other conversations. You run around declaring some kind of victory in response to a challenge to your thoughts or logic. Your logic on this thread is faulty. Your understanding of the words you use is faulty. Your understanding of what TL and I have said is faulty. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not even understand the point that TL and I are making and you cover for your confusion by doing things like calling us Lincoln apologists, which now makes me wonder if you even know what that means or if it's just one of those phrases you picked up somewhere. The beauty of message boards is that they are visible for any and all to see and I feel just fine about how our conversation would be viewed by any objective observer. Having made my point as well as I can, I'll probably move on. As I said before, the gap between your understanding of the words you are using and their true meaning as well as the gap between your understanding of what TL and I are saying and what we are actually saying makes this a conversation that has nowhere left to go. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 3:27:44 GMT
I've noticed that, when you and TL have lost the debate...
PC, you notice nothing. I've seen you do this in other conversations. You run around declaring some kind of victory in response to a challenge to your thoughts or logic. Your logic on this thread is faulty. Your understanding of the words you use is faulty. Your understanding of what TL and I have said is faulty. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not even understand the point that TL and I are making and you cover for your confusion by doing things like calling us Lincoln apologists, which now makes me wonder if you even know what that means or if it's just one of those phrases you picked up somewhere. The beauty of message boards is that they are visible for any and all to see and I feel just fine about how our conversation would be viewed by any objective observer. Having made my point as well as I can, I'll probably move on. As I said before, the gap between your understanding of the words you are using and their true meaning as well as the gap between your understanding of what TL and I are saying and what we are actually saying makes this a conversation that has nowhere left to go. My understanding has always been clear; your logic and the alleged evidence are woefully flawed. You and TL never made the case that any of these monuments were erected because of white supremacy, nor have you explained this weird, laughable accusation that I'm using the words wrong. I've provided multiple sources for the definition that verify my correct usage of the words, yet you continue this nonsense as if that never happened. Stings a bit when you get schooled, doesn't it?
What you and TL are saying is little more than the same false propaganda and historical revisionism that is used by the Lincoln apologists. If you don't like that moniker, then stop using their tactics. I can certainly explain what a "Lincoln apologist" any time that you like.
So, move on if you like; your points have been refuted and are unlikely to be resuscitated. I'll still be here if you change your mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 3:38:36 GMT
And your courthouse/taxpayer example doesn't hold water, unless you support a pure equality, which means that we all individually could banish anything that might offend us.
That right? So if we support equality before the law, we also have to support a " pure equality" which essentially means that no one has any rights at all? The choice is either an individual free-for-all or a system of separate but equal 2-tiered justice? Sorry. I call BS. That's a false choice. So, one group or side can be offended by something on public property and demand a change, but the other side that is not offended and also pays for the maintenance of that public space and what's on it, has no say in the matter?
It's already "two-tiered justice". The mob cries tear it down and the cowards in charge do as these animals ask, but the taxpayers on the other side say no, leave it up and are called racists for exercising the same right about public property that they recognize as historical and harmless.
Some animals or more equal than others, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 4:22:25 GMT
I'm not defending Lincoln. I haven't mentioned him until now. You, on the other hand, consider yourself a "paleoconservative" and routinely make arguments justifying the Confederacy, secession, monuments to slave owners and traitors, etc. So yes, your actions mark you as a Confederate apologist. You can label me however you wish but for the label to actually stick you might want to make sure it is relevant to me (and I have never been a big supporter of Lincoln). If I were you, I wouldn't be speaking about evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, until you back up your claim that the southern elites who put these statues up had racial beliefs that were not shared by common southerners. So far that claim has gone unsupported. As for the monument at the Wilson Co Court House, if you can't see how a monument featuring 2 fountains and the words “For White People” and “For Colored People,” (AGAIN, in front of a court house!) is an endorsement of legal separatism and racial hatred, I don't know what to say. You simply are not an honest broker in this conversation. You're not arguing in good faith. This is an explicit endorsement of 2- tiered justice. And you smile like you don't see it. No "honest broker" repeats the false claim that Confederates were traitors. I've already proven that that is not true. It's pretty stupid to peddle that canard after that.
If you don't want to be called a Lincoln apologist, don't act like one. Repeatedly spewing the same revisionist Northern propaganda that the Lincoln worshipers do qualifies you for that moniker. Don't like it? Then stop posting like one.
Evidently you can't keep up with what's being debated here. Why were the Confederate monuments built? You've failed miserably to make any case that it was related to white supremacy. Your few attempts to produce "evidence" proved to be minor out of context quotes from a few politicians. Not sure where you're getting this "Southern elites' racial beliefs" digression; post a link where I used those words or that argument.
MY claim is that the monuments themselves reflect their motivation, and your anecdotal evidence certainly hasn't remotely challenged that fact.
The most ridiculous is your "water fountain" example. Go back to the original question...why was that monument built?
Are you actually saying that the two water fountains were the prime motivator for erecting that monument? If not, then you've made MY point. By your theory, this Wilson County memorial to veterans to all wars was just a ruse and that the real and only motivation for putting this slab up was to make sure that the monument had segregated water fountains. Can't you see how nonsensical that is? Do you really believe that they built a fake war memorial just so they could hang a couple of segregated water fountains on it? That's the laughable assumption that you have to make to get it to fit your "white supremacy" cause for erecting this and all of the other monuments.
That's why your argument fell apart.
|
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,773
|
Post by RWB on Jun 28, 2020 4:40:09 GMT
Confederate Statues Were Built To Further A 'White Supremacist Future' www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-futureWe shouldn't look at these monuments solely through the prism of our modern sensibilities. There is also a historical context to consider. We should consider the intention of the people who created these art pieces and the culture (and politics) they were operating within. History matters. But I am not sure this approach is going to yield any fruit for the Neo-Confederate statuephile cause. When we contextualize these monuments to traitors and slave holders, a very dark picture emerges. There is a message being sent here: "Don't look for equality before the law. Forget your civil rights. White supremacy is the law in this land and it will continue to endure in the same way as these beautiful statues." Consider the cluster of blue dots, the "monuments on court house grounds," and look at the timing. Yeah, there is a message there. And what is happening to these monuments today is the response. NO NO NO they were built to piss off Liberal Lunatics 100 of years down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jun 28, 2020 13:36:27 GMT
I came here to respond to him, but that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? The gulf between PC's understanding* of "anecdotal evidence" and the actual definition of the phrase is too great to be overcome, making further discussion kind of pointles because he bases his entire argument on that error.
*I should probably say "claimed understanding." His misunderstanding is so absurd, I'm not convinced he actually believes what he says. Simply grasping for any rhetorical spin he thinks helps him claim some kind of victory seems at least as likely. I've noticed that, when you and TL have lost the debate, you digress into discussing imagined deficiencies of the messenger. There is no error concerning "anecdotal evidence", unless the dictionary made it. And, yes, a small sliver of a speech lifted from one speaker at a dedication ceremony IS an isolated and obscure incident, TL. You've neither made your case about the monuments alleged connection to white supremacy nor any case of misuse of the phrase "anecdotal evidence".
Which brings us back to the logical fallacy called the "Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase". What is that, you ask? If any one of a series of trigger words or phrases are discovered in a few documents or in a speech, victory is immediately and unilaterally declared and the issue is alleged to be settled. Using this fallacious "logic", a single turn of phrase like "slave holding states" or the very mention of the word "slavery" causes the immediate unsubstantiated conclusion that all five million Southerners in 1860 were guilty of "fighting to preserve slavery". No empirical/statistical data nor repudiation based on a reading of the full context of documents or speeches, nor the facts about the rarity of slave owners nor the redeeming actions of the accused will budge said snowflake from his conclusion that every life moment of Southerners in the War Between the States was solely focused on the preservation of slavery and every moment after that war was about white supremacy.
Disagreement with, refutation of and/or presenting statistical countervailing evidence against this fallacy exposes that person to ridicule and possible cancellation.
And it's spelled "pointless", not "pointles".
They are correct. You clearly don't understand what "anecdotal evidence" means. It's actually really odd considering how many times you've posted the definition. It seems like there are other words within the definition that you are not understanding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 13:43:06 GMT
I've noticed that, when you and TL have lost the debate, you digress into discussing imagined deficiencies of the messenger. There is no error concerning "anecdotal evidence", unless the dictionary made it. And, yes, a small sliver of a speech lifted from one speaker at a dedication ceremony IS an isolated and obscure incident, TL. You've neither made your case about the monuments alleged connection to white supremacy nor any case of misuse of the phrase "anecdotal evidence".
Which brings us back to the logical fallacy called the "Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase". What is that, you ask? If any one of a series of trigger words or phrases are discovered in a few documents or in a speech, victory is immediately and unilaterally declared and the issue is alleged to be settled. Using this fallacious "logic", a single turn of phrase like "slave holding states" or the very mention of the word "slavery" causes the immediate unsubstantiated conclusion that all five million Southerners in 1860 were guilty of "fighting to preserve slavery". No empirical/statistical data nor repudiation based on a reading of the full context of documents or speeches, nor the facts about the rarity of slave owners nor the redeeming actions of the accused will budge said snowflake from his conclusion that every life moment of Southerners in the War Between the States was solely focused on the preservation of slavery and every moment after that war was about white supremacy.
Disagreement with, refutation of and/or presenting statistical countervailing evidence against this fallacy exposes that person to ridicule and possible cancellation.
And it's spelled "pointless", not "pointles".
They are correct. You clearly don't understand what "anecdotal evidence" means. It's actually really odd considering how many times you've posted the definition. It seems like there are other words within the definition that you are not understanding. And every soul that's made that claim has failed to show that there was any misunderstanding on my part, including you. I've used the term correctly; I'm still waiting for folks like you show otherwise.
Here's yet another confirmation of my usage:
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal: You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
Here's another nail in the coffin:
Anecdotal evidence: The argument draws a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion.
The fallacy is sometimes called "cherry picking." This fallacy can seem similar to Hasty Generalization. The difference is this: in the fallacy of Hasty Generalization we genuinely consider the case or cases first, and then draw a conclusion from them (albeit hastily); in the fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence we know in advance what conclusion we are trying to support, and then select those cases (and only those cases) that support it, often ignoring or overlooking cases that would undermine our conclusion. Hasty Generalization is a fallacy because it is sloppy; Anecdotal Evidence is a fallacy because it is disingenuous.
I'm glad that I could help you learn about word meanings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 14:18:46 GMT
You've put in overtime Paleocon. But you've been successful.
You've finally convinced us all you're a racist. Gratz. I guess.
But yeah, at some point, the passion with which you ignore information and context allows only one possible conclusion.
Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 14:42:20 GMT
You've put in overtime Paleocon. But you've been successful. You've finally convinced us all you're a racist. Gratz. I guess. But yeah, at some point, the passion with which you ignore information and context allows only one possible conclusion. Queshank Do you hate the truth that much, Q? That would be sad to hear.
It's certainly not racist to expose the whole truth and all of the facts, except to clueless liberals. It's disheartening that you would use the "racist" smear tactic.
I've ignored nothing here; I've just slaughtered the stupidity of taking a handful of isolated paragraphs from isolated speeches to come to the ignorant "white supremacy" conclusion proposed. I've asked the accusers to simply look at what the hundreds of monuments say and depict. And that's somehow "racist"?
Wear it proudly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 14:54:15 GMT
You've ignored a dozen (or more) "isolated" paragraphs in dedication speeches which prove a racial intent, not to mention the broader political/cultural climate these statues went up in, and you have even apologized for an endorsement of separate but equal on the monuments themselves.
The best part was when you assured us that it was only elite southern opinion that was racist, implying the commoners were not. No evidence was provided for that claim.
Taken all together, the only conclusion one can pull from these facts is that you're a racist, who is carrying water for other racists.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,103
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 29, 2020 15:08:07 GMT
You've ignored a dozen (or more) "isolated" paragraphs in dedication speeches which prove a racial intent, not to mention the broader political/cultural climate these statues went up in, and you have even apologized for an endorsement of separate but equal on the monuments themselves. The best part was when you assured us that it was only elite southern opinion that was racist, implying the commoners were not. No evidence was provided for that claim. Taken all together, the only conclusion one can pull from these facts is that you're a racist, who is carrying water for other racists.
Paleocon a racist?
Now, there's a shocker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 17:07:39 GMT
You've ignored a dozen (or more) "isolated" paragraphs in dedication speeches which prove a racial intent, not to mention the broader political/cultural climate these statues went up in, and you have even apologized for an endorsement of separate but equal on the monuments themselves. The best part was when you assured us that it was only elite southern opinion that was racist, implying the commoners were not. No evidence was provided for that claim. Taken all together, the only conclusion one can pull from these facts is that you're a racist, who is carrying water for other racists.
Paleocon a racist?
Now, there's a shocker.
Calling me a racist is not true, which, from liberals, is NOT a shocker. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 18:08:23 GMT
You've ignored a dozen (or more) "isolated" paragraphs in dedication speeches which prove a racial intent, not to mention the broader political/cultural climate these statues went up in, and you have even apologized for an endorsement of separate but equal on the monuments themselves. The best part was when you assured us that it was only elite southern opinion that was racist, implying the commoners were not. No evidence was provided for that claim. Taken all together, the only conclusion one can pull from these facts is that you're a racist, who is carrying water for other racists. All you've proven is that a tiny number of guest speakers made controversial speeches. Even in those cases, you cherry picked quotes, didn't you? None of the monuments reflected such sentiments, and your examples were not statistically valid as proof. Try being a little more objective next time.
As far as the flawed logic of your "broader political/cultural climate" theory, there's no indication that the monuments contained those themes. You assume an obsession not in evidence. Is every moment of your life driven by today's politics? If not, why make the stupid assumption that the only motivation for these monuments was the racial politics of 1890-1920 when the monuments themselves do not reflect that fiction? You've failed to establish a cause and effect relationship, primarily because there isn't one.
"Apologized"? No, just debunked, unless you can show that the Wilson County monument was SOLELY erected to display the segregated water fountains and the memorial to veterans was somehow just a ruse. I'm not defending the fountains, just proving that they weren't the reason for the monument.
As far as "elites" and "commoners", I only mentioned "elites" in the context of the declarations of causes, and I disn't say all elites. I didn't use the word "commoners". It was YOU that made the goofy evidence free claim that the monuments are all about "white supremacy" and YOU failed to back that up with proof. YOU quoted a handful of elites and their speeches, but even that effort by you wasn't proper evidence.
You just didn't make your case, which is obvious from the false name calling that I'm being subjected to.
"Racist"? I have already established that the dishonest "racist" smear is the tactic of the intellectually weak and lazy. Are you sure you want to join that club?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 2:44:27 GMT
All you've proven is that a tiny number of guest speakers made controversial speeches. Even in those cases, you cherry picked quotes, didn't you? None of the monuments reflected such sentiments, and your examples were not statistically valid as proof. Try being a little more objective next time.
As far as the flawed logic of your "broader political/cultural climate" theory, there's no indication that the monuments contained those themes. You assume an obsession not in evidence. Is every moment of your life driven by today's politics? If not, why make the stupid assumption that the only motivation for these monuments was the racial politics of 1890-1920 when the monuments themselves do not reflect that fiction? You've failed to establish a cause and effect relationship, primarily because there isn't one.
"Apologized"? No, just debunked, unless you can show that the Wilson County monument was SOLELY erected to display the segregated water fountains and the memorial to veterans was somehow just a ruse. I'm not defending the fountains, just proving that they weren't the reason for the monument.
As far as "elites" and "commoners", I only mentioned "elites" in the context of the declarations of causes, and I disn't say all elites. I didn't use the word "commoners". It was YOU that made the goofy evidence free claim that the monuments are all about "white supremacy" and YOU failed to back that up with proof. YOU quoted a handful of elites and their speeches, but even that effort by you wasn't proper evidence.
You just didn't make your case, which is obvious from the false name calling that I'm being subjected to.
"Racist"? I have already established that the dishonest "racist" smear is the tactic of the intellectually weak and lazy. Are you sure you want to join that club?
We found a dozen or more examples of egregious racism associated with these statues in about an hour of searching. These examples could be multiplied but it wouldn't matter. You have no mind to consider anything problematic, no matter how egregious. All you have done is dismiss evidence. Dismiss. Dismiss. That's all you have. You say there is no indication of racist themes in these monuments after being shown examples of just that. That's why you have basically the whole board giving you a wag of their finger and assuming you're a racist. I share that view and I don't come to it lightly. Que is right. You have worked over time to make the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 15:06:48 GMT
All you've proven is that a tiny number of guest speakers made controversial speeches. Even in those cases, you cherry picked quotes, didn't you? None of the monuments reflected such sentiments, and your examples were not statistically valid as proof. Try being a little more objective next time.
As far as the flawed logic of your "broader political/cultural climate" theory, there's no indication that the monuments contained those themes. You assume an obsession not in evidence. Is every moment of your life driven by today's politics? If not, why make the stupid assumption that the only motivation for these monuments was the racial politics of 1890-1920 when the monuments themselves do not reflect that fiction? You've failed to establish a cause and effect relationship, primarily because there isn't one.
"Apologized"? No, just debunked, unless you can show that the Wilson County monument was SOLELY erected to display the segregated water fountains and the memorial to veterans was somehow just a ruse. I'm not defending the fountains, just proving that they weren't the reason for the monument.
As far as "elites" and "commoners", I only mentioned "elites" in the context of the declarations of causes, and I disn't say all elites. I didn't use the word "commoners". It was YOU that made the goofy evidence free claim that the monuments are all about "white supremacy" and YOU failed to back that up with proof. YOU quoted a handful of elites and their speeches, but even that effort by you wasn't proper evidence.
You just didn't make your case, which is obvious from the false name calling that I'm being subjected to.
"Racist"? I have already established that the dishonest "racist" smear is the tactic of the intellectually weak and lazy. Are you sure you want to join that club?
We found a dozen or more examples of egregious racism associated with these statues in about an hour of searching. These examples could be multiplied but it wouldn't matter. You have no mind to consider anything problematic, no matter how egregious. All you have done is dismiss evidence. Dismiss. Dismiss. That's all you have. You say there is no indication of racist themes in these monuments after being shown examples of just that. That's why you have basically the whole board giving you a wag of their finger and assuming you're a racist. I share that view and I don't come to it lightly. Que is right. You have worked over time to make the case. No, you and your ilk falsely call me a racist simply because I demanded evidence that meets the threshold of an empirical analysis to back up the ridiculous claim that the motivation for military themed memorials was "white supremacy", when the monuments themselves disputed that claim. Do you not realize how foolish it sounds to believe that these innocuous markers were just a ruse to conceal some hidden agenda?
All we've gotten are indirect, isolated instances of guest speakers with the view that matches your biases. Not a single direct instance where the people that erected the monuments specifically stated that this monument is about white supremacy. Even the late 1920s marker was about veterans of all wars, unless one imagines that the "water fountains" were the real purpose.
I didn't dismiss your alleged "evidence", I refuted it. This is, after all, a forum for debates and discussion; that's kind of what we do here. But rather than properly defend your inane thread, you devolve into this name calling, right out of the liberal playbook. Alinsky would have been so proud:
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
I'm being falsely called a racist because I proved that your theory was wrong. Most blanket attributions are hard to justify without data, as you found out. If you can't defend such ideas against a determined opponent, just admit it rather than trying to smear someone to end the debate.
"One man with courage is a majority" - Jefferson
|
|
