New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[TakeYouToTasker]

when in rome (or some other much less desirable place), do as the romans (or the inhabitants).

So we've reached the point in the conversation where you blame everyone else for your own words?

[birdog1960]

So we've reached the point in the conversation where you blame everyone else for your own words?

no blame. you don't go into a knife fight armed with a pen.

[Chef Jim]

 

You may wish to consider basing accusations of racism on how people treat fellow human beings of different ethnicity, rather than their opinion of civil war monuments.

 

Oh.....then in that case I retract my post admitting I'm a racist.

[TakeYouToTasker]

no blame. you don't go into a knife fight armed with a pen.

The issue is that you've shown up for what was otherwise actually a reasonably civil conversation about slavery, it's legacy, the legacy of various prominent individuals involved in US slavery, and various moral positions associated; and all you've done is accuse others racism and intellectual dishonesty because they disagreed with you or asked you to clarify or refine your position.

 

In short: you showed up and took a great big **** on this thread, and all of it's participants.

 

It's not that you showed up for a knife fight with a knife rather than a pen; it's that you showed up for a civil discussion with vitriol, obtuseness, and othering.

Edited December 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

The issue is that you've shown up for what was otherwise actually a reasonably civil conversation about slavery, it's legacy, the legacy of various prominent individuals involved in US slavery, and various moral positions associated; and all you've done is accuse others racism and intellectual dishonesty because they disagreed with you or asked you to clarify or refine your position.

 

In short: you showed up and took a great big **** on this thread, and all of it's participants.

 

It's not that you showed up for a knife fight with a knife rather than a pen; it's that you showed up for a civil discussion with vitriol, obtuseness, and othering.

it is never a civil discussion when anyone questions the iilegitimacy of slavery and questions its evil substance. look back. one would concede it for all only to be followed by another reneging. these are cheap , dishonorable bar room tactics. they aren't effectively refuted by logic. humiliation is the only way. unfortunately even humiliation doesn't work against those without conscience, self respect or minimal intelligence.

Edited December 23, 2015 by birdog1960

[/dev/null]

when in rome (or some other much less desirable place), do as the romans (or the inhabitants).

Your interpretation of the Classics© is flawed. The argument above that you are trying to make is based upon the Classical® philosopher Peewee Hermanicus when translated from Latin is I knowest thout aret, but what be I

[birdog1960]

Your interpretation of the Classics© is flawed. The argument above that you are trying to make is based upon the Classical® philosopher Peewee Hermanicus when translated from Latin is I knowest thout aret, but what be I

 

future in comedy?…i wouldn't invest too much if i were you.

[Deranged Rhino]

it is never a civil discussion when anyone questions the iilegitimacy of slavery and questions its evil substance.

You mean unless that evil substance results in a shiny new iPhone in your pocket, right? Then it's not evil, it's "irrelevant" to the the discussion.

 

Your sir are an intellectual coward and a hypocrit of the highest order.

Your interpretation of the Classics© is flawed. The argument above that you are trying to make is based upon the Classical® philosopher Peewee Hermanicus when translated from Latin is I knowest thout aret, but what be I

:lol:

[....lybob]

 

You mean unless that evil substance results in a shiny new iPhone in your pocket, right? Then it's not evil, it's "irrelevant" to the the discussion.

 

Your sir are an intellectual coward and a hypocrit hypocrite of the highest order.

 

:lol:

So are you saying that if we own anything that was made by people working under horrendous conditions we have no right to express an opinion on slavery, or whether men who fought directly or indirectly for slavery should have monuments honoring themselves on public land ?

[Deranged Rhino]

So are you saying that if we own anything that was made by people working under horrendous conditions we have no right to express an opinion on slavery, or whether men who fought directly or indirectly for slavery should have monuments honoring themselves on public land ?

 

No. That is not what I am saying. Edited December 24, 2015 by Deranged Rhino

[....lybob]

The issue is that you've shown up for what was otherwise actually a reasonably civil conversation about slavery, it's legacy, the legacy of various prominent individuals involved in US slavery, and various moral positions associated; and all you've done is accuse others racism and intellectual dishonesty because they disagreed with you or asked you to clarify or refine your position.

 

In short: you showed up and took a great big **** on this thread, and all of it's participants.

 

It's not that you showed up for a knife fight with a knife rather than a pen; it's that you showed up for a civil discussion with vitriol, obtuseness, and othering.

These are your first two posts in this thread

 

"Slavery happened. Black people lost. Get over it."

 

 

"British colonialism happened. The indigenous peoples of the Middle East lost. Get over it."

what did you show up with?

[Deranged Rhino]

Track the argument (and how it changes once his own hypocrisy is pointed out):

 

slavery is bad. it's morally wrong. it benefits a few at the very great cost to many. it's cruel. it's inhuman. it's torture. and it's is antithetical to libertarianism.

 

... no getting around it and on balance any good done by any leader on that side is fully negated by this issue. those that continue to glorify these figures ignore this and minimize the great suffering of the slaves and their ancestors.

First argument: slavery is bad and no matter what anyone else does in their life if they support slavery it's meaningless.

 

i contend that those still supporting the idea of the confederacy and by extension its link to slavery, are in fact very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't. young makes the point with artistry i don't possess.

Second argument, doubling down on the first: Not only is slavery bad, those still supporting it are "very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't."

 

But when I point out that Apple uses slave labor to create the products he owns (Apple is his go to company as he gleefully admits) and how by his own logic that would make him "very likely to be ethically inferior", rather than realizing this disconnect and owning up to his own support of modern slavery (thus showing that it often does little good to pass judgement on people of the past using a modern lens) he instead runs away and shifts the argument to:

 

it has nothing to do with the question of approprieness of removing confederate monuments

 

So, he's a hypocrite. And a cowardly one at that. He has no problem taking the moral high ground on an area of history he admits he's not an expert because "slavery is bad". But his own support of slavery is different because... Uh... Why?

 

Exactly. It's no different. So I'll ask this question again:

 

There is no fallacy. You've taken quite the stand on the evils of slavery and all those who "supported" it -- yet you have no compunction at all about supporting modern day slavery with your wallet.

Don't you see how hypocritical that is? I ask you seriously, I'm not trying to pick fights or any of that. It's just staggering to me that you can't see how disingenuous your position on this matter is.

[TakeYouToTasker]

These are your first two posts in this thread

 

 

 

what did you show up with?

There's no way those could be interpreted as sarcastic and snarky, and directed at one particularly lousy drive by poster, given that they directly followed that post, and borrowed, in a very exact way, from her own post's structure?

[....lybob]

There's no way those could be interpreted as sarcastic and snarky, and directed at one particularly lousy drive by poster, given that they directly followed that post, and borrowed, in a very exact way, from her own post's structure?

So we've reached the point in the conversation where you blame everyone else for your own words?

[TakeYouToTasker]

So we've reached the point in the conversation where you blame everyone else for your own words?

No, we've reach the point in the conversation where you apparently insist that people who show up for the sole purpose of attacking the character of others should be shown courtesy and deference, and then draw false equivalence.

 

People who lead into the conversation with punches deserve to be punched back, and you're being intellectually dishonest again.

Edited December 24, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

then perhaps you'd understand it if you chose to read it. but maybe not...

 

oh yeah, and it's pabulum. if you're going to try a $20 word don't use a penny spelling.

 

I did read it.

 

And it's "pablum." Look it up.

[....lybob]

Track the argument (and how it changes once his own hypocrisy is pointed out):

 

First argument: slavery is bad and no matter what anyone else does in their life if they support slavery it's meaningless. But isn't this common in America and probably the world, Jared inspired people to walk and lose weight, maybe saved some lives but he was a God Damn pedophile should Subway still run his commercials. Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler was an animal lover and supposedly quite courageous in WW1 maybe we should forget that genocide thing I mean antisemitism was pretty much the norm back then why should we judge him with today's standards.

 

Second argument, doubling down on the first: Not only is slavery bad, those still supporting it are "very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't." I don't agree with TYTT's natural rights, I believe rights, ethics, morals are a human constructs which evolve or devolve (depending on your opinion) with the passage of time and are different in different places - in America today someone supporting slavery is certainly out of step with the broad consensus.

 

But when I point out that Apple uses slave labor to create the products he owns (Apple is his go to company as he gleefully admits) and how by his own logic that would make him "very likely to be ethically inferior", rather than realizing this disconnect and owning up to his own support of modern slavery (thus showing that it often does little good to pass judgement on people of the past using a modern lens) he instead runs away and shifts the argument to:So are you saying that if we own anything that was made by people working under horrendous conditions we have no right to express an opinion on slavery, or whether men who fought directly or indirectly for slavery should have monuments honoring themselves on public land ? Sorry to repeat myself but I'm sure if I inventory my belongings I own stuff made in sweatshops not too much of my stuff says made in the Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, England or the USA more like China, Vietnam, India, and Pakistan- I suppose that makes me hypocritical so if you see any monuments to me tear them down.

 

 

 

So, he's a hypocrite. And a cowardly one at that. He has no problem taking the moral high ground on an area of history he admits he's not an expert because "slavery is bad". But his own support of slavery is different because... Uh... Why?

 

Exactly. It's no different. So I'll ask this question again:

 

 

 

I did read it.

 

And it's "pablum." Look it up.

Only been in usage since the 1930s I'm surprised a word snob like you let into your writing

[FireChan]

Only been in usage since the 1930s I'm surprised a word snob like you let into your writing

If you could read, birddog wasn't just saying that he thinks the monuments should be torn down. He called anyone directly or indirectly supporting slavery "ethically inferior" except himself. Really quite simple.

[....lybob]

If you could read, birddog wasn't just saying that he thinks the monuments should be torn down. He called anyone directly or indirectly supporting slavery "ethically inferior" except himself. Really quite simple.

" i contend that those still supporting the idea of the confederacy and by extension its link to slavery, are in fact very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't. young makes the point with artistry i don't possess."

 

I would say ethically inferior is too broad, life is large, I'm living in the country now and I have neighbors who would give you the shirt off their backs and are also terrible racists, when I was living in the city I knew a guy who made most of his living dealing drugs and maybe ripping off other drug dealers but he was the first guy to help the little old ladies in the neighborhood, push out a stuck car and was rumored to give generously to the Boys Clubs where he spent much of his youth- on the other hand I don't get the urge to honor the Southern Confederacy I read once that there were about 50 Confederate monuments for every Union Monument (maybe Tom would know) if they are not romanticizing a time where the most lowly white man could still look down on a black man I'm not sure what the attraction is, is it the bucolic vs the industrialized? it was still mostly farm boy vs farm boy, sure the South probably had better shots and horsemen and were defeated by industrial prowess but that is the way of modern warfare I haven't heard any of our Confederacy supporters making mention of the bravery and self sacrifice of the motorcycle suicide bomber vs guys who pilot flying death machines 2000 miles from the action.

[Deranged Rhino]

But isn't this common in America and probably the world, Jared inspired people to walk and lose weight, maybe saved some lives but he was a God Damn pedophile should Subway still run his commercials. Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler was an animal lover and supposedly quite courageous in WW1 maybe we should forget that genocide thing I mean antisemitism was pretty much the norm back then why should we judge him with today's standards.

 

This doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, unless I'm missing it.

 

Bird says anyone who supported slavery, in any way, is irredeemable and morally inferior. Yet, he himself supports modern slavery with his wallet. According to his own argument that makes bird irredeemable and morally inferior.

 

Is that true? Is Bird really irredeemable and morally inferior? Of course it isn't. Because bird (I'm guessing) is defined by more than just his unabashed support of modern slavery.

 

The fact he cannot admit, accept, or even acknowledge that people in the past could be both morally comprised (as he is by his support of modern slavery) AND still offer value to their nation and its history is my point.

 

I'm not at all arguing that chattel slavery was morally correct or justified -- and never have been arguing that -- just that bird cannot see how piss poor his logic is. The issue is never black and white, people are not just "good" or "evil" and trying to paint history with that kind of broad brush is not only intellectually dishonest, it's dangerous.

 

...in America today someone supporting slavery is certainly out of step with the broad consensus.

[\quote]

 

Certainly, no argument. Which is why Apple has the best PR department in the world. They hide the fact their products are made using slaves, but the information is out there for all who wish to know it. Ignorance isn't an excuse, is it? Especially when you (and by you I mean bird) is riding his high horse passing wholesale judgement on a period of history he admitted knows nothing about.

 

The confederacy saw slavery as an economic imperative. It was the only way they could compete with the industrialized north. Apple feels the same way, it's an economic imperative to keep labor costs down and slavery is the best way to do that. Just because they do it behind the curtain doesn't make it any less nefarious or morally reprehensible, does it? Of course, Apple isn't at war but using birds silly logic you could make the argument that buying their products is supporting slavery in the same way that confederate soldiers were supporting slavery by fighting for the south.

 

Which is why he's a hypocrite at best if he truly believes the bullshite he's spewed on this thread.

 

 

So are you saying that if we own anything that was made by people working under horrendous conditions we have no right to express an opinion on slavery, or whether men who fought directly or indirectly for slavery should have monuments honoring themselves on public land ? Sorry to repeat myself but I'm sure if I inventory my belongings I own stuff made in sweatshops not too much of my stuff says made in the Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, England or the USA more like China, Vietnam, India, and Pakistan- I suppose that makes me hypocritical so if you see any monuments to me tear them down

[\quote]

 

Again, that's not at all what I'm saying. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time and exists today. If you're going to take the stance that anyone who supports slavery is "bad" then in the same breath deny you're own support of slavery isn't relevant, that's just laughably hypocritical.

 

I'm ONLY talking about birds argument and showing why, with evidence from his own life, it's shallow, and quite frankly, simplistic. It's not in any way accurate, and because of his own stance that anyone at all who supports slavery ever is morally irredeemable, he must concede that he too is morally irredeemable.

 

I'm not saying he is. I'm just using his own silly argument against him to show him how ignorant it actually is. The fact he won't comment on it is not only further proof that he's an intellectual coward who knows his argument is cooked.

 

Now, MY stance on this issue (which is differs from what we have been talking about) is that destroying history, or whitewashing it, is dangerous because it promotes ignorance. Erasing the past doesn't change what happened. Taking the stance that everyone fighting for the confederacy was morally irredeemable because the confederacy was fighting to keep slavery is not only simplistic, it's incorrect.

 

If people vote to move monuments off of public land, I got not issue. But if people want to destroy these monuments because their modern lens can't fathom people from the past could be more complex than just "pro slavery" and "anti slavery", then I got a big problem with that.