|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 18 2017 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 09:22 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:...
Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. >Endgoal of group is to add a plaque to the statue giving a deeper look at what the man actually did >Group is terrified of examining the man's place in history and deeper nature Clearly needs more time to analyze what covering up a statue is taken to mean.
This is exactly the point. You are not correctly representing what they intended covering up the statue to mean.
Show nested quote +
The only one here terrified of examining the place in history and deeper nature of Jefferson appears to be you, given how vehemently you seem to oppose any public acknowledgement of his flaws.
I'm a great defender of publicly acknowledging his flaws. Try again.
Does that mean you agree that the end goals, as stated above, of this group are worthy?
|
On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, too many cultural references and Trump references for me to understand your context. I don't even understand what you are refering to when you say " you're using it to grab attention to parallels with racism in modern society. What I got from your post is that you are not arguing with me, or have confused my post for some other poster, or just generally arguing at a perceived entity to which I am not part of. AlsoI got that you appear to genuinely beleive that marching for white supremists with guns is a good idea in society, but not the draping of statues. You got to understand I think the fetishization of your founding fathers is pretty damn wierd, you are not exactly disabusing me of that.
Also, I can bear to examine history, but world history has a rather larger breadth than a country which has only existed for a couple of centuries. I think perhaps you should broaden your understanding of history instead. Whatever, man. Your approach is to point out a single sentence in the second paragraph, and claim the entire thing is incomprehensible. I can't help you with your reading comprehension, and there's no dearth of posts to reread if your context is shoddy. I've got several exchanges on this exact topic over the last dozen pages. There's disagreement and bad faith but understanding. It's seriously sounds like you're moving backwards. First you figure correctly that I defend "marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society." Then you edit the exchange and drop the edited original post in the quote train (and ps that's why I quote, so if you suddenly substantially alter the meaning and issue, I can recall your original argument). If you can't separate standing for rights in society and commenting on protest movements that are ineffective or counterproductive, we're obviously done here. The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true. You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there. I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted. The bad faith is all you Danglars. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it. So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, too many cultural references and Trump references for me to understand your context. I don't even understand what you are refering to when you say " you're using it to grab attention to parallels with racism in modern society. What I got from your post is that you are not arguing with me, or have confused my post for some other poster, or just generally arguing at a perceived entity to which I am not part of. AlsoI got that you appear to genuinely beleive that marching for white supremists with guns is a good idea in society, but not the draping of statues. You got to understand I think the fetishization of your founding fathers is pretty damn wierd, you are not exactly disabusing me of that.
Also, I can bear to examine history, but world history has a rather larger breadth than a country which has only existed for a couple of centuries. I think perhaps you should broaden your understanding of history instead. Whatever, man. Your approach is to point out a single sentence in the second paragraph, and claim the entire thing is incomprehensible. I can't help you with your reading comprehension, and there's no dearth of posts to reread if your context is shoddy. I've got several exchanges on this exact topic over the last dozen pages. There's disagreement and bad faith but understanding. It's seriously sounds like you're moving backwards. First you figure correctly that I defend "marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society." Then you edit the exchange and drop the edited original post in the quote train (and ps that's why I quote, so if you suddenly substantially alter the meaning and issue, I can recall your original argument). If you can't separate standing for rights in society and commenting on protest movements that are ineffective or counterproductive, we're obviously done here. The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true. You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there. I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted. The bad faith is all you Danglars. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it. So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer."
I quite explicitly told you what it means:
you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man
|
On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Whatever, man. Your approach is to point out a single sentence in the second paragraph, and claim the entire thing is incomprehensible. I can't help you with your reading comprehension, and there's no dearth of posts to reread if your context is shoddy. I've got several exchanges on this exact topic over the last dozen pages. There's disagreement and bad faith but understanding.
It's seriously sounds like you're moving backwards. First you figure correctly that I defend "marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society." Then you edit the exchange and drop the edited original post in the quote train (and ps that's why I quote, so if you suddenly substantially alter the meaning and issue, I can recall your original argument). If you can't separate standing for rights in society and commenting on protest movements that are ineffective or counterproductive, we're obviously done here. The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true. You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there. I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted. The bad faith is all you Danglars. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it. So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Whatever, man. Your approach is to point out a single sentence in the second paragraph, and claim the entire thing is incomprehensible. I can't help you with your reading comprehension, and there's no dearth of posts to reread if your context is shoddy. I've got several exchanges on this exact topic over the last dozen pages. There's disagreement and bad faith but understanding.
It's seriously sounds like you're moving backwards. First you figure correctly that I defend "marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society." Then you edit the exchange and drop the edited original post in the quote train (and ps that's why I quote, so if you suddenly substantially alter the meaning and issue, I can recall your original argument). If you can't separate standing for rights in society and commenting on protest movements that are ineffective or counterproductive, we're obviously done here. The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true. You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there. I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted. The bad faith is all you Danglars. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it. So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means:
Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose.
|
On September 18 2017 09:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 09:28 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:22 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:...
Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. >Endgoal of group is to add a plaque to the statue giving a deeper look at what the man actually did >Group is terrified of examining the man's place in history and deeper nature Clearly needs more time to analyze what covering up a statue is taken to mean. This is exactly the point. You are not correctly representing what they intended covering up the statue to mean.
Their intent is not very visible with their means of protest. They work against their own supposed aims.
Show nested quote +
The only one here terrified of examining the place in history and deeper nature of Jefferson appears to be you, given how vehemently you seem to oppose any public acknowledgement of his flaws.
I'm a great defender of publicly acknowledging his flaws. Try again.
Does that mean you agree that the end goals, as stated above, of this group are worthy?[/QUOTE]
You'll need to link a verified source of that group's end goals. I wouldn't let you speak for them.
|
On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true.
You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there.
I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted.
The bad faith is all you Danglars. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it. So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true.
You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there.
I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted.
The bad faith is all you Danglars. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it. So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness?
Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right?
|
On September 18 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:
Their intent is not very visible with their means of protest. They work against their own supposed aims.
If they wanted the statue gone they would have done something permanent to it. The fact that they didn't implies pretty heavily that they don't want the statue gone.
...
You'll need to link a verified source of that group's end goals. I wouldn't let you speak for them.
For the third time, then:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41258592
The list said Jefferson's statue was "an emblem of white supremacy" that should be "re-contextualized with a plaque to include that history".
|
On September 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:
Their intent is not very visible with their means of protest. They work against their own supposed aims.
If they wanted the statue gone they would have done something permanent to it. The fact that they didn't implies pretty heavily that they don't want the statue gone.
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show. Pretty pathetic means to an end. I would think college would teach them better, but alas.
...
You'll need to link a verified source of that group's end goals. I wouldn't let you speak for them.
For the third time, then:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41258592
The list said Jefferson's statue was "an emblem of white supremacy" that should be "re-contextualized with a plaque to include that history". [/QUOTE]
Then they're showing their aims aren't well represented by their means. Their actions prove that the statue is too real a figure in history to look at in its entirety. They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did. Recontextualize with a cloak rather than a plaque.
|
On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry.
On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you:
[quote]
I elaborated because you said:
[quote]
I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it.
[quote]
Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry.
On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you:
[quote]
I elaborated because you said:
[quote]
I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have it.
[quote]
Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness?
The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now.
Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right?
Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan.
|
On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't".
|
On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't".
"This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him."
You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true.
|
On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true.
Because you're imagining the shrouding to mean something it simply didn't. You never really had much of an argument in the first place but your refusal to give up this point makes it pretty obvious for everyone.
|
On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true.
(1) The statue being covered up and nobody being able to see it is not the preferred outcome of the protestors.
(2) "The entirety of his person to be acknowledged" is exactly what the protestors want.
(Using the same rhetorical flourish as I did doesn't make your point valid.)
|
On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?" The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Show nested quote +Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan.
Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue.
+ Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +
Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse.
Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land.
This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing:
+ Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +
Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that.
Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity?
|
Even for that I would only say, go through the proper legal channels and nothing more. It seems there was some push to remove it but it didn't ultimately work out. So make it a state issue, or bring it to court. Vandalism is the worst form of protest.
|
On September 18 2017 10:48 LegalLord wrote:
Even for that I would only say, go through the proper legal channels and nothing more. It seems there was some push to remove it but it didn't ultimately work out. So make it a state issue, or bring it to court. Vandalism is the worst form of protest.
I agree! Don't vandalize it. But do you favor removing it?
|
On September 18 2017 10:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:48 LegalLord wrote:
Even for that I would only say, go through the proper legal channels and nothing more. It seems there was some push to remove it but it didn't ultimately work out. So make it a state issue, or bring it to court. Vandalism is the worst form of protest. I agree! Don't vandalize it. But do you favor removing it?
Yes, but only through legal means.
|
There's maybe a discussion to be had about when it would be justifiable to remove it by illegal means. Local democratic rule of a majority-black city is being thwarted by a majority-white state government that wants to protect the legacy of a Grand Wizard. I could certainly see an argument for a sort of civil disobedience in this case – maybe something like the city voting to authorize its removal, finding a crew willing to go to prison over its removal, then taking it to court when the state tries to block the city's order or punish the crew that took it down by the city's orders. I don't know.
But for present purposes the more valuable discussion is, if we want to take down/move/recontextualize Nathan B Forrest statues, but we probably don't want to take down George Washington statues, then where do we draw the line between them, and based on what factors? I would argue that the significance of the statue to the people that built it, and to people today, is more significant than the man depicted. If previously unknown historical evidence surfaced tomorrow revealed that Washington secretly hated Jews or something, I'm not sure that would change my opinion of whether his statue should remain. The statues weren't erected to celebrate this hypothetical anti-Semitism since it wasn't known to people at the time, and people today are celebrating him for entirely different reasons. I don't think the same can be said for Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Before we can have that discussion, though, I'm eager to hear what Danglars would think should happen to the statue, if he were a Memphian.
|
Remember when I said this statute debate was useless? Libs would argue facts of the life. Cons would argue in bad faith about slippery slopes and consistently extend oddball protesters into meaning something they didn't. The real statute lovers ended the debate at tradition while the libs and cons on this board talked past each other. The last 4 pages of quote nitpicking by team Con without ever engaging in the facts of Jefferson are proof of my points.
|
Well your making some progress. Your post is still incoherent ramblings that you didn't tighten up for public viewings. However you are making reference, retroactive as it may oddly be. You don't make quotes either so none of your points have any value other then smug cheerleader shlock.
|
On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true.
Continuously insisting that your projection onto reality is in fact the reality itself doesn't make it true. You have this ridiculous holier-than-thou attitude towards the act of draping a shroud over a statue, and insist that you know better than they do why they did it, and that it is completely unacceptable. What a joke.
I do have to commend you though, for derailing this thread for so many pages about this statue nonsense. Maybe sometime soon we can go back to having useful discussions and less devil's advocate distraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9R9PrIX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LKfRa1G.jpg)
EPT
