Indeed, quite radical. I like that. — BlueBanana

Quite brainless and stupid, actually, which I don't like.

I know. When that was written men only included white landowners, lol. — Buxtebuddha

Are you talking about eligibility to vote? Lincoln was elected in 1860 if that helps you. Might want to read a history of your own country... I'm just sayin'

It's not a no-brainer either way as a statue of Hitler would be — Baden

[insert disagreement]

Quite brainless and stupid, actually, which I don't like. — Buxtebuddha

Maybe. I wouldn't judge it so harshly. But radical.

Are you talking about eligibility to vote? Lincoln was elected in 1860 if that helps you. Might want to read a history of your own country... I'm just sayin' — Mongrel

All men were not equal or equally free at that point, so I don't know what you're saying.

Perhaps we should have a 'world park' where the statues of former glories of various regimes could keep each other uncomfortable company: Stalin, Hitler, Lee, Calhoun, Idi Amin, bad popes, tsarist tyrants, Saudi kings, ISIS caliphs, Mexican drug cartel thugs, backward regressive jerks like Trump, record-breaking crooks, et al. — Bitter Crank

Everyone you disagree with? Ok, add the people in this thread while you're at it.

All men were not equal or equally free at that point, so I don't know what you're saying. — Buxtebuddha

It's a goal. A founding principle.

My beef is with what it represents. — Mongrel

But there's hardly such a thing as representing something objectively. The statue does not represent slavery, but there are people who interpret it to represent that. At how many people do you draw the line? Is one offended person enough to tear it down? Dozens? Five thousands? A million?

I'm offended by it. Confederate flags, monuments to southern participants... it's all the remnants of white supremacist crap. The slogan "The South will rise again" often accompanies it. It's a threat directed at all non-whites and Jews.

How does anybody not know that?

You're offended by it and find the statue to be universally insulting, while other people, not offended, are saying it's not offending. Do you see where we are coming from? Do you get why some would say you're biased by you own offendedness and that the statue's offendingness is not a universal fact? Because I on the other side, unoffended and finding the statue also objectively not offending, see why my subjective opinion is worthless to this discussion.

That is why we need something more objective. That is why I asked twice, where do you draw the line? First, when I asked whether thinking that thinking that thinking that thinking that doing something morally wrong is morally wrong, and second time when I asked how many people who interpret that statue as offending are needed.

If we had a king who rules by divine right, we could just take his word. But Americans don't have one of those. We grapple.

If you don't care one way or the other, then why not just let the people who do care deal with it?

That the opinions of those who care should be more important: now that's a good idea.

Unfortunately to you, I do care. As I have said, to me the statue represents freedom of speech and tolerance.

Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up? — Mongrel

1) Opinion noted, but believe it or not, we don't read every @Agustino post (at least I don't) and rely on members to a degree to flag offensive posts. That or a PM is the most direct way of getting something dealt with.
2) Please use the feedback forum if you want to continue this. This discussion is not about Agustino and any more from anyone about him here will be deleted.

the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up? — Mongrel

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Unfortunately to you, I do care. As I have said, to me the statue represents freedom of speech and tolerance. — BlueBanana

Your ally is David Duke. Are you ok with that?

Why wouldn't I be? Does a "bad" person doing something automatically define that action as morally bad?

So the the fact that Duke is your ally doesn't give you pause?

Again, why would it? Hitler breathed air and ate food, and so do you (I assume). Your ally is Adolf Hitler. Are you ok with that?

You'd probably point out that your example is an opinion while mine is a necessary action, but I can rephrase that as "staying alive is worth the trouble of breathing". Your argument is a gross fallacy. Association fallacy, to be exact.

How does anybody not know that? — Mongrel

Some of the white supremacists (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan) also have a thing about Catholics who, in the United States, are mostly white. White racists tend to come out of Protestant communities. That tendency isn't a factor of Protestant theology, it's more a function of ethnicity and the geography of religion.

For the lonely neo-nazi, here is a Christmas Carol to brighten the hot southern summer.

Chat Mitchell Trio, Round 3: The 'I was not a Nazi Polka"

Some of the white supremacists (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan) also have a thing about Catholics who, in the United States, are mostly white. — Bitter Crank

Most Catholics I meet have no idea how deep seated anti-Catholic sentiment once was and still is in some places. I knew a New Jersey Italian girl who was mystified that her future in-laws wouldn't come to the wedding if it was held in a Catholic Church.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/13/1689254/-Lexington-KY-mayor-announces-all-Confederate-statues-are-coming-down-because-of-Charlottesville

As predicted.

Meanwhile, In Durham, NC protestors (from various leftist organizations like IWW, Workers World Party, etc.) pulled down a statue of an ordinary confederate soldier (neither an officer nor a heroic equestrian statue). Fortunately, no one was hurt by being to close to the falling statue.

I don't think we should go around extracting historical figures from their time and place and judging them by our contemporary moral and ethical standards. Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder, George Washington as well. Lincoln wrote some unkind things about the races living together and inequality of the races. How many Protestant Presidents said unkind things about Catholics and Jews.
Are we going to remove all of their statues and rename all the roads, bridges and buildings?

By all accounts Robert E. Lee was an honorable man and it seems his major fault was losing the war and the fact that some factions of bigots, Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists have made him their hero of sorts. The Civil War is part of our history, it basically made us a nation. Before the War people thought of themselves as Virginians or Ohioans first and as citizens of the USA second. Lee felt duty bound to follow his native state of Virginia. The issue of secession of the states was settled by the war. There were men who fought and died on both sides and both sides have the right to honor their history and their sacrifice. The war was initially not about slavery as any good history student will tell you it was about preserving the union.

Interesting. You know those things that make you think, "if I was a conspiracy theorist, this'd be suspicious"?

Hi Prothero.

By all accounts Robert E. Lee was an honorable man

Take a look at this article.

No, I don't, because conspiracy theorists are nutjobs.

That's why I said if.