- Nov 7, 2020
- Reaction score
- Mobile, Alabama
The Confederate statues need to go. If they were more ancient I could see an argument, but they are quite recent.
BTW, when the Catholic Popes replaced the Roman Emperors they destroyed many Roman pagan buildings but elected to keep the Roman Coliseum even though it was used to kill Christians. IN sense it was blessing they did not destroy everything. IN their quest of purity they also destroyed writings from Aristotle. I think it is important to have a level head and try to understand the past in context.
Its just an educated guess, maybe on my part but perhaps Farb is doing a version of reductio ad absurdum, an old Latin judicial-legal term meaning, "reduce to absurdity". Its an age-old legal/philosophical rhetorical form of argument or thought-experiment where you destroy or discredit your opponent's arguments by taking what it is their strongest position and showing how dubious, weak, hypocritical or lacking in overall merit it seems to have.You think a statue of Robert E Lee put up in New Orleans (where he never even served) was because of his prolific writing? Or the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Nashville was for his well known kindness to animals?
You do realize that Lee was opposed initially to secessionist politicians and their slave-holding plantation elites desires to break with the Union? He thought it was rash and also in his heart of hearts, perhaps even in early 1861, knew that any combined Confederate attempts to secede from the Union would end up in a prolonged Civil War that due to North's much larger manpower, industrial prowess and efficiency, it was a conflict South couldn't win long-term. Lee may have been a slave-holder, and a reluctant secessionist especially after his own state of Virginia formally seceded but he was a keen, military strategist and he knew all too well the immense industrial and military prowess, technological advantages his adversary had. Many top, high-ranking Confederate generals were all too aware of this, too. Then-Colonel Robert E. Lee actually led a very dangerous reconnaissance scouting mission with a small group of scouts hundreds of miles behind enemy lines during Mexican-American War to gather information on Mexican troop movements and logistical supply lines. He also helped prevent what potentially could've been an unnecessary US infantry attack on what some of his scouts said looked like Mexican Army tents when what in reality were just a very large amount of grazing sheep sleeping in a valley.
Most Confederates derived their notoriety from their role in the killing of Americans so that Southern states could keep slaves. That's the entire purpose of the civil war, and some generals were really good at killing Americans so they became celebrities for killing Americans. And the reason they killed Americans was so that the South could leave the union, and the reason they wanted to leave the union was because they wanted to keep slaves. Apparently those statues aren't that good at teaching history.
When did we learn this? I don't believe this, is this a belief you have? If so, could you explain why you believe this?
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd. That's the reason George Floyd and Derek Chauvin are famous. His death was ruled a homicide by the coroner and a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of committing that homicide. Those are hard facts.
I certainly think it's valid to question whether George Floyd is worthy of being honored in the public square. He's become a symbol, a symbol of the perception of an uncaring justice system.
Meanwhile, Bill Cosby gets released due to some unforeseen legal procedural technicality because some previous Pa. DA made a deal allowing Cosby legal immunity from prosecution if he related or discussed the details of how he went about doping unsuspecting women at his homes, condo lofts, penthouses, etc and then once they were knocked out, he would sexually assault/rape them. We know the man is guilty. It would be asinine for any rational, ethically sound human being to even ATTEMPT to argue he's not guilty of these crimes. I think a few enterprising prosecutors should've realized or accepted the bitter, damning reality that any deal, terrible or otherwise, made by their predecessors, made with suspects related to them releasing information after an immunity agreement, has to be respected, whether they think its BS, fundamentally immoral.
I think it's impossible to tell what you are or are not in favor of because you rarely actually state your opinion and actually argue it, instead you do like the above and play this game where you think you caught the left in some sort of hypocritical position and try to mimic a poor man's version of that argument to point out the hypocrisy. Which only works if you actually captured the argument of a poster here accurately and not some distorted version of it. And then it only works for that one poster. Instead of you know, taking a position and arguing it. As it stands, it looks like you let the "the left" define your positions for you.