NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[CrusaderFrank]

Just saw where NYC said that adding a plaque explaining the possible faults of the honorees would satisfy all parties as a reasonable compromise. Fine. Add a fucking plaque.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the NY Italian Americans would not allow the statue at Columbus Square to come down. It was paid for in dimes and quarters donated by our ancestors.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It was actually Marty who did that as do many conservatives who try to defend the veneration of monsters by telling me it was a different time.

No. This began long before I said anything about the 1800s being a different time. This started when I said morality changed in relation to time. That’s when you started your pointless lectures trying to educate me on matters of time that I didn’t say or meant.

I don't care what time the atrocities took place. I don't care if it was noon, I don't care if it was midnight. You appear to be doing the same thing or dodging my actually arguments to make irrelevant comments. This argument has become a tangle of irrelevant tangents so let's try to clear them up.

Your lectures on time were irrelevant tangents. For that matter, your allegations that I venerate slavers were irrelevant and false.

Your moral judgments are not relevant to the topic and are only meant for one purpose: to put me on the defensive.

You stopped discussing the topic long ago and everything since then has been nothing but insults and moral posturing. For you, the height of intellectual discourse is laugh emojis and calling people “bingo” and “simp”.

I have said cultures change. As you will point out below at the beginning of this argument I argued the culture of the Democratic Party changed.

Then why did you accuse me of trying to maneuver you into a “gotcha” quote when I asked if cultures change?

That it is not the same today as it was in the 1800. What more do you want? I'm not reluctant to admit that cultures change, I'm weary of people who continually reference time as if it's important to the conversation.

You’re weary because you’re a hypocrite trying to tie all your bullshit contradictory arguments together and it’s not working.

As for the issue of that being a different time, like I said before, it was a different time. The moral standards of that time were not the same as today and the moral zeitgeist of that time did not view slavery the same as we do today.

You’re judging 1800s morality by today’s morality. It was not considered immoral by as many people then.

Yes. It was relevant to your address your comment about the Democratic Party's history of slavery so that I was sure that you understood cultures change and that my support of them now has no relevance to their past history of support of slavery.

And yet you refused to answer the question.

None of what you’re saying now explains your refusal to answer that question.

Is that a relevant point though? Were we debating who had slavery the longest?

Apparently. You’re the one who brought it up.

No. I was addressing your comments about the Founders and the Constitution being unique and special in its expression and protection of liberty by pointing out nearly every developed nation at the time ended the practice before they did and also didn't have a 100 years of segregation afterwards.

And? It’s still largely irrelevant considering the time span.

You’re not a native of this country, which means you came here long after these people died and long after the statues were already up and people were “venerating” them.

If it was all so reprensible, again, why are you still here?

Ok.... but my argument is and always has been that slavers are shit people who don't deserve veneration.

No it’s not. You’ve also been arguing that I venerate slavers when I neither said nor implied any such thing.

You became responsible for all the tangents when you stopped discussing the topic and decided to turn it into a childish morality contest.

Is this relevant to that? You refusing to address my argument to make these points only leads to me think these comments are meant in defense of their veneration. If they're not then what's the point of them? What's their relevance?

What argument have I not addressed?

Quote it.

I’ll quote it when you quote where I venerate slavers.

What argument are these comments in service of? Who's arguing otherwise? I not suggestion we venerate King George in Washington's stead.

They’re in service of putting things in perspective for you.

As I said before, you seem to have particular contempt for America’s history of slavery. You always bring up that America was the last to abolish it.

Another comment who's relevance I'm finding hard to discern. Same in the sense that they were both American governments but so what?

The government changed.

Which brings up another point: if the Democrat Party is not the same as it was then and is a different party, logic dictates that the government is not the same either, yes? Ergo, how do you justify holding this government responsible for reparations but do not hold this Democrat Party responsible for slavery?

If you recognize morality is subjective then why are you asking me to provide you with objective proof that you're a racist?

If morality is subjective then what is your allegation based on?

Remember, you made the allegation first before I asked for evidence and, more importantly, YOU are the one who said morality is subjective.

Your irrelevant points that seem to be in defense of the veneration of slavers even as you deny it aren't convincing to me therefore I think you're a racist. Maybe other people feel differently, subjectively. Certainly you do. I don't care. That gets to be your subjective belief.

Like I said, your moral judgments are irrelevant to the topic and it’s lazy deflection.

Why thank you. We've had pretty good success with it when it comes to Confederates, I don't see why it should be any different with other slavers.

You haven’t had success with anybody, especially Confederates. The Confederates are all dead. All you’ve done is take some statues down.

Removing statues is merely a symbolic victory at best. People will still “venerate” these people.

Sure. What's the relevance? You know Washington and Jefferson lived and died as slavers right? They're relevant to my argument about whether pieces of human shits should be venerated. How is yours?

Irrelevant. I’m talking about cultures changing.

You tell me. Why did you engage in discourse with me if you didn't want to address my argument and instead make these comments that you yourself claim are not in service of promoting or defending the veneration of slavers?

I repeat: I said that because your remarks seem to indicate that you think this is what I believe: that blacks are lesser forms of human.

You say it had no relevance yet you seemed to think I believe that shit. You then ranted at me over the course of two or three days about blacks not being animals as if I was the one who said it.

And now, after ranting about it for two days, you now say it’s not relevant.

What added dimension? Yes, to me slavers, all slavers, are mutant pieces of shit and not worthy of veneration. That's my case. I get to make it. If you want to make the case that not all slavers are bad then you make that case. I thought that's what we were doing here but you can't seem to make up your mind.

Okay, be an ignorant fuck.

When you say it was accepted at the time its important to be clear you mean by slavers and their slave society.

Yes. Who else?

It wasn't accepted as moral by the slaves.

Of course it wasn’t. But slaves were slaves. Meaning, they had virtually no influence on the moral climate.

To them it was evil and horrible and brutal. And that's one of my points. The only perspective that gets considered by racist pieces of human shit are the slavers perspective.

Yada yada yada. Of course they thought it was evil.

Not correct in an objective sense but I'm sure subjectively and emotionally

Once again, if morality is subjective then NO MORALITY IS CORRECT.

To further emphasize just how subjective morality is, look at the situation in Israel and the world’s response to it. People in this country -not just the Middle East - are cheering and applauding the massacre of innocent civilians, including women and children.

In light of our conversation, I can’t help but wonder how many of these same people abhor slavery and, like you, abhor the statues.

I also can’t help but wonder just how much statues of slave owners matter in light of the slaughter that happened there and the celebration of it. It really does seem pointless and irrelevant.

I can convince a majority, over time, that people who venerate slaving pieces of human shit or who adopt the slavers mentality and disregard the feelings and suffering of their victims as not even being worth mentioning as being relevant at the time, that they too are pieces of human shit.

Look around you, man, it doesn’t mean shit anymore.

I don't know what way you think I'm trying to have it.

You’re trying to have your subjective morality and judge too. You can’t have it both ways.

I'm trying to convince people, subjectively, that slavers and their idolaters are human pieces of shit.

Okay, fine: subjectively, slavers and their idolaters are human pieces of shit. Except, morality being subjective, this is not objectively true. This renders it as opinion.

I use the term human pieces of shit because I'm appealing to people's emotions.

Using emotions is what charlatans do and can’t be taken seriously. It’s a cheap logical fallacy known as Appeal to Emotion and rarely addresses actual truth that matters.

Objectively Washington was a slaver but how anyone feels about slavery is subjective.

I agree that slavery is abhorant. But, I don’t agree based on emotionally charged diatribes that are meant to shame me to one’s point of view as you do. I find it abhorant simply because I have empathy and know how I would feel in the same situation.

In what sense?

In the sense of your hypocrisy and in shying away from supporting your assertions with evidence. Namely, that I’m a racist.

Ok.

Not the independence of the slaves though. There goes you being a piece of human shit again and forgetting they exist.

Irrelevant. He was still instrumental in fighting for our independence. The rest is your cheap appeal to emotion.

No. You've been pussing out this entire conversation Mr. I haven't argued either way. Then what the fuck are we doing here?

You pussed out on two requests: 1.) Answering the question as to cultures changing. 2.) Present evidence or a quote that supports your allegation that I venerate slavers.

See, I can actually cite two specifics here. I’ll bet you couldn’t give me one specific example of my pussing out.

 

[Curried Goats]

No. This began long before I said anything about the 1800s being a different time. This started when I said morality changed in relation to time. That’s when you started your pointless lectures trying to educate me on matters of time that I didn’t say or meant.

Not pointless after all as we'll see. Like all conservatives and slaver idolaters you try to hide behind time like the little bitch that you are and I knew ahead of time this is where it was going because this is where it always goes with you clowns.

Your moral judgments are not relevant to the topic and are only meant for one purpose: to put me on the defensive.

They are relevant to my argument. If you don't want to address my argument then feel free to fuck off.

You stopped discussing the topic long ago and everything since then has been nothing but insults and moral posturing. For you, the height of intellectual discourse is laugh emojis and calling people “bingo” and “simp”.

I am discussing the topic, my way. You discuss it however you want. I'm not the one who started up a conversation with you you bozo.

As for the issue of that being a different time, like I said before, it was a different time. The moral standards of that time were not the same as today and the moral zeitgeist of that time did not view slavery the same as we do today.

You’re judging 1800s morality by today’s morality. It was not considered immoral by as many people then.

And this is why my comments about time were prescient. As we've established, exhaustingly, TIME has no moral standards. Morality isn't a property of time. It's a property of people. It's subjective to people. There were no standards of the Time. There were standards of Slavers and their slave society in that time, but there were also people in that time who found it morally reprehensible. I'm judging slavers by MY standards. You don't want to reveal what your standards are so you hide behind Time like a little bitch.

You’re not a native of this country, which means you came here long after these people died and long after the statues were already up and people were “venerating” them.

If it was all so reprensible, again, why are you still here?

Because I'm not worried about you slaver idolaters. I see your deplorable mutant culture being pushed to towards extinction.

You became responsible for all the tangents when you stopped discussing the topic and decided to turn it into a childish morality contest.

I'm not the little bitch trying to hide behind Father Time.

As I said before, you seem to have particular contempt for America’s history of slavery. You always bring up that America was the last to abolish it.

I bring it up as a counter argument to clowns who think the Founders and America's Constitution were a breakthrough in liberty and freedom. That isn't reality. They were as big a tyrants as any who came before.

Which brings up another point: if the Democrat Party is not the same as it was then and is a different party, logic dictates that the government is not the same either, yes? Ergo, how do you justify holding this government responsible for reparations but do not hold this Democrat Party responsible for slavery?

My point was one of ideology. The ideology of the Democratic Party today isn't what it was in the 1800. That doesn't absolve America of the financial debt it owes those it wronged.

If morality is subjective then what is your allegation based on?

My morals you dumb Dope.

Remember, you made the allegation first before I asked for evidence and, more importantly, YOU are the one who said morality is subjective.

To people, not Time. I can't help that you're too much of a bitch to stand by your own moral values.

You haven’t had success with anybody, especially Confederates. The Confederates are all dead. All you’ve done is take some statues down.

And get mainstream society to shit on its idolaters. The culture has been changed. Not even NASCAR or the Country Music Awards want mutant southern whites to bring their shit culture to their events anymore. Confederate idolatry will eventually die of old age and shame.

Removing statues is merely a symbolic victory at best. People will still “venerate” these people.

It's more than that. It marks a shift in the cultural zeitgeist as you call it.

I repeat: I said that because your remarks seem to indicate that you think this is what I believe: that blacks are lesser forms of human.

You certainly seem to prove that time and time again by ignoring them when you indicate that the Slaver morality was the Morality of the Time, rather than just the morality of their shitty slaver culture.

Once again, if morality is subjective then NO MORALITY IS CORRECT.

Taste is also subjective, does that mean there is no good tasting food? What it means is that what tastes good to you is based on your subjective experience. I know that there is no objective morality, I'm stating what my subjective moral beliefs are and inquiring about yours. Are you the type of piece of human shit to venerate slavers? Seems like.

To further emphasize just how subjective morality is, look at the situation in Israel and the world’s response to it. People in this country -not just the Middle East - are cheering and applauding the massacre of innocent civilians, including women and children.

At least they're honest about it and not hiding behind Time like the little bitch that you are.

I also can’t help but wonder just how much statues of slave owners matter in light of the slaughter that happened there and the celebration of it. It really does seem pointless and irrelevant.

You could start a thread about it. Have you commented in those? I don't choose for you how you spend your time.

Look around you, man, it doesn’t mean shit anymore.

Then why are you here instead of those threads? You prove it means something to you by continuing to respond.

You’re trying to have your subjective morality and judge too. You can’t have it both ways.

Of course I can. We all do it all the time with subjective tastes in food, music, movies, and art. People even get paid professionally to do it. They're called Critics.

Okay, fine: subjectively, slavers and their idolaters are human pieces of shit. Except, morality being subjective, this is not objectively true. This renders it as opinion.

No shit. Who was arguing otherwise? Did you just realize I was asking for your opinion and not Father Times? You aren't the brightest tool in the shed are you?

Using emotions is what charlatans do and can’t be taken seriously. It’s a cheap logical fallacy known as Appeal to Emotion and rarely addresses actual truth that matters.

Is there an objective truth to who should be venerated? Seems like an inherently subjective question to me. What objective truth are you referring to?

I agree that slavery is abhorant. But, I don’t agree based on emotionally charged diatribes that are meant to shame me to one’s point of view as you do. I find it abhorant simply because I have empathy and know how I would feel in the same situation.

Even in the 1800s? How could you? Would Daddy Time even let you?

Irrelevant. He was still instrumental in fighting for our independence. The rest is your cheap appeal to emotion.

He didn't fight for our independence or the independence of the people he kept as slaves. He fought for his own independence. He wanted to be a free agent Slaver rather than a contracted one. Big fucking whoop.

You pussed out on two requests: 1.) Answering the question as to cultures changing. 2.) Present evidence or a quote that supports your allegation that I venerate slavers.

I did not. I stated cultures change before you even asked your question and I have all the evidence I need for myself, I don't give a shit about proving to you that you're a racist. Under what circumstance would you even concede? Stop being a clown.

See, I can actually cite two specifics here. I’ll bet you couldn’t give me one specific example of my pussing out.

Good for you, Short Bus.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not pointless after all as we'll see. Like all conservatives and slaver idolaters you try to hide behind time like the little bitch that you are and I knew ahead of time this is where it was going because this is where it always goes with you clowns.

You’re hiding behind time when you say the Democrat Party is not the same as it was then.

But again, you are the one who first brought up time.

They are relevant to my argument. If you don't want to address my argument then feel free to fuck off.

Your moral judgments about me are not relevant to the topic of whether or not we should removes statues of historical figures who owned slaves.

I am discussing the topic, my way.

Yes, with insults and moral posturing.

You discuss it however you want. I'm not the one who started up a conversation with you you bozo.

What does that have to do with your off-topic, improper debate style?

And this is why my comments about time were prescient. As we've established, exhaustingly, TIME has no moral standards. Morality isn't a property of time.

The cosmic properties of time have nothing to do with the moral zeitgeist regarding slavery being different then.

It's a property of people. It's subjective to people. There were no standards of the Time. There were standards of Slavers and their slave society in that time, but there were also people in that time who found it morally reprehensible. I'm judging slavers by MY standards. You don't want to reveal what your standards are so you hide behind Time like a little bitch.

Everything you’re telling me here means that morality is subjective and not governed by, or affected by time (which I never said in the first place). Which means the moral attitudes by the population at large regarding slavery was not the same as it is today.

This is your equivocation I mentioned earlier: the overall concept of morality is subjective when it serves you and when it doesn’t, your morality suddenly becomes objective.

Because I'm not worried about you slaver idolaters. I see your deplorable mutant culture being pushed to towards extinction.

That doesn’t answer the question.

I'm not the little bitch trying to hide behind Father Time.

You brought it up first.

I bring it up as a counter argument to clowns who think the Founders and America's Constitution were a breakthrough in liberty and freedom. That isn't reality. They were as big a tyrants as any who came before.

America’s Constitution and type of government is unique. It doesn’t matter that you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of reconciling this with their owning slaves but it’s the truth.

My point was one of ideology. The ideology of the Democratic Party today isn't what it was in the 1800.

Neither is that of the government.

You can change the wording or language all you want but it still comes down to the Democrat Party, the Republican Party and the government all having significanly changed since the 1800s. If the Democrat Party changed then so did the government.

Not to mention the fact that the Democrat Party comprised fully fifty percent of the government and still does. In other words, the party you chose to join - by your remarks thus far - is fifty percent responsible for oppressing and discriminating against blacks even after slavery ended.

None of the politicians that were in office in the 1800s all the way up to the sixties are in office now so it’s an entirely different entity.

That doesn't absolve America of the financial debt it owes those it wronged.

But this government didn’t wrong them.

My morals you dumb Dope.

But your morality is subjective. So outside of your personal opinion, what makes you right that I’m a racist?

To people, not Time.

YOU brought up time, not me.

You brought it up as justification for joining the Democrat Party. Remember?: “Do you understand how time works?”

I can't help that you're too much of a bitch to stand by your own moral values.

According to you, I have stood by my moral values: I’m a deplorable, mutant racist and I venerate slavers.

So what’s it going to be,

1.) You don’t know my moral values and so I’m racist or,

2.) You know my moral values but I won’t stand by them so I’m a racist bitch.

Looks like you’ve got all the bases covered.

Idiot

And get mainstream society to shit on its idolaters.

And stifle free speech and commit violence.

You dumbasses are too stupid and too blinded by your faux righteousness to realize that you’re behaving exactly like you accuse racists of being and that you’re hypocritically violating every principle you stand for: freedom of speech, peace and tolerance.

Look at your own posts. They’re fairly dripping with hate and get more so the further we go. The insults have ratcheted up to a point where it’s all you have to say anymore.

It's more than that. It marks a shift in the cultural zeitgeist as you call it.

Do you remember what you said when I first brought up zeitgeist? You said “Who gives a shit?”.

Now you use the word yourself.

You certainly seem to prove that time and time again by ignoring them when you indicate that the Slaver morality was the Morality of the Time, rather than just the morality of their shitty slaver culture.

I’m sorry, how does this mean I’m ignoring them, exactly? Obviously the slaves felt differently and I acknowledged that in my last post. So quit your righteous bellyaching and pay attention to what I say.

At the time, the moral zeitgeist in the white community regarding slavery was not what it is today. If it had been it would have been abolished sooner.

Christ, it’s not rocket science.

Taste is also subjective, does that mean there is no good tasting food?

facepalm

It doesn’t mean there’s no good tasting food but it also doesn’t mean there’s no bad tasting food. Get it?

What it means is that what tastes good to you is based on your subjective experience. I know that there is no objective morality, I'm stating what my subjective moral beliefs are and inquiring about yours. Are you the type of piece of human shit to venerate slavers? Seems like.

If your morality is subjective then if I did venerate slavers, it would only be your opinion that I’m a piece of human shit. It would not be objectively true. Understand?

As it is, you already accuse me of venerating slavers and have refused to give evidence of this because there is no concrete evidence to support it.

“Morality is subjective but my moral opinion is objectively correct even though I can’t produce evidence to support it.”

At least they're honest about it and not hiding behind Time like the little bitch that you are.

Can I take this to mean you also applaud the torture and slaughter of innocents?

You could start a thread about it. Have you commented in those? I don't choose for you how you spend your time.

So again, can I take this to mean you applaud it?

Then why are you here instead of those threads? You prove it means something to you by continuing to respond.

I didn’t say I wanted to discuss it, I said the subjectivity of the morality of statues seems pointless in light of people cheering a massacre.

Of course I can. We all do it all the time with subjective tastes in food, music, movies, and art. People even get paid professionally to do it. They're called Critics.

Then you must realize that your allegation of racism is not objectively true, right?

No shit. Who was arguing otherwise?

You have been arguing otherwise, dumbass. You have been saying from the beginning that your morality is “correct” or “better”.

Did you just realize I was asking for your opinion and not Father Times? You aren't the brightest tool in the shed are you?

I realized way back that you truly do not understand what subjective means.

Is there an objective truth to who should be venerated?

Not as far as I know.

Seems like an inherently subjective question to me. What objective truth are you referring to?

I didn’t refer to any objective truth. I said the appeal to emotion fallacy rarely addresses any actual truth that matters.

Even in the 1800s? How could you? Would Daddy Time even let you?

Are you saying you don’t know that you wouldn’t like being a slave?

He didn't fight for our independence or the independence of the people he kept as slaves. He fought for his own independence. He wanted to be a free agent Slaver rather than a contracted one. Big fucking whoop.

Slavery and Washington’s owning slaves had nothing to do with the war for independence.

I did not. I stated cultures change before you even asked your question and I have all the evidence I need for myself,

Then why did you refuse to answer?

I don't give a shit about proving to you that you're a racist. Under what circumstance would you even concede? Stop being a clown.

I have no obligations regarding your allegations. You have the obligation of proving it.

The fact that you can’t prove it and refuse to to try means you have no credibility.

Good for you, Short Bus.

And you still can’t cite specifics.

 

[Curried Goats]

You’re hiding behind time when you say the Democrat Party is not the same as it was then.

Now you're just being pouty and silly. There are objective differences in the Democratic party, both in platform and demographics. They no longer support slavery or segregation and black voters make up the backbone of their support in the south while southern whites largely vote Republican.

That's a bit different than you trying to pretend morality is subjective to time rather than yourself so you can avoid making any moral judgments on your slaver heroes.

Your moral judgments about me are not relevant to the topic of whether or not we should removes statues of historical figures who owned slaves.

Sure they are. We don't venerate people for objective reasons, we venerate people for emotional ones. Veneration is inherently emotional.

The cosmic properties of time have nothing to do with the moral zeitgeist regarding slavery being different then.

Of course not, so why do you keep hiding behind it in order to avoid making a moral judgement on a society of slavers?

Everything you’re telling me here means that morality is subjective and not governed by, or affected by time (which I never said in the first place). Which means the moral attitudes by the population at large regarding slavery was not the same as it is today.

What does what day it is have to do with whether slavery is morally acceptable to you? I'm not asking slavers about their opinion on slavery I'm asking for your opinion on slavers.

This is your equivocation I mentioned earlier: the overall concept of morality is subjective when it serves you and when it doesn’t, your morality suddenly becomes objective.

Not once have I claimed morality to be objective though I am confident I can eventually get a majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible (subjectively) and that slavers shouldn't be venerated.

America’s Constitution and type of government is unique. It doesn’t matter that you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of reconciling this with their owning slaves but it’s the truth.

It's not unique in any way that matters to me. It still allowed the powerful and wealthy to exploit those beneath them for wealth and profit. It you who can't reconcile that fact with your idyllic view of the Founders and the Constitution.

You can change the wording or language all you want but it still comes down to the Democrat Party, the Republican Party and the government all having significanly changed since the 1800s. If the Democrat Party changed then so did the government.

I'm not changing the wording, I'm giving context. Ideologically all have changed. As far as legal and financial responsibility for the atrocities of slavery and segregation, nothings changed.

Not to mention the fact that the Democrat Party comprised fully fifty percent of the government and still does. In other words, the party you chose to join - by your remarks thus far - is fifty percent responsible for oppressing and discriminating against blacks even after slavery ended.

The Democratic party of that time was 100% responsible for its actions at the time.

None of the politicians that were in office in the 1800s all the way up to the sixties are in office now so it’s an entirely different entity.

Which doesn't negate financial responsibility. If your father owns a company, defrauds his clients, drops dead of a heart attack and you take over and bring in all new people and stop defrauding your clients, we can all agree that you're ideologically a different company but your company is still liable for its pervious instances of fraud.

But this government didn’t wrong them.

The American government did. That it's ideology has changed now doesn't negate that.

According to you, I have stood by my moral values: I’m a deplorable, mutant racist and I venerate slavers.

So what’s it going to be,

1.) You don’t know my moral values and so I’m racist or,

2.) You know my moral values but I won’t stand by them so I’m a racist bitch.

Looks like you’ve got all the bases covered.

Idiot

You're both moral reprehensible and a big pussy.

You dumbasses are too stupid and too blinded by your faux righteousness to realize that you’re behaving exactly like you accuse racists of being and that you’re hypocritically violating every principle you stand for: freedom of speech, peace and tolerance.

Tolerance is something I've never advocated for. That isn't to say that I support violence, but I don't have a problem with mercilessly shaming and belittling those you disagree with. I'm not sure where you think I'm hypocritical on my support for free speech or peace.

Look at your own posts. They’re fairly dripping with hate and get more so the further we go. The insults have ratcheted up to a point where it’s all you have to say anymore.

And? I make no bones about detesting slavers, their culture and their idolaters. What of it?

Do you remember what you said when I first brought up zeitgeist? You said “Who gives a shit?”.

I reiterate my question. Who gives a shit? Do you care about the feelings of slavers?

I’m sorry, how does this mean I’m ignoring them, exactly? Obviously the slaves felt differently and I acknowledged that in my last post. So quit your righteous bellyaching and pay attention to what I say.

You keep referring to the slaver morality as the morality of the time. I'm not forcing you to repeat that silly phrase. You do that all on your own.

It doesn’t mean there’s no good tasting food but it also doesn’t mean there’s no bad tasting food. Get it?

Nope. It means there is food that tastes bad but what tastes bad to you doesn’t necessarily taste bad to everyone else. Do you get it?

If your morality is subjective then if I did venerate slavers, it would only be your opinion that I’m a piece of human shit. It would not be objectively true. Understand?

I do but it's your reluctance to answer that let's me know that you understand if you did most people would see you as a piece of human shit and that's all I'm after.

As it is, you already accuse me of venerating slavers and have refused to give evidence of this because there is no concrete evidence to support it.

Other than you being a total pussy for five pages and giving weak ass defenses for slavers like time and them not knowing any better. That's all the answer I need.

You have been arguing otherwise, dumbass. You have been saying from the beginning that your morality is “correct” or “better”.

That's just your misinterpretation. I told you fairly early on that my rhetoric was purposefully inflammatory because I'm making an appeal to emotion. I know that for the most part, because western society has been conquered by judeo-christian values, that people would rather see themselves as anti-slaver than pro slaver. It's just that the American people have cognitive dissonance when it comes to being good moral Christians and venerators of slavers like Washington or slaving rapists like Jefferson. They don't like to think about the atrocities committed by their slaver heroes. They prefer the fairytale of noble statesmen. I'm fairly certain we can shame that out of most people.

I didn’t refer to any objective truth. I said the appeal to emotion fallacy rarely addresses any actual truth that matters.

What objective truth matters in matters of veneration?

Slavery and Washington’s owning slaves had nothing to do with the war for independence.

I know the slaves mean nothing to you, you've made that explicitly clear.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Now you're just being pouty and silly. There are objective differences in the Democratic party, both in platform and demographics.

Which changed over time.

They no longer support slavery or segregation and black voters make up the backbone of their support in the south while southern whites largely vote Republican.

Not necessarily true. I'm from the north but we moved to the deep south in my early teens and one of the things that stood out for us was that, even though they may have had conservative values, people voted their party: Democrat. The Democrat Party was the standard party for white southerners up to as recently as the 80s and 90s.

That began to change as the Democrat Party became more and more woke and began to ignore the middle class workers. The party began to focus almost exclusively on race and nothing else. This ultimately resulted in Trump's surprise win in the 2016 election.

That's a bit different than you trying to pretend morality is subjective to time rather than yourself so you can avoid making any moral judgments on your slaver heroes.

I never said morality was not subjective to myself you idiot.

You cherrypicked one comment from me and conflated it to mean I was saying that morality is subjective to time and nothing else.

You willfully misconstrue and conflate everything I say and then blame me because you can't understand my moral position.

Sure they are. We don't venerate people for objective reasons, we venerate people for emotional ones. Veneration is inherently emotional.

And there's your problem right there: venerating slavers is your opinion as to the motive or reasoning behind opposing the dismantling of statues.

Of course not, so why do you keep hiding behind it in order to avoid making a moral judgement on a society of slavers?

Opinion and irrelevant.

What does what day it is have to do with whether slavery is morally acceptable to you?

What gave you the idea that it might be acceptable to me?

I'm not asking slavers about their opinion on slavery I'm asking for your opinion on slavers.

I've already given you my views about the founders: some were brilliant and some of those owned slaves.

You expect me to condemn these people completely and totally on the one issue of owning slaves but I cannot and I will not. I recognize their achievements and am grateful for that much, if nothing else.

None of this has any bearing on my thoughts about slavery. It is wrong.

Not once have I claimed morality to be objective

You never claimed morality is objective but it's clear you think yours is.

though I am confident I can eventually get a majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible (subjectively) and that slavers shouldn't be venerated.

First of all, you'll never "get" anyone to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible. Either they already do or they do not. Secondly, it's easy to say that now when you know the majority already agrees that slavery is morally reprehensible. But are you confident that you would have gotten a majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible in the 1800s?

See, there's the pickle and the crux of what I've been trying to tell you. Slavery was not morally condemned as widely as it is today. As I said before, it was a different time. If it had had been as widely condemned at the time then slavery would have been abolished much sooner or maybe never would have been brought here at all.

It's not unique in any way that matters to me.

Your approval is not required. It is unique nonetheless.

It still allowed the powerful and wealthy to exploit those beneath them for wealth and profit.

What country hasn't?

It you who can't reconcile that fact with your idyllic view of the Founders and the Constitution.

Is it not obvious to you by now that I have reconciled it?

Some were slavers and slavery is considered wrong by most people today, including me.

I'm not changing the wording, I'm giving context. Ideologically all have changed. As far as legal and financial responsibility for the atrocities of slavery and segregation, nothings changed.

Then you must know that the Democrat Party is 50% responsible for the oppression and discrimination against blacks right up to the present, yes?

The Democratic party of that time was 100% responsible for its actions at the time.

But the Democrat party of today is not responsible for the party's actions at that time, right?

Which doesn't negate financial responsibility.

If you mean that tax revenue from folks whose ancestors arrived here after slavery and had no hand in the discrimination, I'm afraid it does negate it.

If your father owns a company, defrauds his clients, drops dead of a heart attack and you take over and bring in all new people and stop defrauding your clients, we can all agree that you're ideologically a different company but your company is still liable for its pervious instances of fraud.

Inapt analogy. A company's profits are its own and thus only the company pays. In this case, the American people pay, many of whom shouldn't have to.

The American government did. That it's ideology has changed now doesn't negate that.

Its people changed and that does negate it.

You're both moral reprehensible and a big pussy.

Like I said, you've got all the bases covered.

Idiot.

Tolerance is something I've never advocated for. That isn't to say that I support violence, but I don't have a problem with mercilessly shaming and belittling those you disagree with.

You "belittle and shame" people just for disagreeing with you?

I'm not sure where you think I'm hypocritical on my support for free speech or peace.

I didn't say you were hypocritical on free speech, dumbass. However, you are not a peaceful person at all and you have quite a bit of hate.

And? I make no bones about detesting slavers, their culture and their idolaters. What of it?

Tell me, why should anyone view your hate as being any less destructive or corrosive than anyone else's hate?

I reiterate my question. Who gives a shit? Do you care about the feelings of slavers?

If you don't give a shit then why did you use the word yourself?

You keep referring to the slaver morality as the morality of the time. I'm not forcing you to repeat that silly phrase. You do that all on your own.

Irrelevant. Answer the question: How exactly am I ignoring the slaves?

Nope. It means there is food that tastes bad but what tastes bad to you doesn’t necessarily taste bad to everyone else. Do you get it?

Wrong. It doesn't mean there is food that tastes bad. If taste is subjective then all foods are neither good tasting nor bad tasting. Everything else is subjective opinion.

This is why I say you don't understand subjectivity. Morality is a man made concept and is entirely subjective. That means that slavery - and even murder - are not objectively wrong or immoral. We say slavery is wrong today because we now know - via science and experience - that no human is less in any sense that matters and we all agree on that. We have learned enough about the suffering of slaves to know we would not want it for ourselves nor would we wish it on anyone else.

I do but it's your reluctance to answer that let's me know that you understand if you did most people would see you as a piece of human shit and that's all I'm after.

I don't know what it is I'm not answering but, if your opinion of my moral character is not objectively true then my reluctance to answer any question changes nothing: it is still not objectively true.

Other than you being a total pussy for five pages and giving weak ass defenses for slavers like time and them not knowing any better. That's all the answer I need.

Opinion and irrelevant. There's no evidence to support it.

That's just your misinterpretation. I told you fairly early on that my rhetoric was purposefully inflammatory because I'm making an appeal to emotion.

Emotion has nothing to do with truth. That's why it's considered a fallacy for the purpose of discussion and debate.

I know that for the most part, because western society has been conquered by judeo-christian values, that people would rather see themselves as anti-slaver than pro slaver.

It was conquered by the same people when they had slavery here.

It's just that the American people have cognitive dissonance when it comes to being good moral Christians and venerators of slavers like Washington or slaving rapists like Jefferson. They don't like to think about the atrocities committed by their slaver heroes. They prefer the fairytale of noble statesmen. I'm fairly certain we can shame that out of most people.

Yeah, and blacks like to blame the Rwanda genocide on European colonialism.

Believe me, people who oppose taking down the statues are by far not the only ones guilty of cognitive dissonance.

What objective truth matters in matters of veneration?

Irrelevant. I didn't imply anything about actual truth on this issue, I said appeal to emotion is a fallacy. It always is no matter the topic.

I know the slaves mean nothing to you, you've made that explicitly clear.

Opinion and irrelevant. Washington owning slaves had nothing to do with the war for independence.

I notice you avoided my question about the Hamas attack. Do you applaud the slaughter of civilians that occurred there?

 

[Curried Goats]

And there's your problem right there: venerating slavers is your opinion as to the motive or reasoning behind opposing the dismantling of statues.

My problem right here is your command of the English language.

1. It's not an opinion that statues and idols and monuments are built in veneration of people. That's just a fact. We don't choose to honor people, dispassionately and for objective reasons like we're Vulcans. We venerate people for emotional reasons and emotional attachment.

2. It's not an opinion that the Founders were slavers. That is also a fact.

3. That makes statues of Founders a veneration of slavers. I don't care that you want to venerate them for reasons that have nothing to do with slavery just as I wouldn't care if you wanted to honor Hitler for something other than the slaughtering of Jews.

I've already given you my views about the founders: some were brilliant and some of those owned slaves.

And also morons who didn't know black people were people. Such is the ridiculousness of your defense.

You expect me to condemn these people completely and totally on the one issue of owning slaves but I cannot and I will not. I recognize their achievements and am grateful for that much, if nothing else.

I dont expect you to do anything. If you want to shout your support for for people who are the equivalent of Hitler be my guest.

See, there's the pickle and the crux of what I've been trying to tell you. Slavery was not morally condemned as widely as it is today. As I said before, it was a different time. If it had had been as widely condemned at the time then slavery would have been abolished much sooner or maybe never would have been brought here at all.

What do you imagine this commentary has to do with my argument? You're making my case that they were a society of deplorable monsters who don't deserve veneration from decent human beings.

Then you must know that the Democrat Party is 50% responsible for the oppression and discrimination against blacks right up to the present, yes?

No. I don't know what kind of responsibility you're inferring because you haven't given any context. Are you talking moral responsibility? Financial responsibility?

But the Democrat party of today is not responsible for the party's actions at that time, right?

Not morally responsible, no. The people morally responsible for the actions of the time are the people who acted immorally in that time.

If you mean that tax revenue from folks whose ancestors arrived here after slavery and had no hand in the discrimination, I'm afraid it does negate it.

It doesn't. As I pointed out earlier Japanese Americans interned during WW 2 were paid reparations from tax payers in the 80s.

You "belittle and shame" people just for disagreeing with you?

Depends on what we disagree on. If you're a slaver idolater, absolutely.

Tell me, why should anyone view your hate as being any less destructive or corrosive than anyone else's hate?

What would be so bad about the destruction or corrosion of slaver culture?

Irrelevant. Answer the question: How exactly am I ignoring the slaves?

I have, repeatedly. You simply don't like the answer. You do it every time you refer to the slaver mentality as the morality of the time.

Wrong. It doesn't mean there is food that tastes bad. If taste is subjective then all foods are neither good tasting nor bad tasting. Everything else is subjective opinion.

Is that an accurate description of reality? When you eat food none of it tastes better or worse than the rest? Why don't you think about that conclusion you've arrived at for a moment.

Subjective doesn't mean non existent you moron, it just means personal to your own existence. You have feelings and they are at the same time both objective and subjective. Objective in that you have feelings (unless you're a psychopath) and they can be detected as electrical and chemical responses in your brain and subjective in that the chemical reactions going on in your head aren't the ones occurring in my own.

This is why I say you don't understand subjectivity. Morality is a man made concept and is entirely subjective. That means that slavery - and even murder - are not objectively wrong or immoral. We say slavery is wrong today because we now know - via science and experience - that no human is less in any sense that matters and we all agree on that. We have learned enough about the suffering of slaves to know we would not want it for ourselves nor would we wish it on anyone else.

Morality is simply the word we came up with to describe aspects of our feelings and emotions. We see someone getting mugged and it makes us afraid for ourselves and we don't like it so we say it's wrong. It's not that morality doesn't exist, it's just not what most people think it is. So while there might not be a universe or God waging its finger at you, people are judging you and that has an affect on social animals like ourselves.

Emotion has nothing to do with truth. That's why it's considered a fallacy for the purpose of discussion and debate.

Again, what truth are you referring to? We are discussing veneration which is inherently an emotional choice, not a dispassionate, objective one.

Yeah, and blacks like to blame the Rwanda genocide on European colonialism.

What does that deflection have to do with you or me?

Believe me, people who oppose taking down the statues are by far not the only ones guilty of cognitive dissonance.

I never suggested they were the only ones, just that they are.

Irrelevant. I didn't imply anything about actual truth on this issue, I said appeal to emotion is a fallacy. It always is no matter the topic.

It's a fallacy when used as an argument in objective debate but again, we're discussing veneration.

Opinion and irrelevant. Washington owning slaves had nothing to do with the war for independence.

It certainly has something to do with who's Independence you're referring to. Calling it the War for Independence is a bit of propaganda considering the people fighting on both sides were tyrants and slavers. They weren't fighting for everyone's independence, where they? We can just as accurately call it the war for Slaver Independence. Now does that sound like something worth venerating?

I notice you avoided my question about the Hamas attack. Do you applaud the slaughter of civilians that occurred there?

Of course not. The only person here taken with murderers, rapists and slavers is you.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My problem right here is your command of the English language.

1. It's not an opinion that statues and idols and monuments are built in veneration of people. That's just a fact. We don't choose to honor people, dispassionately and for objective reasons like we're Vulcans. We venerate people for emotional reasons and emotional attachment.

Irrelevant. I said it was your opinion as to the reasons some oppose dismantling the statues.

2. It's not an opinion that the Founders were slavers. That is also a fact.

Yes, and?

3. That makes statues of Founders a veneration of slavers. I don't care that you want to venerate them for reasons that have nothing to do with slavery just as I wouldn't care if you wanted to honor Hitler for something other than the slaughtering of Jews.

What you care or don't care about is irrelevant. The fact remains that it is your opinion that people want to leave the statues in place to venerate slavers.

And also morons who didn't know black people were people. Such is the ridiculousness of your defense.

So what is your theory as to how they justified enslaving blacks?

I dont expect you to do anything. If you want to shout your support for for people who are the equivalent of Hitler be my guest.

You've already said numerous times that you're all about bringing others around to your views on racism, slavery, etc., so what are you bitching about?

What do you imagine this commentary has to do with my argument? You're making my case that they were a society of deplorable monsters who don't deserve veneration from decent human beings.

Do you think you could "get" a majority to share your views about slavery in the 1800s? I think you know that you couldn't. You know this because you know that the moral climate regarding slavery was not the same then.

No. I don't know what kind of responsibility you're inferring because you haven't given any context. Are you talking moral responsibility? Financial responsibility?

"..the Democrat Party is 50% responsible for the oppression and discrimination against blacks."

It was right there in black and white.

Not morally responsible, no. The people morally responsible for the actions of the time are the people who acted immorally in that time.

But you want THIS Democrat Party to help pay reparations.

It doesn't. As I pointed out earlier Japanese Americans interned during WW 2 were paid reparations from tax payers in the 80s.

That doesn't mean it was right.

Depends on what we disagree on. If you're a slaver idolater, absolutely.

That's not what you said. You said: "I don't have a problem with mercilessly shaming and belittling those you (I?) disagree with."

What would be so bad about the destruction or corrosion of slaver culture?

Your hate does not bring about the destruction or corrosion of slaver culture. Your hate brings about hate.

Your bitter, angry and insulting style of discussion and debate on this cause does the cause exactly zero service. Hate and contempt is what brought about slavery in the first place.

I have, repeatedly. You simply don't like the answer. You do it every time you refer to the slaver mentality as the morality of the time.

Your responses in that regard do not answer the question, they are just more judgmental rantings. You have yet to show me how I am ignoring slaves through reason and logic.

Is that an accurate description of reality?

Yes.

When you eat food none of it tastes better or worse than the rest?

Objectively? Yes. But subjectivity is an entirely different animal.

Why don't you think about that conclusion you've arrived at for a moment.

Why don't you.

Food has an inherent property that gives it taste but it does not have inherent properties that make it "good" tasting or "bad" tasting. Good or bad is entirely subjective.

Subjective doesn't mean non existent you moron, it just means personal to your own existence.

I didn't say food had no taste you idiot. I said food is neither good tasting or bad tasting.

You have feelings and they are at the same time both objective and subjective. Objective in that you have feelings (unless you're a psychopath) and they can be detected as electrical and chemical responses in your brain and subjective in that the chemical reactions going on in your head aren't the ones occurring in my own.

No shit.

Morality is simply the word we came up with to describe aspects of our feelings and emotions. We see someone getting mugged and it makes us afraid for ourselves and we don't like it so we say it's wrong. It's not that morality doesn't exist, it's just not what most people think it is.

That's just it, morality does not exist except as a man-made concept.

So while there might not be a universe or God waging its finger at you, people are judging you and that has an affect on social animals like ourselves.

Of course it does.

Again, what truth are you referring to?

I'm not referring to any specific truth. I thought I made that clear.

We are discussing veneration which is inherently an emotional choice, not a dispassionate, objective one.

I'm not discussing veneration, you are. The thread topic is about the possible removal of Washington and Columbus statues in NYC. Veneration is something YOU came up with as your reason for supporting the proposal.

What does that deflection have to do with you or me?

It's an example of cognitive dissonance, dumbass.

I never suggested they were the only ones, just that they are.

If I am guilty of cognitive dissonance on the issue of the statues and some of the blacks who support their removal are also guilty of cognitive dissonance on the issue of the Rwandan genocide, why should I believe they are right about the statues?

It's a fallacy when used as an argument in objective debate but again, we're discussing veneration.

No, YOU are.

Your discussing veneration is, itself, an appeal to emotion. Specifically, shame and guilt. Which you have openly stated many times already that this is what you attempt to instill in those you disagree with on such issues.

It certainly has something to do with who's Independence you're referring to. Calling it the War for Independence is a bit of propaganda considering the people fighting on both sides were tyrants and slavers. They weren't fighting for everyone's independence, where they?

The Independence of the American colonies.

We can just as accurately call it the war for Slaver Independence. Now does that sound like something worth venerating?

No. Slavers were not the only ones fighting for independence.

Of course not. The only person here taken with murderers, rapists and slavers is you.

Opinion and irrelevant.

The reason I asked the question was because, when I brought up the recent incident of blatant massacre of innocents and the subjective morality of some of those who support it while at the same time abhorring slavery and supporting the removal of statues, instead of just simply accepting it, you use it as an excuse to sling another sarcastic barb.

Whole families were slaughtered in their homes and you come out with "At least they're honest about it and not hiding behind Time like the little bitch that you are. Hah hah!"

Fucking idiot.

 

[Curried Goats]

What you care or don't care about is irrelevant. The fact remains that it is your opinion that people want to leave the statues in place to venerate slavers.

That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Monuments and statues serve to honor and idolize individuals. When they're statues to slavers they serve to honor and idolize slavers. Whatever reasons you have for wanting to continue doing so are your own but what you can't claim, rationally, is that statues and monuments to slavers don't serve to idolize, honor or venerate slavers because they do.

So what is your theory as to how they justified enslaving blacks?

Just that. That it was simply a weak justification that no one really believed but that they used so they could move right along to profiting off their labor.

What's your theory again? That they were brilliant men while at the same time being so stupid that they didn't recognize black people as people or the profiting off their labor through brutal compulsion to be immoral?

You've already said numerous times that you're all about bringing others around to your views on racism, slavery, etc., so what are you bitching about?

I'm not bitching at all. I'm actually thoroughly amused by your Simp arguments.

Do you think you could "get" a majority to share your views about slavery in the 1800s? I think you know that you couldn't. You know this because you know that the moral climate regarding slavery was not the same then.

Was it the weather's fault or the large amounts of shitty human beings that comprised early America?

"..the Democrat Party is 50% responsible for the oppression and discrimination against blacks."

It was right there in black and white.

I see it, I just don't get it. What math are you doing here? You're 100% responsible for your actions and 0% responsible for the actions of others. The deplorable southern white population that have consistently voted against equal rights for Black Americans are 100% responsible for their deplorable behavior and culture..

That doesn't mean it was right.

It means I'm objectively right. That's a perfectly fine and legal way to pay for reparations. That you don't think it's right emotionally doesn't mean shit for this portion of the debate.

That's not what you said. You said: "I don't have a problem with mercilessly shaming and belittling those you (I?) disagree with."

Your hate does not bring about the destruction or corrosion of slaver culture. Your hate brings about hate.

Sure thing Yoda. Thanks for your opinion.

Your bitter, angry and insulting style of discussion and debate on this cause does the cause exactly zero service. Hate and contempt is what brought about slavery in the first place.

Yes. Hating Hitler is just like being Hitler. Logic!

Food has an inherent property that gives it taste but it does not have inherent properties that make it "good" tasting or "bad" tasting. Good or bad is entirely subjective.

This is a red herring. I never said there was a property of food that made it good tasting or bad tasting. I said it was a property of you.

I'm not discussing veneration, you are. The thread topic is about the possible removal of Washington and Columbus statues in NYC. Veneration is something YOU came up with as your reason for supporting the proposal.

Veneration is what monuments and statues are. If not then make the non emotional argument for erecting statues of people.

It's an example of cognitive dissonance, dumbass.

Not my cognitive dissonance you dumbass so what's the relevance?

If I am guilty of cognitive dissonance on the issue of the statues and some of the blacks who support their removal are also guilty of cognitive dissonance on the issue of the Rwandan genocide, why should I believe they are right about the statues?

Why are you introducing hypothetical third parties just because you're suffering from cognitive dissonance and I'm not? That doesn't equalize things here.

Your discussing veneration is, itself, an appeal to emotion. Specifically, shame and guilt. Which you have openly stated many times already that this is what you attempt to instill in those you disagree with on such issues.

Then state the non emotional reasons for statues and monuments.

The Independence of the American colonies.

Slaver colonies. Not worthy of veneration.

No. Slavers were not the only ones fighting for independence.

If you want to include people who would go on to cooperate with slavers at the expense of slaves that's fine by me. I don't think that makes your case any stronger.

Opinion and irrelevant.

When it comes to who we should venerate or if we should even venerate at all its all opinion. At least mine doesn't have us venerating slavers like some other deplorable pieces of human shit.

The reason I asked the question was because, when I brought up the recent incident of blatant massacre of innocents and the subjective morality of some of those who support it while at the same time abhorring slavery and supporting the removal of statues, instead of just simply accepting it, you use it as an excuse to sling another sarcastic barb.

Whole families were slaughtered in their homes and you come out with "At least they're honest about it and not hiding behind Time like the little bitch that you are. Hah hah!"

Fucking idiot.

Yea, because you're the one here talking about the brilliance of slavers. You don't get to side eye me you deplorable and expect me to take you seriously.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

No, it is not. Logically and critically, it cannot be fact unless there is an objective, proven definition of what constitutes "venerating" slavers. There is not.

Monuments and statues serve to honor and idolize individuals. When they're statues to slavers they serve to honor and idolize slavers.

Not for owning slaves.

Whatever reasons you have for wanting to continue doing so are your own but what you can't claim, rationally, is that statues and monuments to slavers don't serve to idolize, honor or venerate slavers because they do.

Not for owning slaves.

Just that.

Just what?

That it was simply a weak justification that no one really believed but that they used so they could move right along to profiting off their labor.

What was the "weak justification"?

You're not answering the question, you're only saying that my stated reason for their justification is wrong. So again, how do you think they justified enslaving blacks?

What's your theory again?

Cognitive dissonance.

That they were brilliant men while at the same time being so stupid that they didn't recognize black people as people or the profiting off their labor through brutal compulsion to be immoral?

Cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with intelligence. Even a genius can convince him/herself that their principles or views don't contradict each other.

I'm not bitching at all. I'm actually thoroughly amused by your Simp arguments.

Bullshit. All you're doing is moral posturing.

Was it the weather's fault or the large amounts of shitty human beings that comprised early America?

Does it matter? You still would not be able to "get" the majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible in the 1800s. It was too ingrained in the American psyche at the time and many were convinced it was necessary.

I see it, I just don't get it.

Then why did you ask what responsibility I was talking about when I made it clear I was talking about responsibility for oppression and discrimination of blacks?

I said: "...the Democrat Party is 50% responsible for the oppression and discrimination against blacks."

Then you said: "No. I don't know what kind of responsibility you're inferring because you haven't given any context. Are you talking moral responsibility? Financial responsibility?"

What math are you doing here?

Each of the two parties comprise roughly 50% of the government. Hence, the Democrat Party is fifty percent responsible.

You're 100% responsible for your actions and 0% responsible for the actions of others. The deplorable southern white population that have consistently voted against equal rights for Black Americans are 100% responsible for their deplorable behavior and culture..

So again, if the people of this government (and the people of the current population) are not responsible for the oppression and discrimination, why should they have to pay?

It means I'm objectively right. That's a perfectly fine and legal way to pay for reparations. That you don't think it's right emotionally doesn't mean shit for this portion of the debate.

I didn't say it wasn't right.

Sure thing Yoda. Thanks for your opinion.

Okay, keep trying to convince people their views are wrong by trying to shame them and insulting their characters. Let me know when that actually starts to work for you.

Yes. Hating Hitler is just like being Hitler. Logic!

In a sense, yes. If you were merely expressing hate and contempt for the slavers that would be one thing (though that alone presents its own challenges), but you express hate and contempt towards those who oppose removing the statues. That's the important distinction.

This is a red herring. I never said there was a property of food that made it good tasting or bad tasting. I said it was a property of you.

Which is what I said. I said: "If taste is subjective then all foods are neither good tasting nor bad tasting. Everything else is subjective opinion."

Yet you asked me anyway: "When you eat food none of it tastes better or worse than the rest?"
This suggests to me that you thought I said either food has no taste or has no taste for me.

Veneration is what monuments and statues are. If not then make the non emotional argument for erecting statues of people.

We're not discussing the erection of statues, we're discussing the removal of statues.

Not my cognitive dissonance you dumbass so what's the relevance?

The relevance is cognitive dissonance, dumbass.

Why are you introducing hypothetical third parties just because you're suffering from cognitive dissonance and I'm not? That doesn't equalize things here.

Didn't say you were.

My point is, if some blacks overlook the personal responsibility of those who hacked people with machetes and choose to blame European colonialism instead, and some of these same people feel as you do about the statues, just how seriously can you expect me take to this bitching about statues?

I'm sorry but, I'm just not persuaded to feel as strongly about this when I see the same bigotry, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on the part of some of the blacks pushing it.

Then state the non emotional reasons for statues and monuments.

No. I've never argued for statues, I've argued that I don't see much point in removing them.

Slaver colonies. Not worthy of veneration.

Irrelevant. You asked a question and I answered.

If you want to include people who would go on to cooperate with slavers at the expense of slaves that's fine by me. I don't think that makes your case any stronger.

Irrelevant. You asked a question and I answered. The war was fought for the independence of the American colonies from British rule.

When it comes to who we should venerate or if we should even venerate at all its all opinion. At least mine doesn't have us venerating slavers like some other deplorable pieces of human shit.

This is just as irrelevant as your preceding statement.

Yea, because you're the one here talking about the brilliance of slavers. You don't get to side eye me you deplorable and expect me to take you seriously.

Irrelevant. The point was the subjectivity of morality.

Some of the same people who think as you do on the topic of statues are out there celebrating the brutal slaughter of civilians.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it is not. Logically and critically, it cannot be fact unless there is an objective, proven definition of what constitutes "venerating" slavers. There is not.

Veneration does have an objective definition. You can learn it here.

Definition of VENERATION

It's what and who we venerate that's subjective but the word veneration certainly has a definitive meaning that you could of looked up. If you want to argue that statues aren't meant to respect or honor those immortalized by them then let's hear the counter point for what they exist for.

Not for owning slaves.


Not for owning slaves.

I don't care what you want to venerate slavers for just as I wouldn't care why you wished to venerate Hitler.

Just what?


What was the "weak justification"?

You're not answering the question, you're only saying that my stated reason for their justification is wrong. So again, how do you think they justified enslaving blacks?

No, that's not what I'm saying. They did justify their enslavement of black people by arguing that they were inferior, incapable of learning and living in white society and that their enslavement of them was what God intended for them as shepherds. None of them actually believed that bullshit though. You don't make laws against teaching people to read who you think incapable of learning to read for instance. You do that because you're afraid of what they might learn. All their justifications were propaganda and rhetoric that they sold to stupid Simps like you who find it easier to imagine them as gentle slavers than to face the brutal reality of what chattel slavery was. They were greedy, violent, monsters who preyed on men, women and children. It's that easy to understand.

Also what does it even matter if Hitler thought he was the good guy? That doesn't make him or his actions any less deplorable.

Cognitive dissonance.

Yours, not theirs. Their goal was greed and profit and they had clear eyes in that regard.

Bullshit. All you're doing is moral posturing.

Because it's strategically useful. As I said before good moral Christians don't want to be associated with monsters.

Does it matter? You still would not be able to "get" the majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible in the 1800s. It was too ingrained in the American psyche at the time and many were convinced it was necessary.

And? I was never arguing I could convince a majority of those deplorable fuckwits in the 1800s that they were indeed deplorable fuckwits. I'm saying it's only a matter of time before we convince a majority of people today that slaver venerators are pieces of human trash.

Then why did you ask what responsibility I was talking about when I made it clear I was talking about responsibility for oppression and discrimination of blacks?

I said: "...the Democrat Party is 50% responsible for the oppression and discrimination against blacks."

Then you said: "No. I don't know what kind of responsibility you're inferring because you haven't given any context. Are you talking moral responsibility? Financial responsibility?"


Each of the two parties comprise roughly 50% of the government. Hence, the Democrat Party is fifty percent responsible.

Again, your math seems off to me. You're 100 percent responsible for your actions, morally. Financially, you're only responsible when made to be by the law. That's why I asked for clarification. I don't understand in what way you think the Democratic party of today is 50% responsible for the actions of the Democratic Party in the 1800s. No one in the Democratic party today is in any way morally responsible for the actions of Democratic voters in the 1800s.

So again, if the people of this government (and the people of the current population) are not responsible for the oppression and discrimination, why should they have to pay?

Because that's how taxes and government work. I didn’t say anyone in the 1980s was morally responsible for Japanese internment. Those were Americans that came before them. That's just how the system works. The things we do today incur a cost that future generations might have to pay off later. There were people who's taxes were going to pay for the war in Afghanistan near the end who weren't even alive when we decided to go into Afghanistan in the first place and there will still be people who weren't alive back then who will be paying off the debt incurred there for decades more to come.

I didn't say it wasn't right.

Why are you such a pussy about your own arguments? In the post before this one I quoted here you did argue that not being alive when the atrocity occurred negated any responsibility. I used an example of reparations for Japanese internment to disprove that argument, objectively. Then, you responded with this shit. You certainly implied it wasn't right (emotionally) after I proved it right objectively. Why be a bitch about it? And why aren't your arguments consistent? How can you argue no one alive today is responsible for segregation while at the same time arguing the Democratic party of today is 50% responsible for the atrocities in the past? Its almost like you're making these arguments up as you go and you don't actually believe any of them.

Okay, keep trying to convince people their views are wrong by trying to shame them and insulting their characters. Let me know when that actually starts to work for you.

Well we aren't adding statues to slavers are we? We're only doing subtraction so it seems to be working to me.

In a sense, yes. If you were merely expressing hate and contempt for the slavers that would be one thing (though that alone presents its own challenges), but you express hate and contempt towards those who oppose removing the statues. That's the important distinction.

You mean slaver venerators? So hating Hitler venerators would make someone just like Hitler? That logic still seems like it needs a little work....

We're not discussing the erection of statues, we're discussing the removal of statues.

Why do you insist with these cowardly, pedantic arguments? Opposing the removal of statues to slavers is the same as supporting the continued veneration of slavers.

My point is, if some blacks overlook the personal responsibility of those who hacked people with machetes and choose to blame European colonialism instead, and some of these same people feel as you do about the statues, just how seriously can you expect me take to this bitching about statues?

Your point is a strawman in search of an excuse. Those imaginary people who may or may not exist don't have anything to do with me.

I'm sorry but, I'm just not persuaded to feel as strongly about this when I see the same bigotry, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on the part of some of the blacks pushing it.

I'm also not moved by your fallacy of using unrelated people to try and dismiss my views which aren't suffering from any sort of cognitive dissonance.

No. I've never argued for statues, I've argued that I don't see much point in removing them.

Which is the same as arguing we should maintain our veneration of monsters.

Irrelevant. You asked a question and I answered. The war was fought for the independence of the American colonies from British rule.

And I pointed out that your answer conveniently leaves out the fact that the people fighting for independence were slavers because my point was their fight and struggle to be independent slavers isn't something worth veneration.

Some of the same people who think as you do on the topic of statues are out there celebrating the brutal slaughter of civilians.

Again, this has nothing to do with me or the argument you're having with me.

 

[Cellblock2429]

As New York City cripples under monumental budget cuts due to a migrant crisis straining public resources, the city council is planning to consider a series of measures that would, among other things, remove statues of major historical figures like George Washington and create a reparations task force.

The items are included in New York City’s council agenda for Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The council’s Cultural Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on a measure to remove works of art on city property that "depict a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity."

This criteria would include figures like America’s first president George Washington, Dutch governor and New York settler Peter Stuyvesant, as well as Christopher Columbus – all of whom have statues throughout the city.

NYC to consider removing statues of George Washington, create reparations task force amid budget cuts

New York City council on Tuesday will consider a range of proposals considering the legacy of slavery despite crippling budgets amid a migrant crisis.

www.foxnews.com

Comment:
This is just more Dumb Democrat hate and racism and it will not solve any problems.
The Democrats should put reparations on a ballot if they are serious.

/——/ The once great NYC is a shell of its former self thanks to the Uber libs running the place. So, what do Libtards do? They tear down statues. All problems solved.

 

[there4eyeM]

The people these statues represent were considered great by our ancestors. Out of respect for them and ourselves, being the fruit of however it was they succeeded at doing in order for us to be here, we should be able to find an equitable solution. Something included that explained morais of the epoch, perhaps. Placing them in museums should be fine.
The fact is, these people sere believed in by others. That they may have become regarded as "false idols" now, we must admit that we were warned of worshipping such. If we are to take down these statues, which are to remain? Isn't the fault in ourselves, for worshipping mere mortals at all, ever, anywhere?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Dumb on both sides. You don't want dumb, change the electoral system. Don't change the electoral system, get dumb. Your choice.

/——/ Change it how? Got any specifics or just more platitudes?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

/——/ The once great NYC is a shell of its former self thanks to the Uber libs running the place. So, what do Libtards do? They tear down statues. All problems solved.

The truth is that the far-left Democrats want to remove the statues because they hate statues of white people.
They want to erase the history and heritage of white people.
But it won't change anything for them.

 

[Curried Goats]

/——/ The once great NYC is a shell of its former self thanks to the Uber libs running the place. So, what do Libtards do? They tear down statues. All problems solved.

No is suggesting "all problems are solved" by removing statues to slavers. That's a silly strawman.

 

[Curried Goats]

The people these statues represent were considered great by our ancestors. Out of respect for them and ourselves, being the fruit of however it was they succeeded at doing in order for us to be here, we should be able to find an equitable solution. Something included that explained morais of the epoch, perhaps. Placing them in museums should be fine.
The fact is, these people sere believed in by others. That they may have become regarded as "false idols" now, we must admit that we were warned of worshipping such. If we are to take down these statues, which are to remain? Isn't the fault in ourselves, for worshipping mere mortals at all, ever, anywhere?

So you admit statues are meant to idolize, worship and venerate people?

Hear that Ghost of a Rider?

Question to you though poster, who gives a shit who our ancestors used to worship? Does that require us to keep on worshiping? As to who we should idolize, why don't we exclude monsters who were slavers, murderers and rapists and work from there?

 

[Curried Goats]

The truth is that the far-left Democrats want to remove the statues because they hate statues of white people.
They want to erase the history and heritage of white people.
But it won't change anything for them.

Is that how you think statues work you dumb Bingo? You remove a statue and everyone forgets about history?

For the record I'm both for the removal of statues to slavers and for educating people on what deplorable monsters they were.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Veneration does have an objective definition. You can learn it here.

Definition of VENERATION

It's what and who we venerate that's subjective but the word veneration certainly has a definitive meaning that you could of looked up.

The definition of veneration is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context. In this case, the context is the removal of statues and the motive of those who oppose their removal.

You say they want to keep the statues in place because they venerate slavers and that this is fact. Problem is, you don't know this. You got it wrong when you said I venerate slavers.

I don't venerate anybody, I just think the whole thing is pointless for various reasons. The main reason being that I think it will ultimately accomplish nothing.

If you want to argue that statues aren't meant to respect or honor those immortalized by them then let's hear the counter point for what they exist for.

Again, we're talking about their removal. I never said anything about what statues are for.

I don't care what you want to venerate slavers for just as I wouldn't care why you wished to venerate Hitler.

What you care or don't care about is irrelevant. The statues were not put up to venerate slavers.

No, that's not what I'm saying. They did justify their enslavement of black people by arguing that they were inferior, incapable of learning and living in white society and that their enslavement of them was what God intended for them as shepherds.

In other words, lesser humans.

None of them actually believed that bullshit though. You don't make laws against teaching people to read who you think incapable of learning to read for instance.

Again: cognitive dissonance.

You do that because you're afraid of what they might learn. All their justifications were propaganda and rhetoric that they sold to stupid Simps like you who find it easier to imagine them as gentle slavers than to face the brutal reality of what chattel slavery was. They were greedy, violent, monsters who preyed on men, women and children. It's that easy to understand.

I never suggested they were "gentle slavers".

Also what does it even matter if Hitler thought he was the good guy? That doesn't make him or his actions any less deplorable.

Of course not. But this is apples and oranges.

Yours, not theirs. Their goal was greed and profit and they had clear eyes in that regard.

Irrelevant. Even non-slavers supported slavery for blacks.

A very small percentage of people in the slave states actually owned slaves. Most of the rest of the population simply supported it, even if they did not profit from it.

Because it's strategically useful.

Moral posturing is strategically useful?

As I said before good moral Christians don't want to be associated with monsters.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with your behavior in this discussion. I say you're bitching.

And? I was never arguing I could convince a majority of those deplorable fuckwits in the 1800s that they were indeed deplorable fuckwits.

Didn't say you were. It was a question.

I'm saying it's only a matter of time before we convince a majority of people today that slaver venerators are pieces of human trash.

That's not what you said: You said: "I am confident I can eventually get a majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible."

Christ, you can't even keep your own arguments straight.

Again, your math seems off to me. You're 100 percent responsible for your actions, morally. Financially, you're only responsible when made to be by the law. That's why I asked for clarification. I don't understand in what way you think the Democratic party of today is 50% responsible for the actions of the Democratic Party in the 1800s.

You're the one who said the government is liable. Is the government not 50% Democrat?

No one in the Democratic party today is in any way morally responsible for the actions of Democratic voters in the 1800s.

You swap back and forth between arguing individuals and groups or entities as it suits your purpose. You also employ a double standard in that one group (the Democrat party) is not liable for its past but another group (the government) is.

Both the Democrat Party and the government are composed of individuals.

Why are you such a pussy about your own arguments? In the post before this one I quoted here you did argue that not being alive when the atrocity occurred negated any responsibility. I used an example of reparations for Japanese internment to disprove that argument, objectively. Then, you responded with this shit. You certainly implied it wasn't right (emotionally) after I proved it right objectively. Why be a bitch about it?

I implied nothing. I didn't say that reparations for the Japanese wasn't right, I said that having paid the reparations doesn't mean it was right to do so.

And why aren't your arguments consistent? How can you argue no one alive today is responsible for segregation while at the same time arguing the Democratic party of today is 50% responsible for the atrocities in the past?

I didn't. You're the one saying the government is responsible, not me. Therefore, based on your own argument, the Democrat party is 50% responsible.

This goes back to my comments above about the way you hold one group responsible but not the other.

Its almost like you're making these arguments up as you go and you don't actually believe any of them.

The problem here is that when I speak from a position of logic and principle, you conflate my remarks to mean something I did not say.

The remarks about Japanese reparations is a clear and recent example. I did not say it wasn't right to pay them reparations, I said that having paid them doesn't mean, in principle, that it was necessarily right to do so.

You're arguing from a position of emotion and you assume I am too. That's why I've had to tell you numerous times that I did not say what you think I said and why I have to keep telling you your remarks are irrelevant.

Well we aren't adding statues to slavers are we? We're only doing subtraction so it seems to be working to me.

Nope. You're changing the context. Your original remarks in that vein were not about convincing people that the statues should come down, they were about convincing people they were venerating slavers or that they were racists.

Having said that, the statues are not being taken down because hearts and minds are being changed, they're being taken down because politicians are afraid of losing black voters.

You mean slaver venerators?

Anyone you disagree with.

So hating Hitler venerators would make someone just like Hitler?

In a sense, yes. Hate never works against hate. Never. Hate doesn't inspire you to vanquish ideas you disagree with, it only inspires you to vanquish people you disagree with.

That logic still seems like it needs a little work....

It's a fuck of a lot better than anything you've come up with. Your style reveals you to be exactly like those you despise.

Why do you insist with these cowardly, pedantic arguments? Opposing the removal of statues to slavers is the same as supporting the continued veneration of slavers.

Don't insult my intelligence by pretending you care about people venerating slavers. You don't give a shit if people do or not. You only care about taking the statues down.

Your point is a strawman in search of an excuse. Those imaginary people who may or may not exist don't have anything to do with me.

Didn't say they did. It does, however, have everything to do with hypocrisy, a trait you share in spades with any racist.

It's you and I in this discussion but you and I are by far not the only ones having it. That means there are people out there who share your views on the statues while also having conflicted morality.

I'm also not moved by your fallacy of using unrelated people to try and dismiss my views which aren't suffering from any sort of cognitive dissonance.

I dismissed your views a long time ago precisely because of your fallacy of appeal to emotion, among other things.

I am not compelled to put my morality under a microscope on something like this when I know the morality of those who would call me racist or idolater of slavers is no better than mine.

Which is the same as arguing we should maintain our veneration of monsters.

Irrelevant. The fact remains I never argued for statues.

And I pointed out that your answer conveniently leaves out the fact that the people fighting for independence were slavers

I never denied that some of these people were slavers. And again, not everyone who fought for independence were slavers.

because my point was their fight and struggle to be independent slavers isn't something worth veneration.

So don't venerate them.

Again, this has nothing to do with me or the argument you're having with me.

It does if they feel the same as you about the statues.

You don't think this issue revolves around just you and me and what we say here, do you? If I see hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance or various other fallacies from others on this issue, it will influence what I have to say to you. You're not the only one in this fight.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So you admit statues are meant to idolize, worship and venerate people?

Hear that Ghost of a Rider?

Question to you though poster, who gives a shit who our ancestors used to worship? Does that require us to keep on worshiping? As to who we should idolize, why don't we exclude monsters who were slavers, murderers and rapists and work from there?

What do you think you have here? I never said some don't venerate these people, I said you don't know that all of them do. And you still don't