Confederate statues

[nige1]

Sorry Nigel, you defend the right to make a racist post but not the right to point out that it is racist? That is just wrong. You are however right that personal attacks are often made to shut down debate. Presumably you think this is what I was doing in #88 and #92 - I would have thought you knew me better by now. So please do me a favour - go back and read the relevant post (#83) and post whether you think it is racist or not. Your honest opinion.

I understand all that. But my original question remains: How will the lives of black Americans be improved by tearing down Confederate monuments...or any other monument for that matter? I've read that The Reverend Al Sharpton considers the Jefferson Memorial "an insult to my family". If we take them all down will blacks instantaneously be free to stop murdering each other in Chicago? Will they be free to stop making babies they can't support? Will they be free to have households that include both a mother and a father? Will they be free to graduate from high school or trade school and find a decent job? Or will they just be free to start another hysterical "movement" and raise hell about that? And please note.......I am not condemning just blacks here. There are plenty of whites with the same shortcomings. I don't have much use for them either.

I understand why Zelandakh judges Chas_P's argument to be racist.

And I defend his right to say so.

Diana-Eva (and others) labelled Chas_P a racist (among other things) despite his denials.

I disapprove of labelling posters that way.

Although several previous posters have been so-labelled. :(

Chas_P criticises murderers, the unqualified, and single-parents.

Unfairly, IMO, but regardless of race.

And I've repeatedly written that I disagree with such views.

[diana_eva]

Diana-Eva and others labelled Chas_P a racist, despite his denials.

I can understand why Zelandakh considers Chas_P's views to be racist.

He criticises murderers, the unqualifed, and single-parents.

Unfairly, IMO, but regardless of race.

And I've repeatedly said that I disagree with such views.

Several previous posters have been labelled as racists :(

 

It's exactly this sort of argument that I can't understand from you, Nigel. You're so blinded by your robin-hood mission or whatever you think you are doing that you go out of your way to find excuses and explanations where there are none.

 

You do have a point about the personal attacks, but when you frame your indignation as if some poor helpless neo-nazi or racist is being harassed just because he has a non-mainstream view it makes me really mad.

 

Report both chas_p's post and the subsequent attacks and I would have absolutely no problem to discuss it with other admins and take a decision. But you can't defend the racist post and complain about the attacks on it, it's absurd.

[nige1]

It's exactly this sort of argument that I can't understand from you, Nigel. You're so blinded by your robin-hood mission or whatever you think you are doing that you go out of your way to find excuses and explanations where there are none.

You do have a point about the personal attacks, but when you frame your indignation as if some poor helpless neo-nazi or racist is being harassed just because he has a non-mainstream view it makes me really mad.

Report both chas_p's post and the subsequent attacks and I would have absolutely no problem to discuss it with other admins and take a decision. But you can't defend the racist post and complain about the attacks on it, it's absurd.

Not just a racist?

But also a neo_Nazi!

No wonder we fail to understand each other :(

BTW, Chas_P is not the only poster insulted.

I don't report posts :)

[jjbrr]

diana, speaking of admins, i can't help but notice chas is listed in the "yellows" group. maybe i don't know the role of yellows, but it doesnt make much sense to me.

 

nigel, stop derailing our discussion. if you have nothing to contribute except some obnoxious finger wagging, you are the problem rather than the social justice warrior your perceive yourself to be. thanks.

[nige1]

nigel, stop derailing our discussion. if you have nothing to contribute except some obnoxious finger wagging, you are the problem rather than the social justice warrior your perceive yourself to be. thanks.

My arguments addressed the statue issue. Ad hominem attacks by others derailed the discussion.

[Chas_P]

The world will little note nor long remember what we say here. I have read these forums for many years and the only truly sane posts I have read have come from Ken Berg...a retired mathematics professor at the University of Maryland whom I've never met (but would like to). With that said, let me elaborate a little on my original thoughts in this thread. The point I was trying to make is that no matter how many marches are organized, no matter how much hell is raised, no matter how many memorials are demanded to be taken down, the "plight" of many African-Americans will not be alleviated until someone (BLM, Antifa, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, whomever) makes an effort to address the underlying problem...lack of education, unwanted pregnancy, unemployment, etc. My comments about "bad" white folks was intended for the KKK, Nazis, Skinheads, whatever they wish to call themselves. They are no better than (and probably worse than) BLM, Antifa, etc....nothing more than rabble rousers. I hope this clarifies my position which...like yours...is nothing more than musings on an internet forum. With all that said I bid you all a fond farewell. I won't be back here.

[mike777]

As usual when I find myself uncertain of my knowledge I investigate the facts:(emphasis added)

 

 

 

So, yes, the referendum vote to leave the U.K. was legal and approved by both sides - hardly a fitting comparison to the seceding of states that led to the U.S. Civil War. A more fitting comparison would be that after the failed referendum vote, Scotland announced they were seceding anyway and defend themselves militarily.

 

Btw, the latter would be the same thinking that seems to be leading Donald Trump to consider a pardon for Joe Arpaio - that it is O.K. to overturn the rule of law when you don't like the results.

 

If I am incorrect about the Scottish referendum I would certainly like to hear the details so I won't remain confused.

 

An interesting discussion regarding Scotland.

 

I note that the southern states also voted to leave, the northern states said no. In any case both are seceding. You just don't call the scots traitors.....you call Lee a traitor ...fair enough..you don't seem to realize you are making up the rulesregarding traitors as you go along....fair enough...

 

It may help to recall history....even history in our lifetimes how countries borders change, large changes.

 

Which raises the interesting point, if a state, lets say calif....then Oregon and Wash vote to leave the union because they cannot stand trump....should we allow them to go....or force them to choose violence....to leave.....which I for one would think is unfortunate, very unfortunate...I would rather say goodby and thanks for all the fish.

d

[jjbrr]

An interesting discussion regarding Scotland.

 

I note that the southern states also voted to leave, the northern states said no. In any case both are seceding. You just don't call the scots traitors.....you call Lee a traitor ...fair enough..

 

Which raises the interesting point, if a state, lets say calif....then Oregon and Wash vote to leave the union because they cannot stand trump....should we allow them to go....or force them to choose violence....to leave.....which I for one would think is unfortunate, very unfortunate...I would rather say goodby and thanks for all the fish.

 

I suspect the only winners in such a scenario would be the lawyers.

[Winstonm]

An interesting discussion regarding Scotland.

 

I note that the southern states also voted to leave, the northern states said no. In any case both are seceding. You just don't call the scots traitors.....you call Lee a traitor ...fair enough..you don't seem to realize you are making up the rulesregarding traitors as you go along....fair enough...

 

It may help to recall history....even history in our lifetimes how countries borders change, large changes.

 

Which raises the interesting point, if a state, lets say calif....then Oregon and Wash vote to leave the union because they cannot stand trump....should we allow them to go....or force them to choose violence....to leave.....which I for one would think is unfortunate, very unfortunate...I would rather say goodby and thanks for all the fish.

d

 

Mike, I'm not making up the rules. The courts and the U.S. constitution did that. Scotland and GB worked out a mutual legal agreement. The U.S. Constitution made warring by a U.S. person against the U.S. the crime of treason.

 

How am I making up the rules? It seems to me you want to declare secession legal - thereby making up your own rules.

[mike777]

Mike, I'm not making up the rules. The courts and the U.S. constitution did that. Scotland and GB worked out a mutual legal agreement. The U.S. Constitution made warring by a U.S. person against the U.S. the crime of treason.

 

 

btw I agree that is my logic...

 

How am I making up the rules? It seems to me you want to declare secession legal - thereby making up your own rules.

 

 

agree that violence against the usa is treasonous......the north gave the south no choice.....the north could have said ty for all the fish and goodbye....

 

Indeed you do make up the rule that Scotland wanting to leave means that what the Scottish people do is not treason...what the south did is treason.....anyway

 

Inany case you really do sound like a lawyer when it comes to secession, which of course misses the point...at that point we are all beyond lawyers....we are discussing a fundamental failure of the law,,a massive failure of the institutions of government.....

 

trea·son

[ˈtrēzən]

 

NOUN

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government:

"they were convicted of treason"

synonyms: treachery · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · lèse-majesté · apostasy · perfidy

the action of betraying someone or something:

"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"

synonyms: treachery · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · lèse-majesté · apostasy · perfidy

historical

the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=treason+definition&form=EDGTCT&qs=LS&cvid=d5eafa5c6fbf4323be028c555ea1cc45&cc=US&setlang=en-US

[Winstonm]

agree that violence against the usa is treasonous......the north gave the south no choice.....the north could have said ty for all the fish and goodbye....

 

Indeed you do make up the rule that Scotland wanting to leave means that what the Scottish people do is not treason...what the south did is treason.....anyway

 

Inany case you really do sound like a lawyer when it comes to secession, which of course misses the point...at that point we are all beyond lawyers....we are discussing a fundamental failure of the law,,a massive failure of the institutions of government.....

 

trea·son

[ˈtrēzən]

 

NOUN

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government:

"they were convicted of treason"

synonyms: treachery · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · lèse-majesté · apostasy · perfidy

the action of betraying someone or something:

"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"

synonyms: treachery · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · lèse-majesté · apostasy · perfidy

historical

the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=treason+definition&form=EDGTCT&qs=LS&cvid=d5eafa5c6fbf4323be028c555ea1cc45&cc=US&setlang=en-US

 

Mike,

 

 

I only presume we operate under the rule of law. If not....then....jungle rules.

[RedSpawn]

The world will little note nor long remember what we say here. I have read these forums for many years and the only truly sane posts I have read have come from Ken Berg...a retired mathematics professor at the University of Maryland whom I've never met (but would like to). With that said, let me elaborate a little on my original thoughts in this thread. The point I was trying to make is that no matter how many marches are organized, no matter how much hell is raised, no matter how many memorials are demanded to be taken down, the "plight" of many African-Americans will not be alleviated until someone (BLM, Antifa, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, whomever) makes an effort to address the underlying problem...lack of education, unwanted pregnancy, unemployment, etc. My comments about "bad" white folks was intended for the KKK, Nazis, Skinheads, whatever they wish to call themselves. They are no better than (and probably worse than) BLM, Antifa, etc....nothing more than rabble rousers. I hope this clarifies my position which...like yours...is nothing more than musings on an internet forum. With all that said I bid you all a fond farewell. I won't be back here.

Chas,

 

I never said the "r" word to you; however, at every point in this dialogue I challenged your proposition that these statues and flags don't matter or are irrelevant.

 

The Georgia flag has been sowing seeds of division since 1956 and Georgia refuses to let go of its Confederate ties because the African-American (and other people of color) were an "element" and/or "problem" of the South. So Old Dixie created a social order that treated the "Negro" as an element that needed paternalistic guidance and treatment. There is a reason most African-American men were called "Boy!" in the South; it was a reminder of their subservient status as they were not men--even if the Supreme Court declared they were no longer chattel property. The euphemism "boy" to a colored man was not a term of endearment but a reminder of the caste system and his subservient place in the established customs and mores of the South.

 

Also, I agree that African-Americans need to make sure they avail themselves of any and all educational and vocational opportunities for upward mobility and financial security. However, in return, I request that the State of Georgia stop basing the funding of public education on property values since "the Negro" has missed out on about 170+ years of wealth building opportunities and has never seen any type of legitimate recompense for the seemingly inexhaustible supply of labor his ancestors supplied to fuel this nation's prosperity. Several public school systems in Black communities of Georgia are shamelessly underfunded since a lot of African-Americans don't have much property to support their school system's funding and overhead needs.

 

This is a vicious cycle and plays out in the quality of education that African-American children receive in Georgia. Programs and critical staff get cut and the children are left out in the cold to make ends meet in some creative way. Also, most of the communities outside of the metropolitan Atlanta area are rural and primarily white of several classes; therefore, there is very little political will to "right" this situation of funding for schools for African-Americans at the state level. See the 2016 red/blue Presidential election map below.

 

So, the solution is not as easy as you suggest. To stop the seemingly endless cycle of poverty plaguing African-Americans, we have to set the foundation for education funding correctly. The State of Georgia must stop playing racial political games with the funding of public schools that put African-American communities at a comparative disadvantage in terms of amenities, programs, staff, facilities, and resources.

 

 

==> 2016 Presidential Election Results by County

[Al_U_Card]

EEE! Education is the Enemy of the Elite...

[RedSpawn]

EEE! Education is the Enemy of the Elite...

Yup.

 

In the matter of the State of Georgia, it is hot and messy:

Education Funding in Georgia: Years of Cuts Cast Long Shadow

 

Georgia is spending $11.6 billion on education in the 2017 fiscal year or about 51 percent of the state’s general fund budget. Spending on elementary and secondary education is $8.9 billion. The budget for the university system is $2.1 billion and is $350 million for technical colleges. The state’s 2017 budget allots the Georgia Student Finance Commission $91 million in non-lottery funds and $55.6 million to the Department of Early Care and Learning.

 

This constitutes a $640 million increase from 2016 and partially reverses years of deep cuts. This increase follows two years of modest bumps and reduces some of the financial pressure education leaders face but does not eliminate them.

 

Georgia ranks 38th in per-student funding for K-12 education, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and is home to the fifth most students in poverty as measured by participation in the federal free and reduced lunch program. Georgia spends $1,800 less per student than the national average despite the fact increased funding is connected to higher achievement, particularly for low-income students. Gov. Nathan Deal convened a commission to examine K-12 funding in 2015 proposed a formula intended to more effectively distribute state dollars to school districts. Equally important is whether the money allocated is sufficient to meet students’ needs and the state’s workforce development goals. These figures suggest it is not.

 

The state’s investment in higher education diminished over time leading to tuition hikes that price postsecondary programs beyond the reach of many students and complete them. Enrollment in technical colleges is down and student loan debt is climbing. These challenges will continue given the growing percentage of low-income students in K-12, the feeder system for postsecondary schools.

 

Elementary and Secondary Education: K-12 Funding Formula Short $166 Million

 

Georgia’s public school students are getting $166 million less in the 2017 fiscal year than called for in the state’s funding formula. This is a smaller shortfall than in previous years, but districts continue to face fiscal constraints as they work to bring class sizes back down, restore discontinued programs, eliminate teacher furlough days and raise teachers’ salaries. The General Assembly underfunded schools every year since 2003, cutting more than $9 billion from its Quality Basic Education formula over 15 years.

Yes y'all, cutting out a needed $9 BILLION dollars from education over 14 years. I guess we expect ALL students to achieve more while the state continues to cut corners on the public education and public feeding of its poorest students.

 

Source: https://gbpi.org/2016/georgia-education-budget-primer-for-state-fiscal-year-2017/

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/sites/default/files/styles/special-collection/public/chomp%20chomp%20cartoon_herblock_001.jpg?itok=Q0xLKrn7

[barmar]

MO, a personal attack (such as labelling your opponent as decrepit, demented, a racist, a troll, a piece of *****, or whatever) is a different matter.

I doesn't invalidate your opponent's view.

There's a big difference between calling someone a POS and calling them a racist. The former is simply a slur and attack based on personal opinions. The latter can be a valid conclusion based on objective analysis of the views they've expressed.

 

Of course, they're not necessarily unrelated. You may decide that someone is decrepit because they're a racist. But not always. Archie Bunker was a perfectly nice guy who happened to be a racist; we're more likely to pity someone like him for his archaic views than hate him.

[nige1]

There's a big difference between calling someone a POS and calling them a racist. The former is simply a slur and attack based on personal opinions. The latter can be a valid conclusion based on objective analysis of the views they've expressed. Of course, they're not necessarily unrelated. You may decide that someone is decrepit because they're a racist. But not always. Archie Bunker was a perfectly nice guy who happened to be a racist; we're more likely to pity someone like him for his archaic views than hate him.

Barmar and Diana_Eva seem to agree that ad hominem attacks on posters are OK, in practice.

 

IMO, such personal attacks are rarely substantiated but they can be still be hurtful and they're irrelevant to debate. Unless you believe that labelling a poster a POS (or whatever) invalidates his argument.

 

The old-fashioned view is that refuting an opinion is OK but vilifying its proponent isn't.

[diana_eva]

Barmar and Diana_Eva seem to agree that ad hominem attacks on posters are OK, in practice. IMO, such personal attacks are rarely substantiated but they can be still be hurtful and they're irrelevant to debate. Unless you believe that labelling a poster a POS (or whatever) invalidates his argument.

The old-fashioned view is that refuting an opinion is OK but vilifying its proponent isn't.

 

Give it a rest Nigel. This is the water cooler.

[Al_U_Card]

Give it a rest Nigel. This is the water cooler.

Yes and even the water cooler has rules. (So that it resembles a forum for discussion and not another kind of wc.)

[hrothgar]

So that it resembles a forum for discussion

 

Your spewing nonstop idiocy and lies is hardly a discussion...

 

You were a worthless troll back when you post non stop conspiracy theories about 911...

Now you've moved on global warming, however, you're still an unwelcome presence trolling the forums for kicks and giggles.

 

For the life of me, I do't understand why your continued presence is tolerated.

[nige1]

Your spewing nonstop idiocy and lies is hardly a discussion...

You were a worthless troll back when you post non stop conspiracy theories about 911...

Now you've moved on global warming, however, you're still an unwelcome presence trolling the forums for kicks and giggles.

For the life of me, I do't understand why your continued presence is tolerated.

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

 

Some posters are confident in their beliefs. Seemingly, they're unshakable in their opinions. They might still find it salutary to expose their beliefs to adverse criticism. A group who all share the same view (e.g. that Russians are evil war-mongers) can appoint a "devil's advocate".

 

If you reflexly resort to insult, whenever you have difficulty countering an antagonist's argument, then he's less likely to help you to test your convictions.

 

I'm uncertain of my beliefs. I regard that as a strength, not a weakness. For example I've learnt from these forums. As a result, I've changed some of my opinions -- not just about Bridge.

[Winstonm]

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

 

Some posters are confident in their beliefs and, seemingly, unshakable in their opinions. They might still find it salutary to submit their beliefs to adverse criticism. A group who share the same view can appoint a "devil's advocate".

 

If you reflexly resort to insult, whenever you have difficulty countering your antagonist's arguments, then they're less likely to help you to test your convictions.

 

I'm uncertain of my beliefs. I regard that as a strength, not a weakness. For example I've learnt from these forums. As a result, I've changed some of my opinions -- not just about Bridge.

 

At the same time, when someone like David Duke tries to present the reasons behind his racism as valid argument, I know enough to reject those claims outright. In fact, it is dangerous and wrongheaded to give those ideas any weight at all or to accept the false equivalence that all ideas - regardless of basis - deserve respect.

[hrothgar]

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

 

Some posters are confident in their beliefs and, seemingly, unshakable in their opinions. They might still find it salutary to submit their beliefs to adverse criticism. A group who share the same view can appoint a "devil's advocate".

 

If you reflexly resort to insult, whenever you have difficulty countering your antagonist's arguments, then they're less likely to help you to test your convictions.

 

I'm uncertain of my beliefs. I regard that as a strength, not a weakness. For example I've learnt from these forums. As a result, I've changed some of my opinions -- not just about Bridge.

 

Nigel, I spent 10+ years presenting reasoned arguments against the never ending series of lies that Al spews

He never stops.

He never learns

He never admits that post factually incorrect materials.

Hell, he revels in his lies.

He had openly posted that he is justified in presenting materials that knows are wrong because the "warmists" do the same thing.

 

And if you didn't have you head shoved so far up your on ass, you'd understand that there is a difference between a discussion / debate and trolling.

 

Nigel, I understand that you don't like me

You had a stupid little man crush on me and I treat you like an idiot.

So be it. But you're only making yourself look even more stupid.

[Cyberyeti]

At the same time, when someone like David Duke tries to present the reasons behind his racism as valid argument, I know enough to reject those claims outright. In fact, it is dangerous and wrongheaded to give those ideas any weight at all or to accept the false equivalence that all ideas - regardless of basis - deserve respect.

 

Exactly, this occurs in many places particularly around religion, views do not automatically command respect, particularly when they fly in the face of all the scientific evidence or generally accepted standards of decency.

 

No the earth is not flat, and just because the church of Lucifer the paedophile dictates you should only marry girls under the age of 11 does not mean I have to respect your religion.

[diana_eva]

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

 

 

 

Yes. Main point here being what's controversial and what not. Global warming is not a controversial issue, for example, despite your continuous arguing that yes it is and we should give Al the credit for defending the other side of the argument.

[RedSpawn]

Winston to answer your first question...no it is secession....you don't seem to know that

 

In response to your main point....I remain....if you and your local community wish to remove them...fine.....Winston you argue only against yourself.....when it comes to your local statues.

 

 

I note in my local area...the south.....btw I am from the north.

 

1) today I learn we have a local street called stonewall.....it is a short street near uptown....I only know it because a great local theatre company is located there. I had no idea where the name came from or ever cared.....Today it is front page news in our local mayor race....who knew....change the name out of outrage....btw the Nazi or KKK never marched there. fwiw when I think stonewall and theatre....I think NYC gay riots but that is just me....

 

 

2) I find out our local state univ has a statue, a long time statue.... called silent sam...who knew......it is now the center of tear it down protesters, legal debates.....massive police protection.......silly........

 

 

kkk no....Nazis.......no.......white racists crackers...no.........I remain to see the so called evidence.....in these two examples....but in any case if locals want to tear it down....I don't really care....I grew up in the Land of Lincoln......revered Lincoln....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/05/silent-sam-vandalized_n_7732744.html

 

The Silent Sam statue controversy and its sponsorship by the United Daughters of the Confederacy on that campus is not new.

 

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/356954421/Julian-Carr-1913-Silent-Sam-Dedication-Speech

 

Scribd

 

Julian Carr

Speech given in Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina on June 2, 1913:

“Unveiling of Confederate Monument at University.”

[The monument later known as “Silent Sam.”]#1

UNC Library Abstract:

Julian Shakespeare Carr (1845-1924) of Chapel Hill and Durham, N.C., was a manufacturer of tobacco products with interests in a wide range of other businesses, including banking and textiles. Carr was also active in the Methodist Church, the Democratic Party, and several Confederate veterans' organizations, including the North Carolina branch of the United Confederate Veterans, which he served as commander. He was also a strong supporter of various institutions of higher education in the state. The collection includes letters, telegrams, printed announcements, programs, and pamphlets, business and legal documents, maps, and newspaper clippings pertaining to Carr's business and personal affairs. One address, 2 June 1913, given at the dedication of the monument later known as "Silent Sam" on the University of North Carolina campus. Business topics are also represented. Included are seven volumes of Carr's diary containing brief entries, 1907-1917, and letter books, 1919-1922.

 

Excerpt from Carr’s speech during dedication speech of 1913 (pages 12-13 of this document):

I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomatox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern Lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head.”

Well at least Carr protected those established customs and mores of the South and did it in front of federal soldiers. Kudos!