New Orleans City Council Gives Confederate Monuments The Boot

[Pogo]

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

The bottom line that you're trying to escape here remains --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things.

 

[martybegan]

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

If one can show circumstances similar, the logic may be a fallacy, but the argument is valid.

 

[Pogo]

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

The bottom line that you're trying to escape here remains --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things.

If one can show circumstances similar, the logic may be a fallacy, but the argument is valid.

Nope. That's still a fallacy. You're trying to convert it to a Composition Fallacy now but it's still not a valid argument.


Again --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things. Your position depends on them being the same thing.

That Rosa Parks plaque above didn't create the history. The event already happened. The plaque being there didn't suddenly "validate" it, and if it's removed or blown away in a hurricane, the history STILL doesn't change.

 

[martybegan]

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

The bottom line that you're trying to escape here remains --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things.

If one can show circumstances similar, the logic may be a fallacy, but the argument is valid.

Nope. That's still a fallacy. You're trying to convert it to a Composition Fallacy now but it's still not a valid argument.


Again --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things. Your position depends on them being the same thing.

That Rosa Parks plaque above didn't create the history. The event already happened. The plaque being there didn't suddenly "validate" it, and if it's removed or blown away in a hurricane, the history STILL doesn't change.

So you are saying NO ONE who supports removing these monuments also supports removing the people from the record, or at least demonizing them more than they deserve?

The Rosa Parks plaque illustrates history, the same as these Monuments do. It would be far better for those who don't like them to install plaques detailing THEIR positions on the people in question, than to remove them entirely.

It's the memory hole, nothing more or less.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

"We think that symbols matter here, and we want the symbols in the city to reflect really who New Orleans is."

How about a statue of a mugging, a car jacking, a riot, blacks shooting whites, drugs and prostitutes.
That would about sum up that dump.

 

[Pogo]

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

The bottom line that you're trying to escape here remains --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things.

If one can show circumstances similar, the logic may be a fallacy, but the argument is valid.

Nope. That's still a fallacy. You're trying to convert it to a Composition Fallacy now but it's still not a valid argument.


Again --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things. Your position depends on them being the same thing.

That Rosa Parks plaque above didn't create the history. The event already happened. The plaque being there didn't suddenly "validate" it, and if it's removed or blown away in a hurricane, the history STILL doesn't change.

So you are saying NO ONE who supports removing these monuments also supports removing the people from the record, or at least demonizing them more than they deserve?

I wouldn't know, or have any way to know. No more than I'd know what their favorite food or place to park is. That's not part of the issue here -- that's the speculation you're attaching to it as a slippery slope fallacy.

I might add, it's also akin to the old flawed "Paula Deen/Phil Robertson got fired and that's against the First Amendment" argument --- it assumes a right to a monument exists. It doesn't.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The confederacy is celebrated in Finland! You got a long way to go before you wipe it out of America. Biker gangs in Germany fly the Stars and Bars. It's a worldwide spirit of rebellion!

So do the Japs, Germans and Brits. And - they all have Hell's Angels chapters as well. FUCK Political Correctness.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The confederacy is celebrated in Finland! You got a long way to go before you wipe it out of America. Biker gangs in Germany fly the Stars and Bars. It's a worldwide spirit of rebellion!

So do the Japs, Germans and Brits. And - they all have Hell's Angels chapters as well. FUCK Political Correctness.

Awwww you're going to make a liberal cry

 

[Pogo]

"We think that symbols matter here, and we want the symbols in the city to reflect really who New Orleans is."

How about a statue of a mugging, a car jacking, a riot, blacks shooting whites, drugs and prostitutes.
That would about sum up that dump.

I see you've never been to New Orleans either, yet are only too willing to pull fantasies out of the same anal canal street whence came your last failure. The one you courageously ran away from.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[martybegan]

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

The bottom line that you're trying to escape here remains --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things.

If one can show circumstances similar, the logic may be a fallacy, but the argument is valid.

Nope. That's still a fallacy. You're trying to convert it to a Composition Fallacy now but it's still not a valid argument.


Again --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things. Your position depends on them being the same thing.

That Rosa Parks plaque above didn't create the history. The event already happened. The plaque being there didn't suddenly "validate" it, and if it's removed or blown away in a hurricane, the history STILL doesn't change.

So you are saying NO ONE who supports removing these monuments also supports removing the people from the record, or at least demonizing them more than they deserve?

I wouldn't know, or have any way to know. No more than I'd know what their favorite food or place to park is. That's not part of the issue here -- that's the speculation you're attaching to it as a slippery slope fallacy.

I might add, it's also akin to the old flawed "Paula Deen/Phil Robertson got fired and that's against the First Amendment" argument --- it assumes a right to a monument exists. It doesn't.

One can argue that removing the monument is wrong without saying it has a right to be there.

Plus the people suing have found all sorts of wonderful issues with the "make people feel better" law the council wrote up, so expect it to be in courts until the weather takes the monuments out.

 

[Pogo]

Well .............. no. It's always a fallacy, because it requires speculation. Assuming 'facts' that are not in evidence.

The bottom line that you're trying to escape here remains --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things.

If one can show circumstances similar, the logic may be a fallacy, but the argument is valid.

Nope. That's still a fallacy. You're trying to convert it to a Composition Fallacy now but it's still not a valid argument.


Again --- the historical record, and the optional emphasis of certain events and/or persons from it --- are two different things. Your position depends on them being the same thing.

That Rosa Parks plaque above didn't create the history. The event already happened. The plaque being there didn't suddenly "validate" it, and if it's removed or blown away in a hurricane, the history STILL doesn't change.

So you are saying NO ONE who supports removing these monuments also supports removing the people from the record, or at least demonizing them more than they deserve?

I wouldn't know, or have any way to know. No more than I'd know what their favorite food or place to park is. That's not part of the issue here -- that's the speculation you're attaching to it as a slippery slope fallacy.

I might add, it's also akin to the old flawed "Paula Deen/Phil Robertson got fired and that's against the First Amendment" argument --- it assumes a right to a monument exists. It doesn't.

One can argue that removing the monument is wrong without saying it has a right to be there.

Plus the people suing have found all sorts of wonderful issues with the "make people feel better" law the council wrote up, so expect it to be in courts until the weather takes the monuments out.

Of course they can, and no doubt will. And as I mentioned earlier, moves like this just create a PITA for the locals, not to mention the post office. All I'm saying here is that if you want to make that argument, then you need a better one than pretending removing a monument is altering history -- because it isn't.

Personally I don't care. If Lee Circle is re-named Not Lee Circle I'll just do what I did with Andrew Higgins --- ignore it and continue using the name everybody knows. Who cares.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

"We think that symbols matter here, and we want the symbols in the city to reflect really who New Orleans is."

How about a statue of a mugging, a car jacking, a riot, blacks shooting whites, drugs and prostitutes.
That would about sum up that dump.

I see you've never been to New Orleans either, yet are only too willing to pull fantasies out of the same anal canal street whence came your last failure. The one you courageously ran away from.

Why am I not surprised.

I am there a lot
We hold a convention there every three years or so
It was a shithole the first time I visited back in the 70s and has remained in that status as long as I have been going - over 40 years now, shitforbrsins

Next?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pogo]

"We think that symbols matter here, and we want the symbols in the city to reflect really who New Orleans is."

How about a statue of a mugging, a car jacking, a riot, blacks shooting whites, drugs and prostitutes.
That would about sum up that dump.

I see you've never been to New Orleans either, yet are only too willing to pull fantasies out of the same anal canal street whence came your last failure. The one you courageously ran away from.

Why am I not surprised.

I am there a lot
We hold a convention there every three years or so
It was a shithole the first time I visited back in the 70s and has remained in that status as long as I have been going - over 40 years now, shitforbrsins

Next?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you think you have an impression from going to a few conventions. Yeah, that's realistic.

I knew you were an idiot, but I misunderestimated by how much.

 

[Samson]

New Orleans is their Confederate past. And their French past, and their Spanish past, and their American past.


Attempting to erase that won't change it.

Well, since it won't change regardless, I suppose the monuments can be removed .....however, before we remove them, we should consider that they are "reminders" of not only good or bad, but REAL, old days. Cleaning up our past, I guess we cannot blame the Japanese from removing references to Pearl Harbor from their history texts.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If removing certain 'monuments' or statues is rewriting history or Orwellian, then wasn't the leaving out of monuments or statues to other notable figures also rewriting history and 'Orwellian'?

A few statues in a city doesn't tell an entire history of anything. If removing them rewrites something then not putting up statues to all historical figures involved was also rewriting that history.

Its ludicrous.

Even taking down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. isn't rewriting anything. The history is the same and the books aren't changed, nor is the historical record. If you removed the statue AND removed all references of the history from school books AND scrubbed all historical records of an event, that is Orwellian. That is what Stalin et al did.

 

[Samson]

If removing certain 'monuments' or statues is rewriting history or Orwellian, then wasn't the leaving out of monuments or statues to other notable figures also rewriting history and 'Orwellian'?

A few statues in a city doesn't tell an entire history of anything. If removing them rewrites something then not putting up statues to all historical figures involved was also rewriting that history.

Its ludicrous.

Even taking down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. isn't rewriting anything. The history is the same and the books aren't changed, nor is the historical record. If you removed the statue AND removed all references of the history from school books AND scrubbed all historical records of an event, that is Orwellian. That is what Stalin et al did.

"That is what Stalin et al did" about, specifically, what historical event?

 

[IsaacNewton]

If removing certain 'monuments' or statues is rewriting history or Orwellian, then wasn't the leaving out of monuments or statues to other notable figures also rewriting history and 'Orwellian'?

A few statues in a city doesn't tell an entire history of anything. If removing them rewrites something then not putting up statues to all historical figures involved was also rewriting that history.

Its ludicrous.

Even taking down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. isn't rewriting anything. The history is the same and the books aren't changed, nor is the historical record. If you removed the statue AND removed all references of the history from school books AND scrubbed all historical records of an event, that is Orwellian. That is what Stalin et al did.

"That is what Stalin et al did" about, specifically, what historical event?

In the era of google I do not go to the library for anyone. Don't want to find it yourself? No problem. Run along.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"We think that symbols matter here, and we want the symbols in the city to reflect really who New Orleans is."

Yeah, didnt they say they wanted chocolate people only now?

You love that thought, doncha Lakchoka? You can have them for desert.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Right. Go ahead.

Wow, you are such a raging keyboard warrior, stupid ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Libtards are better at nothing than lying and air brushing away history they dont like.