NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[marvin martian]

You're literally sharing your weird fantasies with us.

Your vigorous defense of the guy in the KKK robe isn't a fantasy, it's a fact. Sadly.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your vigorous defense of the guy in the KKK robe isn't a fantasy, it's a fact. Sadly.

What's sad is that you can't admit it's a KKK costume.

 

[marvin martian]

What's sad is that you can't admit it's a KKK costume.

Irrelevant. You vote for the guy wearing the KKK robe, and I don't. That's it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. You vote for the guy wearing the KKK robe, and I don't. That's it.

It's kind of relevant. Is your point that I support a guy who once wore a KKK costume to a Halloween party in college. Because that's kind of a nothing point. Maybe you think it's some terribly important point but that would only make you an even sadder human being.

 

[martybegan]

Again consensus is an illegitimate point unless you're going to tell me all your moral believes are derived from consensus. Is that the case?

No. Consensus means something in regards to passing laws. You don't actually wait on consensus for your moral beliefs.

Shorter life spans were a product of environment and circumstance not biology. Our biology hasn't changed much since the 1600s. Washington died at 67, longer than average sure but not because of biology but because he was a man of means. If spreading wealth and healthcare had been a goal of that culture average life spans would of improved. Marrying young teen girls was a cultural choice, like slavery. Not a biological imperative.

Wrong. It didn't become illegal to forceably rape your wife until the 1970s.

Morals in this situation are defined by the time and the people living at the time. You can say rights are god given, but they are protected and recognized by governments and people.

biology is impacted by environment, but it is still biology. Culture in the procreation need for young girls marrying was enforced by biology.

Prove it. In any event any forceable rape even in marriage could have been prosecuted as assault anyway.

 

[Blaster]

Is the Statue of Liberty safe?

 

[marvin martian]

It's kind of relevant. Is your point that I support a guy who once wore a KKK costume to a Halloween party in college. Because that's kind of a nothing point. Maybe you think it's some terribly important point but that would only make you an even sadder human being.

No reason to debate this any further. We agree that you support the guy who wears a KKK robe, and I don't. That's it. Bye.

 

[Robert W]

Who are they trying to please by removing statues of historic figures. It certainly won't feed or house the poor. It won't clean up the filthy streets. It won't fix the failing schools. It won't make people safe in their own houses or cars or just walking on the street. It won't make the media accurate. Removing statues is the solution of mental midgets.

This is not new. It was happening when Trump was president as well. Clearly if you watch your TV screen, you have noticed that whites are removed from the ADs up to what seems to be about 80 percent of the ads have blacks.

There is a move to erase whites. Washington was doomed when they took down the Robert E Lee Statues.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes, I said it was a shit culture. What of it?

I don't care that you think it was a shit culture. I'm just pointing out that if the culture was shit by virtue of supporting and practicing slavery then the Democratic party falls under the same umbrella.

The Democratic Party isn't a culture, again it's a tool.

Right. A political party was a tool back then but a political party today (Republican) is to be disdained.

It reflects the culture of the people who wield it. Is that line of reasoning something that confuses you? Do you require more elaboration?

I don't think you understand. I understand perfectly what you're saying. I'm just pointing that there is an inherent contradiction in condemning one from that period and not the other from the same period.

Yes, I'm the one endeavoring to explain it you as if you were particularly slow child.....

Jesus, here we go. How long before you call me "Bingo"?

The Republican party is largely the tool of bigot white evangelicals.

That's a very simplistic, stereotypical assessment.

Why do you continue to be confused by this simple concept?

Why do you continue to compromise your own position?

That is a comment about the lack of diversity within the Republican party.

That's not the Republican Party's fault.

The Democratic Party on the other hand is a tool weilded by Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and the LGTBQ communities. There are a lot of seperate cultures represented there as well as some over lap.

I'm an atheist.

But nevertheless, you have divided the two parties along racial lines.

I didn't say they were a faceless entity, in fact I called some of them out by name. I said Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis were shit people from a shit culture. I put two faces to my claim.

Who belonged to a shit political party.

I'm not answering for what "many blacks" (who's arguments you may or not be misrepresenting) said to you. I can only answer for my own.

I didn't ask you to.

The nation they built was a deplorable Slave State. I'm confident that if I keep asking people who purport to be decent whether or not we should venerate that that I will eventually get the answer I'm looking for.

Fine, keep asking the question. When you're done with that, maybe you'll see that these people are not being venerated for slavery.

Slavery was a big part of world culture at that time; America was not the only slave state. Therefore, by your criteria, the entire world was a shit culture.

 

[Curried Goats]

Morals in this situation are defined by the time and the people living at the time.

That's a nonsense argument. There are no morals of time. Morality isn't a property of time. It's a property of people. I always contest this argument and none of you ever have a response to it.

As I argued before, a point you failed to address, in this time there are people who find abortion perfectly moral and those who find it immoral. That's obviously how it exists in every point in time. Pick any year in human history and you'll find people who believe one thing and others who believe differently. Do you think the slaves at the time found their situation to be moral and just or is it simply that their perspective isn't given consideration by you in your determination of what the morality of the time was? It was the morality of American culture at that point in time, not the morality of time itself. That is why I judge them to be a deplorable mutant culture as I would any culture that builds its economic stability on the back of brutal slavery.

You can say rights are god given, but they are protected and recognized by governments and people.

Rights are given by government (the collective). God doesn't exist. And morality is a subjective property that exists in individuals(biologically). It goes hand in hand with independent life, senses and thought. You determine what is good and moral for you. If that includes chattel slavery in early American culture so be it. But don't be a coward and blame it on time.

As far as my morals are concerned, rape, murder and slavery are never okay, and were never okay at any point in time. Why? Because I believe in respecting individual life.

biology is impacted by environment, but it is still biology. Culture in the procreation need for young girls marrying was enforced by biology.

Was it? They could of just as easily procreated with young boys, no?

Prove it. In any event any forceable rape even in marriage could have been prosecuted as assault anyway.

"The rape-your-wife privilege": The horrifying modern legal history of marital rape

Marital rape in the United States - Wikipedia.

I don't know why you choose to believe fantasy and propaganda about your culture when facts are so readily available.

 

[martybegan]

That's a nonsense argument. There are no morals of time. Morality isn't a property of time. It's a property of people. I always contest this argument and none of you ever have a response to it.

As I argued before, a point you failed to address, in this time there are people who find abortion perfectly moral and those who find it immoral. That's obviously how it exists in every point in time. Pick any year in human history and you'll find people who believe one thing and others who believe differently. Do you think the slaves at the time found their situation to be moral and just or is it simply that their perspective isn't given consideration by you in your determination of what the morality of the time was? It was the morality of American culture at that point in time, not the morality of time itself. That is why I judge them to be a deplorable mutant culture as I would any culture that builds its economic stability on the back of brutal slavery.

Rights are given by government (the collective). God doesn't exist. And morality is a subjective property that exists in individuals(biologically). It goes hand in hand with independent life, senses and thought. You determine what is good and moral for you. If that includes chattel slavery in early American culture so be it. But don't be a coward and blame it on time.

As far as my morals are concerned, rape, murder and slavery are never okay, and were never okay at any point in time. Why? Because I believe in respecting individual life.

Was it? They could of just as easily procreated with young boys, no?

"The rape-your-wife privilege": The horrifying modern legal history of marital rape

Marital rape in the United States - Wikipedia.

I don't know why you choose to believe fantasy and propaganda about your culture when facts are so readily available.

People are products of their time. You want the Inquisition to come to our time and impose their morals?

In the case of abortion there is still an argument over it, JUST LIKE THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT OVER SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

You just own-goaled yourself, and don't realize it.

Figured you were an atheist by your unearned narcissism.

Unless it's a fetus, then fuck it, right?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Which of my arguments do you think shot myself in the leg? My arguments are brilliant and unassailable.

Debate requires some sort of disagreement. What are we debating here?

To answer your question though if we're talking indentured servitude in the 1700s and laborers today the big differences I can think of off the top of my head are

1. The social caste system. Commoners back then didn't have an opportunity for social mobility like people who work hard and get lucky today can.

2. As I understand it indentured servitude was entered into to work off some debt where as employers today are the ones incurring the debt when people labor for them and they pay that debt off in the form of your pay check.

Appreciate the response. Yeah, I think you're about right on the servitude although some of it was voluntary, not sure if that fell under specific types of servitude but they were free to come and go as please and leave if they desired. I will disagree on the working hard part and getting lucky. My experience with building a company was that I had to make my own luck and to do that meant endless hours of work.

 

[Curried Goats]

I don't care that you think it was a shit culture. I'm just pointing out that if the culture was shit by virtue of supporting and practicing slavery then the Democratic party falls under the same umbrella.

And I pointed out to you that it doesn't because political parties are tools and reflections of those who wield them. If we were talking about the Democratic party in the 1800s then you'd have a point.

Right. A political party was a tool back then but a political party today (Republican) is to be disdained.

I have disdain for what the Republican party is doing today. That's a bit different than trying to place the disdain for 19th century Democrats on today's Democrats.

I don't think you understand. I understand perfectly what you're saying. I'm just pointing that there is an inherent contradiction in condemning one from that period and not the other from the same period.

I understand just fine. I certainly have condemnations of the Republican party, at the time. They aren't the same condemnations that I have for the Republican party today.

Do you understand how time works? Should I go back to the beginning? We can start at the big bang and work our way forward if this jumping back and forth through time is too confusing for you.

Jesus, here we go. How long before you call me "Bingo"?

I don't know honestly. You not being able to understand that the Democratic party of today isn't the Democratic party of the 1800s kind of makes me want to call you a Bingo but I'm trying.....

That's a very simplistic, stereotypical assessment.

It's a apt description of the demographic make up of the Republican party. Even the Black, Asian and Latino members lean more heavily Christian conservative.

Why do you continue to compromise your own position?

I haven't recognized any yet that you've pointed out or that I couldn't counter.

That's not the Republican Party's fault.

How is the Republican Party's inability to attract diverse membership anyone else's fault but it's own?

I'm an atheist.

Good for you.

But nevertheless, you have divided the two parties along racial lines.

I haven't. I've simply pointed out one Party's inability to attract diverse membership.

Who belonged to a shit political party.

Yes. When they represented the culture of slavers and segregationists. I'm not reluctant to admit that.

I didn't ask you to.


Fine, keep asking the question. When you're done with that, maybe you'll see that these people are not being venerated for slavery.

I don't care why you choose to venerate slavers, I only know that only deplorable mutants from deplorable cultures do.

Slavery was a big part of world culture at that time; America was not the only slave state. Therefore, by your criteria, the entire world was a shit culture.

A lot of it. Yes. How hard is that to admit for people who claim to find moral good in individual rights?

 

[Curried Goats]

No reason to debate this any further. We agree that you support the guy who wears a KKK robe, and I don't. That's it. Bye.

Run along cosplayer....

 

[bendog]

Hey, Columbus was looking for a shortcut to Asia. Let's ship his ass to Jina!

 

[Curried Goats]

People are products of their time. You want the Inquisition to come to our time and impose their morals?

I'm not arguing in favor of time travel I'm questioning your morality.

In the case of abortion there is still an argument over it, JUST LIKE THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT OVER SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

Then how are you claiming one was the morals of the time if both existed in time? Do you not recognize the simple broken logic of your argument? At most you can say one had more legal authority at the time but that doesn't get you to the absolution of Washington that you so desperately want.

You just own-goaled yourself, and don't realize it.

Bitch please. Your logic is simple and rudimentary.

Figured you were an atheist by your unearned narcissism.

Unless it's a fetus, then fuck it, right?

Yes. I personally don't care about the lives of unwanted and unviable fetuses. That's my subjective moral standard.

 

[Curried Goats]

Appreciate the response. Yeah, I think you're about right on the servitude although some of it was voluntary, not sure if that fell under specific types of servitude but they were free to come and go as please and leave if they desired. I will disagree on the working hard part and getting lucky. My experience with building a company was that I had to make my own luck and to do that meant endless hours of work.

I've also know people who built companies after coming to this country and working hard. My uncle came here at 18, worked at IBM for about a couple hundred dollars a week as a tech while supporting his younger brother. He worked his way up to manager of their service department without a college education and then quit at 40. Went to college for first time. Went to medical school. Opened his own practice and then sold it for millions to a healthcare group and gets paid six figures to still run it. He worked his ass off. He also got very lucky. When you're walking a tight rope like he did for all those years, one wrong step, one misfortune, one bad health problem and who knows where he would be right now. Having more means means having the means to whether temporary hardship. It's not simply a lack of hard work that prevents people from social mobility. I've lived in wealthy and poor neighborhoods. Everywhere I went I saw people who worked hard and wanted the best for their family. Poor people and immigrant alike. Every claim to the contrary is simple demagoguery.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not arguing in favor of time travel I'm questioning your morality.

Then how are you claiming one was the morals of the time if both existed in time? Do you not recognize the simple broken logic of your argument? At most you can say one had more legal authority at the time but that doesn't get you to the absolution of Washington that you so desperately want.

Bitch please. Your logic is simple and rudimentary.

Yes. I personally don't care about the lives of unwanted and unviable fetuses. That's my subjective moral standard.

Slavery was still being argued as moral or not, just like abortion is being argued now. Do I have to spell it out for you?

Linking unwanted and unviable is cowardly, and stupid.

 

[bendog]

I agree with Marty as to people being prisoners of their own time. Aside from MLK, Sartre may have been the most "moral" person of my lifetime, but he has some blemishes. So, you don't even have to look that far back to find .... flaws.

But why do Americans even celebrate Columbus? Sure he ACCIDENTALLY found the continents, but it's not like they were really gonna fall off the earth or not be noticed. The Spanish and Inquistion did not positively affect the development of the Republic, so he's not even Lafayette or even von Steuben.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with Marty as to people being prisoners of their own time. Aside from MLK, Sartre may have been the most "moral" person of my lifetime, but he has some blemishes. So, you don't even have to look that far back to find .... flaws.

But why do Americans even celebrate Columbus? Sure he ACCIDENTALLY found the continents, but it's not like they were really gonna fall off the earth or not be noticed. The Spanish and Inquistion did not positively affect the development of the Republic, so he's not even Lafayette or even von Steuben.

Would you not take penicillin because it was discovered by accident?

He was looking for a quicker route to India, and found said other continents.

He got there first, came back first, and led others to go looking.