Removal of statues in New Orleans.

[dsr]

The existance of this thread is hilarious. Apparently it's OK to argue against the removal of a statue that celebrates a truely terrible and evil person, but not ok to argue for its removal.

Learn from Voltaire, and you won't make this particular mistake again. It's perfectly OK to argue against the removal of a statue, and it's perfectly OK to argue for its removal, and it's perfectly OK to disagree with someone arguing for its removal or its retention. What you're confused about is the difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and disagreeing with the right to hold that opinion.

[CoolClaret]

Attempting to delete history is despicable behaviour; it shows us where we have come from and how we have progressed (or regressed).

Also - Caernarfon_Claret - wow dude, that really is reaching.......

Note, the slave trade is still thriving in the Arab and African world, the west seems to get chastised for it's historical involvement in the slave trade but never get's applauded for being the first to abolish it as well....

[Imploding Turtle]

Learn from Voltaire, and you won't make this particular mistake again. It's perfectly OK to argue against the removal of a statue, and it's perfectly OK to argue for its removal, and it's perfectly OK to disagree with someone arguing for its removal or its retention. What you're confused about is the difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and disagreeing with the right to hold that opinion.

Whose right to an opinion is being infringed?

[Imploding Turtle]

Have a little guess which party this lawmaker is a member of.

The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, “leadership” of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening in our State.

----------

Attempting to delete history is despicable behaviour; it shows us where we have come from and how we have progressed (or regressed).

Then it's a good job no one is doing that, isn't it?

[dsr]

Whose right to an opinion is being infringed?

Nobody's, that's the point. You were suggesting that it's not OK, or it's perceived to be not Ok, to hold certain opinions. In fact, mo one was objecting to those opinions, just disagreeing with them.

[Imploding Turtle]

Nobody's, that's the point. You were suggesting that it's not OK, or it's perceived to be not Ok, to hold certain opinions. In fact, mo one was objecting to those opinions, just disagreeing with them.

I didn't suggest that, you only think i did because you like to twist what people say into something you can attack.

[dsr]

I didn't suggest that, you only think i did because you like to twist what people say into something you can attack.

I know what you said, even if you didn't mean to say it.

[Imploding Turtle]

Don't try and read my mind when you can't express your own clearly.

I've expressed mine perfectly clearly. Why don't you quote what it is that's confusing you?

[dsr]

The existance of this thread is hilarious. Apparently it's OK to argue against the removal of a statue that celebrates a truely terrible and evil person, but not ok to argue for its removal.

The only confusion is what you might have meant in your own mind, other than that you're suggesting that other people are saying it's not OK to argue for the removal of the statue.

[Imploding Turtle]

The only confusion is what you might have meant in your own mind, other than that you're suggesting that other people are saying it's not OK to argue for the removal of the statue.

Ah, i see. I thought you were accusing me (and i still think it) of saying it's not OK for some people to think a certain way. It's a habit of yours to make that kind of an accusation when the argument isn't going your way. You've called me "anti-democratic" before now, for example, simply for thinking we shouldn't have an EU referendum.

[dsr]

Ah, i see. I thought you were accusing me (and i still think it) of saying it's not OK for some people to think a certain way. It's a habit of yours to make that kind of an accusation when the argument isn't going your way. You've called me "anti-democratic" before now, for example, simply for thinking we shouldn't have an EU referendum.

I thought it was for saying the EU referendum result should be ignored?

[Imploding Turtle]

I thought it was for saying the EU referendum result should be ignored?

Where have I ever said that?

[Sidney1st]

I don't think you have, you just try to convince us all it was the wrong result

[dsr]

Where have I ever said that?

No idea, it might not have been you. But as far as I remember, possibly wrongly, the people who I called anti-democratic (and there were some) were the people who thought the EU referendum result should be ignored, usually on the spurious grounds that it wasn't legally binding.

[Imploding Turtle]

No idea, it might not have been you. But as far as I remember, possibly wrongly, the people who I called anti-democratic (and there were some) were the people who thought the EU referendum result should be ignored, usually on the spurious grounds that it wasn't legally binding.

You've called me undemocratic, or words to that effect, a few times on this issue. The first time was on Claretsmad when i first made the point that the public couldn't possibly be informed well enough to make an informed decision on EU membership.

And yes, the EU referendum could have been ignored. And no it wouldn't have been anti-democratic. Politically stupid? Yes. Like voting Leave as a means to end immigration, but not anti-democratic.

But anyway. Lets get back to the stupid topic at hand, about how people are trying to delete history by removing a statue honouring a traitor.

[SonofPog]

Cool, while we're removing statues can we remove Cromwells from outside Parliment?

[Falcon]

We can argue either side here til we're blue in the face, but the truth is the people of New Orleans can have whatever bloody statues they want. If they want to remove this one, then that's their decision.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Typically statues are erected in honour of people who have earned recognition within society. In the past, enslaving blacks was seen as a positive and those who did it were venerated. Looking back now, it seems people who enslaves Africans were absolute *****. They used to be really famous but now they seem like bastards who don't deserve to be celebrated.

History is always written by the victors. Thr American Civil War wasn't about slavery at all. The Union wrote the history books. The southern states wanted to protect their way of life. The Africans weren't prisoners indeed in many cases they lived on plantations as part of the family. They were free to leave at any time but they were uneducated and had no way of providing for themselves. The North had just as many slaves. And in fact slaves were treated far worse in the North than they were in the South.

[Lancasterclaret]

Have I just read that right?

Jesus