Not at all! I don’t suggest that the sentiment is universal.
I’d say, rather, that it’s YOU ignoring the posts that said the statues should be removed.
Wait, what? Just because you put one word in all caps doesn’t make your post coherent.
My argument was that the statues should remain with added historical context, you argued that the spokesman for the park was a white nationalist and given that you have declared that you were not arguing in bad faith, I must take you at you word on that point.
Sad to see someone who claims exceptional proficiency in debate instead posting “no u”.
It’s possible to simultaneously argue in good faith and post the line that I did.
There is an argumentative method called reductio ad absurdum, which is intended to show the flaws in an argument by extending the argument of your opponent to show that it leads to an unsupportable conclusion. This is described as far back as Prior Analytics, the classic Aristotle work on deductive reasoning.
Reductio is not useful in all situation, only in ones where an absurd form of the argument results in absurd conclusions.
For instance, I can say that drinking water is good for your health, and your reductio argument would be to show that water is not good, because people drown.
I think you have left the Reductio form of argument, and moved into the slippery slope fallacy with that line.
But this “I disagree” stuff he resorts to is identical to “No it isn’t”.
Bricker: I am not convinced you can pass an intellectual turing test on this issue. You may be reading or being exposed to the weakest forms of the anti-statue arguments.
I’m willing to be convinced, but the basic premise that occasioned this thread was the observation that there’s not even unanimity amongst opponents of Confederate memorials about Gettysburg: some agreed that it’s an “open air museum” or otherwise provides historical context, but others were perfectly content to support removing what they saw as Confederate ephemera even from Gettysburg.
With that in mind, is it really that much of a leap to imagine that the reaction of a particularly passionate individual would be to ascribe invidious motives to anyone who opposed the removal of Confederate markers? And isn’t that a valid illustration of the weakness of the general outlook?
In this thread, one poster suggests destruction or removal; another echoes the idea of removal.
I admit I am responding to those minority views, and not the majority of more sober views. But why shouldn’t I?
A statue to it should be erected in Strawman National Park and Rhetorical Battlefield.
You should be receiving a bill shortly for a replacement keyboard I just now had to buy.
Since the Gettysburg battlefield is for all practical purposes an outdoor museum, then aside from appropriate monuments to the dead buried there, it ought to be treated as such.
We hold museums to a fairly high standard of scientific or historical accuracy. We expect them to give us a fairly complete and unbiased understanding of the things that the museum is there to preserve and show us, providing appropriate context to deepen our understanding.
It’s hard to argue, for instance, thatthis statue that madmonk28 linked to earlier does any of these things. It presents Lee as a heroic figure in a grand manner. If the Gettysburg battlefield is a museum, it’s a damn terrible one for including such a statue.
This should be rectified by the removal of that statue and any similar statues of Confederate ‘heroes’ at the earliest possible opportunity. After which the curators of the museum should do a full reassessment of their representation of the Civil War.
Maybe he took lessons at the argument clinic?
Because there will always be a minority of people who want stuff that the majority doesn’t.
I want a pony, and I will advocate for politicians who will give me a pony. That doesn’t mean that others want the same. They may talk me out of it, or convince me that we should start with a doodle, and see how that goes, before we go to ponies. That I agree with others that none of us want poisonous radioactive alligators, does not mean that they will support me in my quest for a pony.
On the other hand, if the majority do decide that I should get a pony, who are the minority to tell me I can’t have one?
As far as people taking down statues unofficially, I am against that sort of thing. Partly because it heightens tensions, but largely because I do share a concern with you that it gets out of hand. I could see some well meaning but stupendously ignorant people tearing down a statue of Harriet Tubman. So, yeah, anyone doing that sort of thing should be charged with vandalism or whatever relevant charges should be involved.
On the other hand, I completely support the democratic process of a city deciding what types of statues should be displayed prominently outside the courthouse and in the town square. I support those who use the democratic process to remove these, and if able to vote on it, I would vote to remove it.
If it is decided, democratically, that the gettysburg memorial should be altered or even abolished, I would support that decision, though if I was able to, I would vote against it. If people decide to do so undemocratically, I would not support that, and would support them being charged with vandalism.
There is nuance, and if you ignore the nuance, then reductio works. But once the actual nuanced positions of those involved are made clear, then it becomes quite obvious that the argument ends immediately, because the only way to reduce it to an absurd argument is to assume that everyone will spontaneously agree to become vandals.
I agree with all of the above.
But my message here is to highlight those who seek to convince either the majority, or the minority crowd armed with ropes and hacksaws, to destroy Confederate symbols wherever they are found, or destroy them on a much wider basis than I think the majority would favor.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s address is the clearest example I’ve heard of why this is important
None of that was in your OP which is why this thread has quickly devolved into a discussion of your not arguing in good faith and I think that your tactics are telling. Tactics like these are why it is so difficult for our society to put this ugly chapter of our history in some kind of historical perspective. The question is why do conservatives fight so desperately to prevent us from reevaluating this period? You can put whatever packaging and Latin phrasing around how you’ve argued in this thread, but the fact is you mostly argued with strawmen. The question is why? Why, with all the challenges we face as a nation do you put your efforts into fighting those who would undo 150 years of revisionist history?
[quote=“zoid, post:95, topic:793853”]
Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s address is the clearest example I’ve heard of why this is important
[/QUOTE]Eh, he’s just concerned the Lawgivers will cancel Festival.
Well, yeah. Many of the newcomers are not of the Body.
Sure, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. However, when someone with a broken clock is telling you what time it is, I’d want to take a long, hard look at all the other available evidence to the contrary before having any sort of certainty that its actually 5:03.
Here’s the types of questions that should be asked, and evidence to be examined:
(1) By its design was the statue built simply to memorialize the fallen or the tragic loss of life, or was it built to honor or glorify?
(2) If the latter, what values or accomplishments was the statue originally meant to symbolize, when it was commissioned/built/dedicated?
(3)Are those same primary values or accomplishments still important and representative to present-day America? (Editorial Note: “bravery” “dedication” and “sacrifice” are not sufficient values by themselves, without a just cause attached)
(4) If the answer to the above is “No”, is the statue in a suitable location with the appropriate surrounding context to ensure that it’s being used for education with the express intent to not repeat the lessons of the past (example: Auschwitz)?
You should do whatever you like, of course. If you want to engage with fringe views, go nuts.
I’m simply saying that, based on your posts in this thread, I don’t think you understand why people would want to remove, say, a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville. So if your goal is light on a subject that you might not fully understand, rather than heat directed at extremists, then I suggest a different approach.