Politics: Statues coming down II

[Tidewater]

Well, that's literally the Somalia flag. They are different shades of blue, but I can see how that would be easily confused and conflated in politics if you don't do your homework.

Flag of Somalia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 57463
View attachment 57464

Sure, I know that.
My point was to show how easy it is, when you question someone's motives, to take an element of truth and spin it into something not intended.
If someone was really worried about a Somali-American waving what looked like a Bonnie Blue flag, he could just ask the Somali-American. Of course, the response would be exactly what you presented here. But that would not generate controversy and sell newspapers (or generate clicks).

 

[Tidewater]

Here is a great example of media malfeasance/deliberate stupidity.

Statue of Founding Father who enslaved hundreds installed at Freedom Plaza​

So, the article implies that the guy's statue was erected because he had enslaved hundreds. One alternative explanation was his service in the American Revolution, and his ownership of slaves was an unfortunate aspect of an otherwise praiseworthy man.
One way to test NBC's deceptive moronic thesis is to research how many other people who enslaved hundreds but did not contribute to American independence in the Revolution had statues erected to them on Freedom Square. In other words, how many enslavers got monuments on Freedom Plaza. The answer being zero, then NBC's deliberately obtuse reporting is shown to be the deceptive pandering garbage that it is.
NBC News is beneath contempt for this.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Here is a great example of media malfeasance/deliberate stupidity.

Statue of Founding Father who enslaved hundreds installed at Freedom Plaza​

So, the article implies that the guy's statue was erected because he had enslaved hundreds. One alternative explanation was his service in the American Revolution, and his ownership of slaves was an unfortunate aspect of an otherwise praiseworthy man.
One way to test NBC's deceptive moronic thesis is to research how many other people who enslaved hundreds but did not contribute to American independence in the Revolution had statues erected to them on Freedom Square. In other words, how many enslavers got monuments on Freedom Plaza. The answer being zero, then NBC's deliberately obtuse reporting is shown to be the deceptive pandering garbage that it is.
NBC News is beneath contempt for this.

"Historians estimate that over half of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention—and 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence—enslaved people." https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/founding-fathers-views-slavery

I always bring this up every time I hear someone speak of the Found Fathers like they are pillars of wisdom and holy.

They were fallible men. They made mistakes. Hell, they respected the practice so much that they enshrined it in the US Constitution. 3/5ths Compromise.

They liked it so much that their progeny went to war with the Union to preserve it.

 

[crimsonaudio]

"Historians estimate that over half of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention—and 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence—enslaved people." https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/founding-fathers-views-slavery

I always bring this up every time I hear someone speak of the Found Fathers like they are pillars of wisdom and holy.

They were fallible men. They made mistakes. Hell, they respected the practice so much that they enshrined it in the US Constitution. 3/5ths Compromise.

They liked it so much that their progeny went to war with the Union to preserve it.

So easy to retrospectively condemn people for the social norm of their time.

I pray future generations are more kind and understanding of our decisions than many are now of previous ones...

 

[Crimson1967]

So easy to retrospectively condemn people for the social norm of their time.

I pray future generations are more kind and understanding of our decisions than many are now of previous ones...

People viewed today as woke will be blasted 200 years from now like Lincoln is for not being an abolitionist.

 

[Tidewater]

"Historians estimate that over half of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention—and 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence—enslaved people." https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/founding-fathers-views-slavery

I always bring this up every time I hear someone speak of the Found Fathers like they are pillars of wisdom and holy.

They were fallible men. They made mistakes. Hell, they respected the practice so much that they enshrined it in the US Constitution. 3/5ths Compromise.

They liked it so much that their progeny went to war with the Union to preserve it.

The Founders did own slaves, but they were pragmatic. Without the 3/5th compromise the Union would never have been formed in 1787. Every state but Massachusetts had citizens who owned slaves. (RI had 958 slaves in 1790, NH 157, Conn. had 2,648, NY 21,193). Southwest of Connecticut, the numbers of slaves and slaveowners increased. The Founders would not have ratified if the federal government had been given any power over it. The provision for outlawing the trans-Atlantic slave trade was controversial and included in the Constitution only when the Constitution delegated power to outlaw it only after 1807.

As a more practical view of the matter, was Caesar Rodney's slave owning carved into the statue? Was it mentioned in the ceremony when his statue was originally dedicated? Was there a dedication speech in which the speaker praised him for his slave owning? It seems his statue was intended to honor his work and sacrifice during the American Revolution. To deliberately misunderstand that seems obtuse and acting in bad faith.

They key point is that we do not erect monuments to people to honor things about that that we disapprove of. We erecty them for having done things we do approve of.

 

[Tidewater]

People viewed today as woke will be blasted 200 years from now like Lincoln is for not being an abolitionist.

I've said it before, in 150 years, once the tribalism of the political imperative ("my tribe is pro-abortion, therefore I must be pro-abortion") has abated, today's pro-abortion people will be looked at much the way slavery apologists are today. In 150 years, people will ask themselves, "How could they not have seen this for what it was?"

 

[92tide]

I've said it before, in 150 years, once the tribalism of the political imperative ("my tribe is pro-abortion, therefore I must be pro-abortion") has abated, today's pro-abortion people will be looked at much the way slavery apologists are today. In 150 years, people will ask themselves, "How could they not have seen this for what it was?"

pro abortion = pro slavery ??

talk about obtuse and bad faith

 

[Tidewater]

pro abortion = pro slavery ??

talk about obtuse and bad faith

Nice strawman. That was not the argument I made. I said, people in 150 years will look back on pro-abortion people the way we look back as slaveholders.
But since you brought up the ethics of the two institutions, abortion is morally worse than slavery. If you had the choice between being aborted or being a slave, which would you chose? And why?

 

[92tide]

Nice strawman. That was not the argument I made. I said, people in 150 years will look back on pro-abortion people the way we look back as slaveholders.
But since you brought up the ethics of the two institutions, abortion is morally worse than slavery. If you had the choice between being aborted or being a slave, which would you chose? And why?

i know what you said

and your second paragraph is beyond absurd

 

[Its On A Slab]

So easy to retrospectively condemn people for the social norm of their time.

I pray future generations are more kind and understanding of our decisions than many are now of previous ones...

I just don't put people on pedestals unflinchingly.

They were on record supporting one of the most odious institutions in human history. And there were squabbles in the drafting about "all men are created equal".

 

[Huckleberry]

Nice strawman. That was not the argument I made. I said, people in 150 years will look back on pro-abortion people the way we look back as slaveholders.
But since you brought up the ethics of the two institutions, abortion is morally worse than slavery. If you had the choice between being aborted or being a slave, which would you chose? And why?

I don’t think that prediction is nearly as obvious as you do.

Slavery is judged so harshly because it denied people ownership of their own bodies, lives, and labor. That’s exactly why many of us are pro-choice. It is not “my tribe says abortion is good, so I must agree.” It is the acknowledgement of bodily autonomy. The government should not have the power to force someone to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.

The pregnant woman is not a side issue. She is a living person with rights, health risks, family circumstances, and control over her own body.

So I don’t buy the certainty that history will view pro-choice people as monsters. It may just as easily look back and ask why so many people wanted the state to have that level of control over women.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Nice strawman. That was not the argument I made. I said, people in 150 years will look back on pro-abortion people the way we look back as slaveholders.
But since you brought up the ethics of the two institutions, abortion is morally worse than slavery. If you had the choice between being aborted or being a slave, which would you chose? And why?

The difference being a person's rights of sovereignty over their own body vs a person's right to own another person as property.

If I had the choice of agency over my own body vs being a slave, I would laugh at the absurdity of the question. Right off the bat.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

So easy to retrospectively condemn people for the social norm of their time.

I pray future generations are more kind and understanding of our decisions than many are now of previous ones...

I hope future generations fix some of our moral issues and find it reprehensible that we didn't do enough. If they don't then that just means they backslid or no progress was made.

I think very few of us think we live in a morally perfect society/world.

 

[Tidewater]

i know what you said

and your second paragraph is beyond absurd

Why is that absurd?

 

[Tidewater]

The difference being a person's rights of sovereignty over their own body vs a person's right to own another person as property.

If I had the choice of agency over my own body vs being a slave, I would laugh at the absurdity of the question. Right off the bat.

The question is not sovereignty over the actor's body, but the victim's sovereignty over over the victim's body.
Both questions revolve around the issue of the humanity of the victim.
Pro-slavery people argued that black people aren't really human, so keeping them in slavery is not such a bad thing.
Pro-abortion people today argue that a pre-natal infant is not a human being so tearing the infant to pieces is not such a bad thing because the desires of the mother is all that matters.
Nazis believed that Jews aren't really people but untermensch.

All kinds of evil is possible if you simply deny the humanity of your victims.

The horrifying question, however, is, "What if that premise is wrong?" What if someone could prove to you, to your satisfaction using whatever criterion you might wish to adopt, that a pre-natal infant is human? How might that make you feel about your previous support for abortion, (assuming you are an abortion supporter; I do not know that you are)?

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

The question is not sovereignty over the actor's body, but the victim's sovereignty over over the victim's body.
Both questions revolve around the issue of the humanity of the victim.
Pro-slavery people argued that black people aren't really human, so keeping them in slavery is not such a bad thing.
Pro-abortion people today argue that a pre-natal infant is not a human being so tearing the infant to pieces is not such a bad thing because the desires of the mother is all that matters.
Nazis believed that Jews aren't really people but untermensch.

All kinds of evil is possible if you simply deny the humanity of your victims.

The horrifying question, however, is, "What if that premise is wrong?" What if someone could prove to you, to your satisfaction using whatever criterion you might wish to adopt, that a pre-natal infant is human? How might that make you feel about your previous support for abortion, (assuming you are an abortion supporter; I do not know that you are)?

I mean, you are starting the argument from a place where everyone accepts your view. Which they don't. This could easily be flipped on it's head in the opposite direction.

I could just as easily say...
The horrifying question, however, is, "What if your premise is wrong?" What if someone could prove to you, to your satisfaction using whatever criterion you might wish to adopt, that a fetus is NOT equivalent to a born human? How might that make you feel about your previous lack of support for abortion.

You cannot start an argument from the assumption that you are right. In this case, you cannot start an argument form the assumption that a fetus is equal morally to a born human when that is the entire debate.

 

[Tidewater]

I mean, you are starting the argument from a place where everyone accepts your view. Which they don't. This could easily be flipped on it's head in the opposite direction.

I could just as easily say...
The horrifying question, however, is, "What if your premise is wrong?" What if someone could prove to you, to your satisfaction using whatever criterion you might wish to adopt, that a fetus is NOT equivalent to a born human? How might that make you feel about your previous lack of support for abortion.

You cannot start an argument from the assumption that you are right. In this case, you cannot start an argument form the assumption that a fetus is equal morally to a born human when that is the entire debate.

I see what you are saying, but I do not think I was begging the question. I was drawing the analogy between those who denied the humanity of black people (or Jews in Nazi Germany) and the realization (which I'm fairly certain is general today) that black people and Jews are, in fact, people.

To answer your question, if abortion on demand as a means of birth control had been restricted or banned, and then someone were to prove to me, to my satisfaction, that a pre-natal infant is not a human being, then what I would feel was this: a bunch of unwanted babies would have been born whose mothers did not want to carry them to term. That is not nothing for the women involved, but the ethical weight between one (pre-natal infants and the death of the infant) and the other (inconvenience, perhaps severe inconvenience, of the mother) might lead one to err on the side of the least bad outcome.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

I see what you are saying, but I do not think I was begging the question. I was drawing the analogy between those who denied the humanity of black people (or Jews in Nazi Germany) and the realization (which I'm fairly certain is general today) that black people and Jews are, in fact, people.

To answer your question, if abortion on demand as a means of birth control had been restricted or banned, and then someone were to prove to me, to my satisfaction, that a pre-natal infant is not a human being, then what I would feel was this: a bunch of unwanted babies would have been born whose mothers did not want to carry them to term. That is not nothing for the women involved, but the ethical weight between one (pre-natal infants and the death of the infant) and the other (inconvenience, perhaps severe inconvenience, of the mother) might lead one to err on the side of the least bad outcome.

I think calling pregnancy an "inconvenience" even with "severe" added on severely understates what pregnancy and birth are. Not to mention none of this takes into account the fact that you would be forcing one person's body to sustain another's. That's what pregnancy is. You would not make that demand of someone in other situations. We are not required to donate blood, kidneys, etc. in order to sustain the life of others. And in those cases there is not the extra moral ambiguity about if they are a born person or not. Pregnancy is not some passive event.

I also don't think the slavery/Nazi analogy works. There is a distinct difference between withholding rights from an already born, conscious person living a social life and the legal or moral status of a fetus which is a developing human in another persons body. Similar language may be used in both situations but that does not make them morally equivalent.

If anything, immigration, homelessness, and the US prison population is a closer comparison to Nazi Germany and slavery because those issues involve already born humans.

 

[92tide]

Why is that absurd?

it’s a meaningless thought exercise. for one thing, a blastocyst/embryo/fetus does not have the same moral standing as a human.

others in the thread have covered the rest