Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2019 12:15:00 PM (view original):
****, gone for an evening and I missed so much.

Lol, not really. You will get dizzy if you try to read everything since you left. It just goes around in a bunch of circles,

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:33:00 AM (view original):
The person is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's Woodrow Wilson, Robert E. Lee, or Mother Teresa. We are removing history from our country and that's is a very dangerous road to go down.

I agree with strikeout. You can't remove history because it may not be to your liking. As the saying goes, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Should Germany erase the holocaust from their history?

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

The government is us and we are the government. You act like it's some separate being that we have no say in. That's not correct. We passed the civil rights act because racism will always exist. We say, "yes, there will always be racist people, but those racist people won't be free to enact racist policies while running their public facing business."

There would not be less racism without the civil rights act. The power of the market still exists. It's not like one precludes the other. When a manager at chipotle or a barista at starbucks get caught doing some awful racist ****, people respond by boycotting. But if that awful racist **** turns out to be a policy driven from higher up, the people actually harmed have a legal remedy.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Pyramids were built by slaves. Should they be taken down? Eh? I don't like this line of thinking.

No. That's not equatable at all.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:15:00 AM (view original):
First off, people try to take the extreme and make it the rule in arguments. America has never had an Adolf Hitler. Hitler is the extreme. Here's the thing. I think you said it best when you said "Somewhere. I don't know." Nobody knows. Once again, we shouldn't have self-proclaimed "great moral arbiters in this country that get decide which transgressions were worse than others.

Robert E. Lee was not pro-slavery. He was pro-Virginia. Should he be wiped from history for supporting his home state.
Picasso was a womanizer. He would be shredded by the "me-too" movement today. Should all of his work be removed from his transgressions? Leaving it in place is celebrating a womanizer, is it not?
Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Should all of the schools and roads named after him be renamed?

This is yet another attack of the first amendment by the left. The further that we keep pushing the line, the more in jeopardy our freedoms become.

First, anyone who fought for the Confederacy was pro-slavery. That's just the way it works.

Second, Lee should not be wiped from the history books, but he certainly should not be memorialized. He was a traitor. He doesn't get statues in his honor and schools and buildings named after him. That's ridiculous.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 1/30/2019 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Education is the only thing that changes the monument from "glorification" to knowledge of where we have been and overcome.

Eh? A statue of Artemis doesn't imply that people glorify Artemis, it just says we like wisdom. People's make mountains out of mole hills all the time (mostly the Left).

A statue of a founder of the KKK says 'We like racism'

Is there such a statue? Where is it? I mean where it explicitly states that he founded the Klan.

The statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest was removed last year from Tennessee.

Was that a statue of him as a klan member or war general? I don't think there are any statues with people dressed in hoods? Are there? Most are to war personnel. No?

It was a statue of him in war, fighting to preserve slavery. The statue was created after he founded the KKK.

You would be fine with a statue of Hitler if he was painting?

Posted by wylie715 on 1/30/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:33:00 AM (view original):
The person is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's Woodrow Wilson, Robert E. Lee, or Mother Teresa. We are removing history from our country and that's is a very dangerous road to go down.

I agree with strikeout. You can't remove history because it may not be to your liking. As the saying goes, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Should Germany erase the holocaust from their history?

No, but they also shouldn't put up a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz.

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 1/30/2019 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Education is the only thing that changes the monument from "glorification" to knowledge of where we have been and overcome.

Eh? A statue of Artemis doesn't imply that people glorify Artemis, it just says we like wisdom. People's make mountains out of mole hills all the time (mostly the Left).

A statue of a founder of the KKK says 'We like racism'

Is there such a statue? Where is it? I mean where it explicitly states that he founded the Klan.

The statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest was removed last year from Tennessee.

Was that a statue of him as a klan member or war general? I don't think there are any statues with people dressed in hoods? Are there? Most are to war personnel. No?

It was a statue of him in war, fighting to preserve slavery. The statue was created after he founded the KKK.

You would be fine with a statue of Hitler if he was painting?

They don't really have statues of painters LOL. I don't like tht equivalency. Why so defensive? I only asked if the statue of him was that of a general or a KKK member.

I did respond to rsp ftr. Monuments are simply not erected for educational purposes. They are erected to memorialize and glorify. I fully support moving the monuments to a museum, graveyard, or educating people about it in.a history book. How is that destroying history? It's remembering it without agreeing with it.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:15:00 AM (view original):
First off, people try to take the extreme and make it the rule in arguments. America has never had an Adolf Hitler. Hitler is the extreme. Here's the thing. I think you said it best when you said "Somewhere. I don't know." Nobody knows. Once again, we shouldn't have self-proclaimed "great moral arbiters in this country that get decide which transgressions were worse than others.

Robert E. Lee was not pro-slavery. He was pro-Virginia. Should he be wiped from history for supporting his home state.
Picasso was a womanizer. He would be shredded by the "me-too" movement today. Should all of his work be removed from his transgressions? Leaving it in place is celebrating a womanizer, is it not?
Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Should all of the schools and roads named after him be renamed?

This is yet another attack of the first amendment by the left. The further that we keep pushing the line, the more in jeopardy our freedoms become.

First, anyone who fought for the Confederacy was pro-slavery. That's just the way it works.

Second, Lee should not be wiped from the history books, but he certainly should not be memorialized. He was a traitor. He doesn't get statues in his honor and schools and buildings named after him. That's ridiculous.

#1) Not true. Most soldiers didn't own slaves. They fought to preserve their homeland. True for Lee.

#2) This is a valid 2nd point. Lee did turn on the United States. He indeed was a traitor. Probably not a good idea to name schools in his honor. I for the first time ever agree with bad_luck.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:15:00 AM (view original):
First off, people try to take the extreme and make it the rule in arguments. America has never had an Adolf Hitler. Hitler is the extreme. Here's the thing. I think you said it best when you said "Somewhere. I don't know." Nobody knows. Once again, we shouldn't have self-proclaimed "great moral arbiters in this country that get decide which transgressions were worse than others.

Robert E. Lee was not pro-slavery. He was pro-Virginia. Should he be wiped from history for supporting his home state.
Picasso was a womanizer. He would be shredded by the "me-too" movement today. Should all of his work be removed from his transgressions? Leaving it in place is celebrating a womanizer, is it not?
Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Should all of the schools and roads named after him be renamed?

This is yet another attack of the first amendment by the left. The further that we keep pushing the line, the more in jeopardy our freedoms become.

First, anyone who fought for the Confederacy was pro-slavery. That's just the way it works.

Second, Lee should not be wiped from the history books, but he certainly should not be memorialized. He was a traitor. He doesn't get statues in his honor and schools and buildings named after him. That's ridiculous.

#1) Not true. Most soldiers didn't own slaves. They fought to preserve their homeland. True for Lee.

#2) This is a valid 2nd point. Lee did turn on the United States. He indeed was a traitor. Probably not a good idea to name schools in his honor. I for the first time ever agree with bad_luck.

They fought to preserve slavery regardless of whether or not they personally owned slaves. Lee also owned slaves, though. Hundreds.

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I did respond to rsp ftr. Monuments are simply not erected for educational purposes. They are erected to memorialize and glorify. I fully support moving the monuments to a museum, graveyard, or educating people about it in.a history book. How is that destroying history? It's remembering it without agreeing with it.

It creates a slippery slope. Again should the Pyramids be removed because they were built by slaves? I don't understand civil war monuments. The
South lost and those people were traitors. Odd that monuments were erected for them. America is forgiving.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 1/30/2019 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Education is the only thing that changes the monument from "glorification" to knowledge of where we have been and overcome.

Eh? A statue of Artemis doesn't imply that people glorify Artemis, it just says we like wisdom. People's make mountains out of mole hills all the time (mostly the Left).

A statue of a founder of the KKK says 'We like racism'

Is there such a statue? Where is it? I mean where it explicitly states that he founded the Klan.

The statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest was removed last year from Tennessee.

Was that a statue of him as a klan member or war general? I don't think there are any statues with people dressed in hoods? Are there? Most are to war personnel. No?

It was a statue of him in war, fighting to preserve slavery. The statue was created after he founded the KKK.

You would be fine with a statue of Hitler if he was painting?

They don't really have statues of painters LOL. I don't like tht equivalency. Why so defensive? I only asked if the statue of him was that of a general or a KKK member.

We could.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I did respond to rsp ftr. Monuments are simply not erected for educational purposes. They are erected to memorialize and glorify. I fully support moving the monuments to a museum, graveyard, or educating people about it in.a history book. How is that destroying history? It's remembering it without agreeing with it.

It creates a slippery slope. Again should the Pyramids be removed because they were built by slaves? I don't understand civil war monuments. The
South lost and those people were traitors. Odd that monuments were erected for them. America is forgiving.

It doesn't create a slippery slope IMO.

But most south monuments were erected in the 1880's 1920's and 1960's so that would probably explain why.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2019 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:15:00 AM (view original):
First off, people try to take the extreme and make it the rule in arguments. America has never had an Adolf Hitler. Hitler is the extreme. Here's the thing. I think you said it best when you said "Somewhere. I don't know." Nobody knows. Once again, we shouldn't have self-proclaimed "great moral arbiters in this country that get decide which transgressions were worse than others.

Robert E. Lee was not pro-slavery. He was pro-Virginia. Should he be wiped from history for supporting his home state.
Picasso was a womanizer. He would be shredded by the "me-too" movement today. Should all of his work be removed from his transgressions? Leaving it in place is celebrating a womanizer, is it not?
Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Should all of the schools and roads named after him be renamed?

This is yet another attack of the first amendment by the left. The further that we keep pushing the line, the more in jeopardy our freedoms become.

First, anyone who fought for the Confederacy was pro-slavery. That's just the way it works.

Second, Lee should not be wiped from the history books, but he certainly should not be memorialized. He was a traitor. He doesn't get statues in his honor and schools and buildings named after him. That's ridiculous.

#1) Not true. Most soldiers didn't own slaves. They fought to preserve their homeland. True for Lee.

#2) This is a valid 2nd point. Lee did turn on the United States. He indeed was a traitor. Probably not a good idea to name schools in his honor. I for the first time ever agree with bad_luck.

They fought to preserve slavery regardless of whether or not they personally owned slaves. Lee also owned slaves, though. Hundreds.

In 1862, Lee freed the slaves that his wife inherited, but that was in accordance with his father-in-law's will. Lee claimed that he found slavery bothersome and time-consuming as an everyday institution to run.

Regardless. I agree he was a traitor.