Synagogue Shooting in Poway

[seer]

To be honest btc, i have never understood wanting to glorify or honor those that fought for the right to hold people as slaves. So I really have little sympathy for the whole deal start to finish. And i have met very, very few people that carry their southern heritage with that sort of pride that were not also very much white and very much racist.

Jim

Yet we glorify slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. And I for one have a lot of respect for men like Lee and Stonewall Jackson, having read much about them over the years. Their natural military acumen, and deep Christian faith.

[Mountain Man]

Yet we glorify slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. And I for one have a lot of respect for men like Lee and Stonewall Jackson, having read much about them over the years. Their natural military acumen, and deep Christian faith.

Yes. They were devoutly religious men who fought honorably and bravely. And unlike modern revisionist historians would have us believe, the reasons for the Civil War war were nuanced and complex. Slavery was certainly an issue, but it wasn't THE issue, nor was it necessarily the concern of every Confederate who picked up a musket. We also recognize they were imperfect as all men are imperfect, but it is for their strengths and not their weaknesses that we honor then.

[seer]

Yes. They were devoutly religious men who fought honorably and bravely. And unlike modern revisionist historians would have us believe, the reasons for the Civil War war were nuanced and complex. Slavery was certainly an issue, but it wasn't THE issue, nor was it necessarily the concern of every Confederate who picked up a musket. We also recognize they were imperfect as all men are imperfect, but it is for their strengths and not their weaknesses that we honor then.

Exactly...

[Bill the Cat]

To be honest btc, i have never understood wanting to glorify or honor those that fought for the right to hold people as slaves.

To be honest, I don't either. But this is a free country after all, and history is important for us to study as a reminder of where we have come from. I've never understood the fascination with the confederate flag, as most people I see flying it are basically just following the Yee Haw herd mentality of the "Southern redneck". Wanting to remove one of their symbols of in-grouping is akin - to them - to taking away a fundamental part of what makes them a group. But, again, free country and all...

So I really have little sympathy for the whole deal start to finish.

And I think that's a rather poor platform from which to judge the situation.

And i have met very, very few people that carry their southern heritage with that sort of pride that were not also very much white and very much racist.

Living in the capital of the Confederacy for nearly 50 years, I have been around many a person that simply used the flag and "southern pride" as innocuous symbols of their in-group for self-identifying as a "country boy or girl". It has little to do with being white, and everything to do with things they enjoy, like country music, mud bogs, and large loud and lifted trucks. They regularly associate with people of other races who know them - not as racists - but as good ol boys, never meanin' no harm.

[rogue06]

Yes. They were devoutly religious men who fought honorably and bravely. And unlike modern revisionist historians would have us believe, the reasons for the Civil War war were nuanced and complex. Slavery was certainly an issue, but it wasn't THE issue, nor was it necessarily the concern of every Confederate who picked up a musket. We also recognize they were imperfect as all men are imperfect, but it is for their strengths and not their weaknesses that we honor then.

A lot of those that fought for the Confederacy loathed slavery -- especially poor farmers who looked on it as unfair competition. Nevertheless they were fighting for their homes, family and state.

[Charles]

That is no different than wondering if Heather Heyer realized she had no business being there when these folks started showing up on her side

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36761[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36762[/ATTACH]
AFAICT these are pix of antifa protesters in Charlottesville

Surprise, surprise. Whataboutism again...

[Cow Poke]

A lot of those that fought for the Confederacy loathed slavery -- especially poor farmers who looked on it as unfair competition. Nevertheless they were fighting for their homes, family and state.

And States' rights.

[Cow Poke]

Surprise, surprise. Whataboutism again...

Whatabout whataboutism?

[Charles]

Whatabout whataboutism?

I guess many readers will think that is a good question since it appears many twebbers gave up on the idea of absolute standards for all practical purposes. It rather seems to be something one refers to in philosophical discussions and then discard for all practical purposes.

[Cow Poke]

I guess many readers will think that is a good question since it appears many twebbers gave up on the idea of absolute standards for all practical purposes.

"Whataboutism" is simply a way of defending hypocrisy while trying to sound intelligent.

[Charles]

"Whataboutism" is simply a way of defending hypocrisy while trying to sound intelligent.

I note that you do not support your case which is also rather difficult to do. If you believe in absolute standards a given action is right or wrong independently of whether others are doing the same thing or not. And whether those who point to something being wrong are doing the same or not does not make a difference if you believe in absolute standards. But then again these points are rather obvious. It rather seems many posters don't believe in these absolute standards.

[carpedm9587]

"Whataboutism" is simply a way of defending hypocrisy while trying to sound intelligent.

"Whataboutism" is a way of pointing to an attempt by someone to divert the discussion from the Y by saying, "well X did it too!" Such arguments have no merit. The fact that X did something immoral/illegal in no way justifies Y doing the same thing.

And hypocrisy can ONLY be shown if the person objecting to Y did not object to X. But what usually happens is someone objects to Y, they are labelled "liberal" (or conservative when this is done by someone from the left) and then the argument is made that since "liberals" (or conservatives) didn't object to X, the person in question cannot object to Y without being hypocritical. This has happened repeatedly. It looks like this:

Carpe: I think what Y did is immoral/illegal
Responder: What about X?
Carpe: You're engaging in whataboutism.
Responder: You're being hypocritical.
Carpe: You can only accuse me of hypocrisy if I did not object to what X did and am now objecting to Y.
Responder: Liberals (or the MSM) didn't object to X and you're liberal.
Carpe: What "liberals" did has nothing to do with me; I am an individual, not a group. I objected to X and I object to Y, so there is no hypocrisy, which means you're engaging in whataboutism
Responder: Whataboutism is just a way to dodge your hypocrisy.
Carpe: Right. I think I'll get off this bus.
Responder: Dodger!

That people don't see this truly amazes me. It's really rather simple.

[Charles]

That people don't see this truly amazes me. It's really rather simple.

I think it is a mix of ignorance and stragedy. However some posters seem to be so consistent in the way they apply what you describe that I tend to believe they actually believe in relativism or support the idea that you can actually win a discussion if you can shoot the messenger.

[oxmixmudd]

Yet we glorify slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. And I for one have a lot of respect for men like Lee and Stonewall Jackson, having read much about them over the years. Their natural military acumen, and deep Christian faith.

That is a misdirect. This was the culture then and nearly 80 years before the civil war. They were not men confronted with the choice who chose for slavery. Likewise, those in the time of the civil war face a different sort of world and our capacity to fully ubderstand their choices is also limited. But this is now, and slavery is almost unversally abolished, and there is little left to honor. As historical figures we can try to understand them. But we cant accept or confirm their choice to support the institution of slavery, which above all other factors is what the civil war was about.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

That is a misdirect. This was the culture then and nearly 80 years before the civil war. They were not men confronted with the choice who chose for slavery. Likewise, those in the time of the civil war face a different sort of world and our capacity to fully ubderstand their choices is also limited. But this is now, and slavery is almost unversally abolished, and there is little left to honor. As historical figures we can try to understand them. But we cant accept or confirm their choice to support the institution of slavery, which above all other factors is what the civil war was about.

Jim

I agree. I really don't care how honorable a man is or what his religion is. These men took up arms against this country to defend slavery. After the war, to hasten healing, the north elected to NOT try and convict them, but it does not alter the fact that they led a rebellion against their own country that resulted in massive loss of life in defense of an immoral institution. They deserve, IMO, no public honors. To give them such only serves to a) slap every black person in the face when they have to see these monuments, and b) encourage others to consider similar actions or to admire those that do. It was only a couple of decades ago that Charlie Daniels had a hit song (in the south) called "The South's Gonna Do it Again!"

I know of no other context in which traitors to the U.S. are given honorifics by the very country they took up arms against.