The Cleansing of the South

[evensaul]

Like the Taliban destroying ancient towering statues of Buddha in Afghanistan, and ISIS demolishing antiquities at Nimrud, liberal Democrats and some Republicans have begun a cleansing of anything related to the Confederacy.
The Secretary General of the United Nations described the destruction of cultural sites in Iraq as war crimes. The attack on symbols of the Confederacy should be considered as serious.

Besides the drive to remove the Confederate battle flag from state capitals, the list of proposed banishments and destruction continues to grow:

In Tennessee, lawmakers propose not only removing a statue of Nathan Bedforest from the capital building, but there is support for planting trees along a highway to block visibility of a privately owned statue: http://www.tennessean.com/story/inse...atue/29128551/

The city of Memphis has renamed the former Forrest Park, Confederate Park, and Jefferson Davis Park: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us...tles.html?_r=0

The mayor of New Orleans wants to remove the statue of Robert E Lee from Lee's Circle, and presumably change that name: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s...ert_e_lee.html

The above is just a very small sampling of what is proposed, underway or already accomplished, and is no doubt just the beginning of an immense cleansing of the cultural landmarks and heritage of Confederate states. Thousands of statues will be removed and parks renamed, along with the countless number of renamed buildings, shopping centers, highways and streets. Liberals will say it is legal and morally right. I say they are no better than the Taliban and ISIS.

[Freund]

I see no argumentation linking the destruction of cultural sites by ISIS and the current actions being undertaken by locals in Southern states to remove flags/statues and rename streets and parks. How exactly are they connected?

So what if they take down a statue of Goebbels or rename Pol Pot Ave? There are numerous museums that serve the very purpose of educating people on our history.

[MindTrap028]

I see no argumentation linking the destruction of cultural sites by ISIS and the current actions being undertaken by locals in Southern states to remove flags/statues and rename streets and parks. How exactly are they connected?

So what if they take down a statue of Goebbels or rename Pol Pot Ave? There are numerous museums that serve the very purpose of educating people on our history.

Poisoning the well fallacy.

[Freund]

I don't see how what I wrote constitutes a poisoning the well fallacy. You're going to have to give a bit more detail please.

[MindTrap028]

You equate people like General Lee with Pol Pot and the nazies. A clear attack on who he is as a person.

So, because you equate him with an evil person, thus he had no positive effect worthy of honor, and nothing he said can possibly be worthy of enshrinement.

that is poisoning the well. Or it's a red herring because it's unrelated.

Pick your poison

[Freund]

You equate people like General Lee with Pol Pot and the nazies. A clear attack on who he is as a person.

Roads, buildings and statues aren't people and as such this charge doesn't make much sense.

So, because you equate him with an evil person, thus he had no positive effect worthy of honor, and nothing he said can possibly be worthy of enshrinement.

Where did I say you couldn't enshrine it? That's what I meant by the whole 'museums' bit. Every bit of history has its proper context. Maintaining a museum at the concentration camps across Europe is important so that we remember what happened there and hopefully this leads us not to commit such acts again. Naming a road, dedicating a statue--these things go a bit further than simply ensuring that we understand what happened. They don't instruct or teach--they venerate and glorify.

Did General Lee do good things? Of course--nothing is ever completely black and white when it comes to individuals. He also unfortunately represented the Confederacy as one of its chief leaders, and fought to ensure things stayed the same. This means that a lot of people do not revere or believe that General Lee and his peers deserve to be honored by statues and road names.

that is poisoning the well. Or it's a red herring because it's unrelated.

It is neither as demonstrated above.

[Sigfried]

You equate people like General Lee with Pol Pot and the nazies. A clear attack on who he is as a person.

General lee is not making an argument. Poisoning the well seeks to pre-discredit the source of an argument such as. "And now we will hear from a man who never gets anything right, mur MindTrap!" Just an example of course, you get plenty right.

So, because you equate him with an evil person, thus he had no positive effect worthy of honor, and nothing he said can possibly be worthy of enshrinement.

Eh, I don't even see that as the well is generally the person making the argument not the subject of the argument.

Anyhow....

I would in no way equate the destruction of ancient artifacts with the re-naming of landmarks. Its not like you can destroy a name by renaming something. ANd planting trees is hardly a grand act of cultural destruction.

If you had shown people tearing down or blowing up monuments I'd probably agree with you, that's wrong and equivalent to what the Taliban / ISIS did. Even vandalizing is bad, though not as bad as outright destruction. But renaming things.... that is hardly some vicious attack that erases all history of some famous figure. You seem to be broadly over reacting.

[mican333]

Like the Taliban destroying ancient towering statues of Buddha in Afghanistan, and ISIS demolishing antiquities at Nimrud, liberal Democrats and some Republicans have begun a cleansing of anything related to the Confederacy.

So they are DESTROYING statues and DEMOLISHING antiquities? Nope.

The Secretary General of the United Nations described the destruction of cultural sites in Iraq as war crimes. The attack on symbols of the Confederacy should be considered as serious.

Considering how utterly different the two situations are, no they shouldn't.

Besides the drive to remove the Confederate battle flag from state capitals, the list of proposed banishments and destruction continues to grow

WHAT DESTRUCTION?

In Tennessee, lawmakers propose not only removing a statue of Nathan Bedforest from the capital building, but there is support for planting trees along a highway to block visibility of a privately owned statue

And that's what ISIS did? Oh my gosh, ISIS has taken these artifacts and MOVED THEM and they planted trees so other ones can't be seen from the road!!!!!

Yeah, I don't think that's what the UN was referring as a "war crime".

The city of Memphis has renamed the former Forrest Park, Confederate Park, and Jefferson Davis Park

Quick! Call the UN! Someone renamed a street! Convene the war crime tribunal!

The mayor of New Orleans wants to remove the statue of Robert E Lee from Lee's Circle, and presumably change that name

We cannot let ISIS get away with their nefarious statue-moving! That statue will probably end up on private property somewhere! Those bastards!

The above is just a very small sampling of what is proposed, underway or already accomplished, and is no doubt just the beginning of an immense cleansing of the cultural landmarks and heritage of Confederate states. Thousands of statues will be removed and parks renamed, along with the countless number of renamed buildings, shopping centers, highways and streets. Liberals will say it is legal and morally right. I say they are no better than the Taliban and ISIS.

But to those of us who recognize the difference between destroying statues and moving statues off of public land, the comparison is ludicrous.

[MindTrap028]

General lee is not making an argument. Poisoning the well seeks to pre-discredit the source of an argument such as. "And now we will hear from a man who never gets anything right, mur MindTrap!" Just an example of course, you get plenty right.

Right, and he seeks to pre-discredit the lee before the discussion on if the monuments should stay or go is even engaged.

[CowboyX]

You equate people like General Lee with Pol Pot and the nazies. A clear attack on who he is as a person.

So, because you equate him with an evil person, thus he had no positive effect worthy of honor, and nothing he said can possibly be worthy of enshrinement.

that is poisoning the well. Or it's a red herring because it's unrelated.

Pick your poison

So what was the good that Lee did that makes him deserving of a statue on public property?

[Erroneous]

The Poisoning the well fallacy

You have your fallacies mixed up.

POISONING THE WELL
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable, or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...oning-the-well

That is not at all what happened here.

---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------

The Confederates were treasonous enemies of the United States. They deserve no homages. It's like putting a statue of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. Certainly it is part of the heritage and history of Dallas, but it is not something deserved or earned. The only way Lee and his co-conspirators are heroes is if you think it would be better if the south won. Go ahead. Start it again. The result will be the same, although a bit more swift and decisive.

[kaptonok]

You are right Evansaul but this cleansing process is always undertaken when a new movement ushers out the old order.
Read chapter 31 of the book of Numbers and see how brutal the early Jews were in their cleansing. Doesn't Christianity tell us God will clense the human race into sheep ( an apt name) and goats? Are Isis any more brutal than those early Jews? How many libraries have been sacked in history ?How many voices silenced who dare raise a thought against religeous certainty?
Believing we are right does not condone obiteration of the opposition.

[Sigfried]

Right, and he seeks to pre-discredit the lee before the discussion on if the monuments should stay or go is even engaged.

Lee is not the source of the argument is is one of its subjects. Whether Lee is worthy of a monument or not is kind of the core question so discussing his merits is a prime line of reasoning, not poisoning the well. Again, the well is the source of the argument. It is simply a form of ad hominem or genetic fallacy.

[Ibelsd]

Like the Taliban destroying ancient towering statues of Buddha in Afghanistan, and ISIS demolishing antiquities at Nimrud, liberal Democrats and some Republicans have begun a cleansing of anything related to the Confederacy.
The Secretary General of the United Nations described the destruction of cultural sites in Iraq as war crimes. The attack on symbols of the Confederacy should be considered as serious.

Besides the drive to remove the Confederate battle flag from state capitals, the list of proposed banishments and destruction continues to grow:

In Tennessee, lawmakers propose not only removing a statue of Nathan Bedforest from the capital building, but there is support for planting trees along a highway to block visibility of a privately owned statue: http://www.tennessean.com/story/inse...atue/29128551/

The city of Memphis has renamed the former Forrest Park, Confederate Park, and Jefferson Davis Park: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us...tles.html?_r=0

The mayor of New Orleans wants to remove the statue of Robert E Lee from Lee's Circle, and presumably change that name: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s...ert_e_lee.html

The above is just a very small sampling of what is proposed, underway or already accomplished, and is no doubt just the beginning of an immense cleansing of the cultural landmarks and heritage of Confederate states. Thousands of statues will be removed and parks renamed, along with the countless number of renamed buildings, shopping centers, highways and streets. Liberals will say it is legal and morally right. I say they are no better than the Taliban and ISIS.

You are comparing actions taken by elected representatives with the actions of a terrorist organization. Based on your reasoning, any decision by government to remove a statue, change a street name, or obscure some monument is now a war crime. In all your examples, elected officials were making decisions and if the constituents disagree, they always have the option to elect someone else. Is this true in the case of ISIS? Can the Syrian or Iraqi people simply call in another terrorist organization to undo their actions? This is how representative democracy works (or should work). This is how the gay marriage issue should have been allowed to progress. This is how the abortion issue should be allowed to be mitigated. This is how gun control should be handled. This is elected officials doing what they believe they were elected to do. If they are wrong, then the next election will punish them. Comparing their actions to war crimes is the type of ludicrous moral equivalency I'd expect from a progressive argument.

However, it if quacks like a duck...

[evensaul]

Based on your reasoning, any decision by government to remove a statue, change a street name, or obscure some monument is now a war crime.

Based on your reasoning, any action taken by elected government is legitimate and moral. Obvious problems with that position, don't you think? Internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during the 1940's. Secret decades long sterilization programs in the US. And the most obvious for this debate, slavery of US residents. Along with many actions I won't take time to list. Were those all moral and legitimate actions by virtue of being done by elected officials?

[Ibelsd]

Based on your reasoning, any action taken by elected government is legitimate and moral. Obvious problems with that position, don't you think? Internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during the 1940's. Secret decades long sterilization programs in the US. And the most obvious for this debate, slavery of US residents. Along with many actions I won't take time to list. Were those all moral and legitimate actions by virtue of being done by elected officials?

We are talking about changing street names and moving statues. We have limits on our elected officials based on our Constitution. Is there a Constitutional limit being broken in your examples? Is it a Constitutional issue for an elected state legislature to change the name of a street in that state? If you don't like the changes, then write your state legislator and complain/lobby etc. Don't turn this into a Rome is burning issue. There is no comparison to be made here to ISIS. There is no comparison to be made with internment camps.

[evensaul]

I read the above as a concession that acts by our elected government officials aren't always moral. And I don't see that an action ruled as Constitutional is automatically moral, either. A SCOTUS ruling on imminent domain comes to mind. And didn't SCOTUS give approval to the WWII internments? I'm pretty sure it did.

A representative government can do a lot of bad things. And totalitarian governments or terrorist organizations probably do a lot of good that goes unreported. The form of government is immaterial to the issue. What is relevant is the wiping out of historical and cultural landmarks valued by a segment of the population, due to the intolerance and "might makes right" attitude of the new majority that wants to erase all visible cultural opposition.

[Ibelsd]

I read the above as a concession that acts by our elected government officials aren't always moral. And I don't see that an action ruled as Constitutional is automatically moral, either. A SCOTUS ruling on imminent domain comes to mind. And didn't SCOTUS give approval to the WWII internments? I'm pretty sure it did.

A representative government can do a lot of bad things. And totalitarian governments or terrorist organizations probably do a lot of good that goes unreported. The form of government is immaterial to the issue. What is relevant is the wiping out of historical and cultural landmarks valued by a segment of the population, due to the intolerance and "might makes right" attitude of the new majority that wants to erase all visible cultural opposition.

Again, are you actually comparing the changing of a street's name to internment camps?

A representative government and the checks and balances of our judicial system are the best tools we have to make public decisions and decide whether those decisions are just. Pointing out that mistakes can be made doesn't invalidate the system. If you believe the decision made to change a street name or move a monument is as equally egregious as slavery then it is your burden to demonstrate that. I do not believe you've come close to making this argument. So, again, if you don't like the changes, then call your Congressman. In Florida, this tactic appeared to work fine as a Confederate flag which was removed from a state capital building was moved to a cemetery for soldiers because of public dissent. Awesome! Representative democracy at work.

As an aside, when you make comparisons to ISIS or internment camps it really comes off as ludicrous and it is difficult to take seriously.

[evensaul]

Again, are you actually comparing the changing of a street's name to internment camps?

No. Mentioning internment camps, which are still legal in the United States, is a refutation of your previous position that acts by elected officials are automatically legitimate and moral. If you have abandoned that wobbly stance, then they aren't really part of this argument.

A representative government and the checks and balances of our judicial system are the best tools we have to make public decisions and decide whether those decisions are just. Pointing out that mistakes can be made doesn't invalidate the system. Again, the governmental system doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to you.

What's relevant is the effort by powers-that-be to wipe out any reference to opposing culture. That mindset, whether it is put to work on changing street names, removing monuments from public view, or infringing on free speech by blocking visibility of private property displays, IS comparable to the mindset of those blowing up historical archaeological and religious structures in the Middle East. I concede that the scales are currently different, but the motivations appear identical.

[Ibelsd]

No. Mentioning internment camps, which are still legal in the United States, is a refutation of your previous position that acts by elected officials are automatically legitimate and moral. If you have abandoned that wobbly stance, then they aren't really part of this argument.

1) I never claimed acts by elected officials are "automatically" moral. Please either quote me where I made this claim or drop your contention.
2) Internment camps are not legal in the U.S. under any current statute. Either support your claim or concede that your claim is false. Please do not confuse what is hypothetically possible via executive order under martial law with an actual law. The latest ruling by the SCOTUS has deemed them unconstitutional, overruling prior decisions.

Now, my claim is that actions by elected officials, doing what they believe those represented want, is not comparable to actions taken by ISIS.

What's relevant is the effort by powers-that-be to wipe out any reference to opposing culture. That mindset, whether it is put to work on changing street names, removing monuments from public view, or infringing on free speech by blocking visibility of private property displays, IS comparable to the mindset of those blowing up historical archaeological and religious structures in the Middle East. I concede that the scales are currently different, but the motivations appear identical.

1) How is moving a flag from one place to another an attempt to "wipe out any reference" to something?
2) How is planting trees to block a monument infringing on free speech? Are you claiming that if someone creates a monument, that he has a Constitutional right that it be seen? This is, possibly, the most perverted interpretation of the 1st amendment that I've ever heard.
3) Finally, if the general public finds some display morally or culturally objectionable, then don't they have the right to refuse to use it as an official symbol? From what I understand, this is all the governments of the states in question have done. They have simply decided that these symbols shouldn't be used to represent the state and its people. This is, in no way, equivalent to the ISIS mindset of eradicating symbols they oppose.

You have failed to show any eradication has occurred. You have failed to show any item has been destroyed. You have failed to occur even the slightest hint of censorship which would indicate that government may be overstepping its bounds. However, you are comparing a legitimate government's acts to those of a non-legitimate, non-state actor that is literally destroying symbols and property it finds objectionable. Again, your attempt at finding equivalency here borders on complete irrationality.