Portland radicals deface and topple statue of George Washington

[Politesse]

What is this logical fallacy or argumentative technique of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" called technically?

Trausti has done it actively here, and Politesse has done it through deflection.

I have been guilty of this in the past, so I am not making a judgment here.

I haven't been inconsistent, as far as I know. Trausti's trying to make a weird tu quoque of my stance, but it doesn't make any sense. I've never taken a pro-slavery stance with respect to any culture or timeframe. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Hellenist, or otherwise. Human beings should not be property. I oppose genocide as well.

 

[Trausti]

What is this logical fallacy or argumentative technique of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" called technically?

Trausti has done it actively here, and Politesse has done it through deflection.

I have been guilty of this in the past, so I am not making a judgment here.

I haven't been inconsistent, as far as I know. Trausti's trying to make a weird tu quoque of my stance, but it doesn't make any sense. I've never taken a pro-slavery stance with respect to any culture or timeframe. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Hellenist, or otherwise. Human beings should not be property. I oppose genocide as well.

It’s not about you taking a pro-slavery stance. No one on this forum is pro-slavery. It’s about ideological justification to destroy. If the defacing of Washington can be excused because the destroyers feel their cause just, then destruction of mosques is equally excused if these destroyers feel their cause just.

 

[Politesse]

What is this logical fallacy or argumentative technique of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" called technically?

Trausti has done it actively here, and Politesse has done it through deflection.

I have been guilty of this in the past, so I am not making a judgment here.

I haven't been inconsistent, as far as I know. Trausti's trying to make a weird tu quoque of my stance, but it doesn't make any sense. I've never taken a pro-slavery stance with respect to any culture or timeframe. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Hellenist, or otherwise. Human beings should not be property. I oppose genocide as well.

It’s not about you taking a pro-slavery stance. No one on this forum is pro-slavery. It’s about ideological justification to destroy. If the defacing of Washington can be excused because the destroyers feel their cause just, then destruction of mosques is equally excused if these destroyers feel their cause just.

Except that their cause is not, in fact, just.

 

[Derec]

Except that their cause is not, in fact, just.

Neither is the cause of those who destroyed the Washington statue.

In fact, being against Islam is far more justified than being against US and our founding fathers.

 

[Arctish]

What is this logical fallacy or argumentative technique of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" called technically?

Trausti has done it actively here, and Politesse has done it through deflection.

I have been guilty of this in the past, so I am not making a judgment here.

I haven't been inconsistent, as far as I know. Trausti's trying to make a weird tu quoque of my stance, but it doesn't make any sense.

I suppose if Trausti was agitating for the destruction of the old Spanish missions from Texas to California, his argument for destroying mosques due to their association with slavery would make a bit more sense. Those missions were central to the slavery and oppression of the Native people of North America. They should be at the top of his list of 'Places of Worship to be Destroyed because of Slavery'.

Similarly, if Derec denounced Slaveholder states for their murderous slaver ways before and during the Civil War, his taking offense at Muslim countries allowing slavery into the 20th century would make sense, too.

But I think you're right. Bringing Muslims into the discussion is a Tu Quoque and a distraction from the reasons people might have for toppling a statue of George Washington.

 

[Trausti]

It’s not about you taking a pro-slavery stance. No one on this forum is pro-slavery. It’s about ideological justification to destroy. If the defacing of Washington can be excused because the destroyers feel their cause just, then destruction of mosques is equally excused if these destroyers feel their cause just.

Except that their cause is not, in fact, just.

And who gets to determine what is just?

 

[Trausti]

Except that their cause is not, in fact, just.

Neither is the cause of those who destroyed the Washington statue.

In fact, being against Islam is far more justified than being against US and our founding fathers.

Well, the founding fathers, and specifically Jefferson (whose statue was also toppled), waged an unjust war against the peaceful muslims on the Barbary coast who enslaved American sailers. For failing to check his White privilege, Jefferson must be cancelled.

 

[repoman]

What is this logical fallacy or argumentative technique of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" called technically?

Trausti has done it actively here, and Politesse has done it through deflection.

I have been guilty of this in the past, so I am not making a judgment here.

I haven't been inconsistent, as far as I know. Trausti's trying to make a weird tu quoque of my stance, but it doesn't make any sense.

I suppose if Trausti was agitating for the destruction of the old Spanish missions from Texas to California, his argument for destroying mosques due to their association with slavery would make a bit more sense. Those missions were central to the slavery and oppression of the Native people of North America. They should be at the top of his list of 'Places of Worship to be Destroyed because of Slavery'.

Similarly, if Derec denounced Slaveholder states for their murderous slaver ways before and during the Civil War, his taking offense at Muslim countries allowing slavery into the 20th century would make sense, too.

But I think you're right. Bringing Muslims into the discussion is a Tu Quoque and a distraction from the reasons people might have for toppling a statue of George Washington.

Oh, this will be canceled the next years?



Just trying to add my own tu quoque to the list

 

[Politesse]

Except that their cause is not, in fact, just.

Neither is the cause of those who destroyed the Washington statue.

In fact, being against Islam is far more justified than being against US and our founding fathers.

I'm not against "the US and our founding fathers". I am against some of the things the US has done, and so are you. They're just different things, because we have very different moral compasses.

 

[Politesse]

What is this logical fallacy or argumentative technique of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" called technically?

Trausti has done it actively here, and Politesse has done it through deflection.

I have been guilty of this in the past, so I am not making a judgment here.

I haven't been inconsistent, as far as I know. Trausti's trying to make a weird tu quoque of my stance, but it doesn't make any sense.

I suppose if Trausti was agitating for the destruction of the old Spanish missions from Texas to California, his argument for destroying mosques due to their association with slavery would make a bit more sense. Those missions were central to the slavery and oppression of the Native people of North America. They should be at the top of his list of 'Places of Worship to be Destroyed because of Slavery'.

Similarly, if Derec denounced Slaveholder states for their murderous slaver ways before and during the Civil War, his taking offense at Muslim countries allowing slavery into the 20th century would make sense, too.

But I think you're right. Bringing Muslims into the discussion is a Tu Quoque and a distraction from the reasons people might have for toppling a statue of George Washington.

I certainly wouldn't object to some of the Junipero Serra statues coming down or being moved indoors (I refuse to call him St Junipero). But the missions are another matter. I haven't suggested tearing down Mt Vernon either; historical sites have obvious value beyond their symbolic associations. Ditto churches, mosques, sports stadiums, etc.

 

[Arctish]

I suppose if Trausti was agitating for the destruction of the old Spanish missions from Texas to California, his argument for destroying mosques due to their association with slavery would make a bit more sense. Those missions were central to the slavery and oppression of the Native people of North America. They should be at the top of his list of 'Places of Worship to be Destroyed because of Slavery'.

Similarly, if Derec denounced Slaveholder states for their murderous slaver ways before and during the Civil War, his taking offense at Muslim countries allowing slavery into the 20th century would make sense, too.

But I think you're right. Bringing Muslims into the discussion is a Tu Quoque and a distraction from the reasons people might have for toppling a statue of George Washington.

Oh, this will be canceled the next years?

View attachment 28275

Just trying to add my own tu quoque to the list

It might go the way of Aunt Jemima.

 

[Arctish]

I suppose if Trausti was agitating for the destruction of the old Spanish missions from Texas to California, his argument for destroying mosques due to their association with slavery would make a bit more sense. Those missions were central to the slavery and oppression of the Native people of North America. They should be at the top of his list of 'Places of Worship to be Destroyed because of Slavery'.

Similarly, if Derec denounced Slaveholder states for their murderous slaver ways before and during the Civil War, his taking offense at Muslim countries allowing slavery into the 20th century would make sense, too.

But I think you're right. Bringing Muslims into the discussion is a Tu Quoque and a distraction from the reasons people might have for toppling a statue of George Washington.

I certainly wouldn't object to some of the Junipero Serra statues coming down or being moved indoors (I refuse to call him St Junipero). But the missions are another matter. I haven't suggested tearing down Mt Vernon either; historical sites have value beyond their symbolic associations.

I agree with that.

I've been to Monticello and Mount Vernon. I enjoyed Jefferson's garden and sat on George Washington's porch. I think the historians and docents there do a wonderful job preserving and presenting the history of those places. The legacy of the men themselves is a mixed bag. Some of it was good and some of it was bad. And while I think the good bits should be respected, that shouldn't be allowed to blind us to the rest. All of it should be remembered.

I also think the Spanish missions should be preserved and that Junipero Serra should be remembered. But I don't think he deserves my respect for anything he did, so f**k him.

 

[laughing dog]

The toppling/destruction of statutes is minor compared to the grievances driving these protests. This type of damage/destruction detracts from the real grievances and allows the some people to ignore the big picture.

Bullshit. The "grievances" are mostly made up. Many orders of magnitude more black people are killed by other blacks than by police, and vast majority of police shootings are justified.

Racism and police brutality are legitimate issues to normal decent human beings.

George Washington wasn't perfect, but then nobody is. He was still a great man who does not deserve this bullshit.

On the other hand, the Far Left has just given Trump a TV commercial or two.
View attachment 28274

That response is a perfect example of my point - focus on the bark on the trees instead of the forest.

 

[Bomb#20]

... And if the removal of monuments to those who once owned slaves is acceptable, why is any mosque left standing?

Because mosques aren't "monuments to those who once owned slaves"?

Exactly which part of the word "Islam" don't you understand? Come to think of it, once schmonce. They're monuments to somebody who allegedly currently owns 7.8 billion slaves.

 

[Arctish]

... And if the removal of monuments to those who once owned slaves is acceptable, why is any mosque left standing?

Because mosques aren't "monuments to those who once owned slaves"?

Exactly which part of the word "Islam" don't you understand? Come to think of it, once schmonce. They're monuments to somebody who allegedly currently owns 7.8 billion slaves.

Allah doesn't have a body. Allah never had a body. Describing Allah as "somebody" is heresy. Only Christians think the One True God had a body and needed to perform all those disgusting bodily functions, which just goes to show how stupid Christianity is.

 

[Politesse]

... And if the removal of monuments to those who once owned slaves is acceptable, why is any mosque left standing?

Because mosques aren't "monuments to those who once owned slaves"?

Exactly which part of the word "Islam" don't you understand? Come to think of it, once schmonce. They're monuments to somebody who allegedly currently owns 7.8 billion slaves.

I don't think governments should engage in religious partisanship. Save your religious quibbles for philosophy class.

 

[Trausti]

So, apparently the statue of U.S. Grant in Golden State Park has come down. Year zero here we come!

Red Guards pull down a statue of Confucius during the cultural revolution.

Buddha.

 

[Arctish]

So, apparently the statute of U.S. Grant in Golden State Park has come down.

And the statues of Junípero Serra and Francis Scott Key.

Toppling Serra's statue is easy to understand. I don't know why they toppled the other two.

Time for a little historical research.

***ETA: they both owned slaves.

List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves

Francis Scott Key and slavery

 

[Trausti]

So, apparently the statute of U.S. Grant in Golden State Park has come down.

And the statues of Junípero Serra and Francis Scott Key.

Toppling Serra's statue is easy to understand. I don't know why they toppled the other two.

Time for a little historical research.

It doesn't matter the reason! “Destroy the old world! Establish the new!”

 

[Arctish]

So, apparently the statute of U.S. Grant in Golden State Park has come down.

And the statues of Junípero Serra and Francis Scott Key.

Toppling Serra's statue is easy to understand. I don't know why they toppled the other two.

Time for a little historical research.

It doesn't matter the reason! “Destroy the old world! Establish the new!”

The reasons people do things don't matter?

Ignorance is not a virtue. It's not bliss, either. It's just being stupid on purpose.