The removal of statues

[DrZoidberg]

France had about 150 years of total carnage following the French revolution. In the long run I think the French think it was worth it. There's not a lot of royalist Frenchmen today pining for the good old days of serfs and absolute monarchy

You have absurdly unrealistic expectations on revolutions.

No comparison! France went forward after the revolution. Iraq and much of Middle East is going backwards at a rate of knots! Back to a time when the founder of islam was committing terrorism, the suppression of women and rape.

ha ha.. your ignorance is showing. The reign of terror brought us "innovations" like the police state and totalitarianism. Hardly progress.

There's plenty of social progress in Iraq. Social progress all over the Middle-East is extremely rapid now. One of the fastests paces of social change anywhere. In under 50 years a region has gone from backwards agrarianism under usurpers seizing power after the collapse of Ottoman rule, to modern industrial economies, with all the information technology to go with it. That's extremely fast. Social unrest is to be expected.

You're just so incredibly ignorant about the world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No comparison! France went forward after the revolution.

So, for FRANCE, you'll allow 15 decades of carnage, unrest, violence, and poor postal delivery, because it got better afterwards.

You won't allow 15 years after Hussein was deposed before you start judging whether or not it was a good idea to depose him? Why is your metric so much shorter for Iraq?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So.... Genocide's okay as long as the infrastructure is solid? 'Trains run on time' and all that?

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, those people require a strong dictatorship to keep them under control. They love dictators. Witness the support Erdogan has among muslims.

So, STILL asking the question, would YOU describe his dictatorship as a good thing, genocide and all?

Not every dictatorship commits genocide but many do. The West of course has replaced dictatorships with something worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So.... Genocide's okay as long as the infrastructure is solid? 'Trains run on time' and all that?

- - - Updated - - -

So, STILL asking the question, would YOU describe his dictatorship as a good thing, genocide and all?

Not every dictatorship commits genocide but many do. The West of course has replaced dictatorships with something worse.

Ehe... what? You think democracy is worse than dictatorships?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ehe... what? You think democracy is worse than dictatorships?

No, he just appears to have a reading disability.

The question he quoted is not about EVERY dictatorship, or the nature of US general involvement in the world. I specified angelo's opinion, and 'this' dictatorship.

 

[Sarpedon]

150 years of carnage is a hysterical claim.

You can't blame all the wars afterward on the revolution. Wars were fairly typical beforehand. Nor can you blame the government instability afterwards on the Revolution. There was plenty of instability before it.

In short, you are engaging in the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not every dictatorship commits genocide but many do. The West of course has replaced dictatorships with something worse.

Ehe... what? You think democracy is worse than dictatorships?

Actually I referred to dictatorships such as Iraq and a people's democracy like Libya etc.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry for the small image.

A larger one is available here.

 

[angelo]

No comparison! France went forward after the revolution.

So, for FRANCE, you'll allow 15 decades of carnage, unrest, violence, and poor postal delivery, because it got better afterwards.

You won't allow 15 years after Hussein was deposed before you start judging whether or not it was a good idea to depose him? Why is your metric so much shorter for Iraq?

You're kidding me right? I'm not saying Saddam was an angel, I'm saying that Iraq, and most of it's neighbours like Syria in a knock on effect have gone or are going backwards since the " Coalition Of The Willing " deposed him. You have to remember also, that the majority of people in these places do want sharia and Islam. It's now and always will be " death to the Jews, death to America.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're kidding me right? I'm not saying Saddam was an angel, I'm saying that Iraq, and most of it's neighbours like Syria in a knock on effect have gone or are going backwards since the " Coalition Of The Willing " deposed him.

Exactly. France went 'backwards' during their revolution, but you're okay with that because it was better after a period of problems.
For Iraq, you're demanding instant change and instant improvement. You're focusing on the period of problems. And trying to avoid the problem of genocide....

You have to remember also, that the majority of people in these places do want sharia and Islam. It's now and always will be " death to the Jews, death to America.

Kinda curious if they really want it, or if it's just all they've ever known...

But whether they do or do not, how does that change the question about the dictatorship, good/bad?

 

[DrZoidberg]

150 years of carnage is a hysterical claim.

You can't blame all the wars afterward on the revolution. Wars were fairly typical beforehand. Nor can you blame the government instability afterwards on the Revolution. There was plenty of instability before it.

In short, you are engaging in the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

I wasn't thinking about the wars at all. I was thinking about the cataclysmic cultural and social shift when we went from a primarily agrarian economy to an industrial economy. The experiments with economic liberalism, mercantilism, socialism, nationalism, anarchism, syndicalism, totalitarianism, imperialism, colonialism, Jacobism, evangelism, futurism, scientism modernism, religious extremism and so on. All the revolutions, successful and failed. All the attempts by kings to manage and mitigate calls for equality. Often by extremely brutal means.

Most people who got killed during this period didn't die because of wars, or even because of executions. Most died because of economic mismanagement. New ideas and theories of how the world worked were tried, and nearly always failed. Experiments in architecture and sanitation. New engineering solutions, that weren't always for the better. Not to mention the farcical debate raging pretty much the entire 19th century regarding whether or not diseases were infectious at all. Where the establishment effectively blocked any attempts to prevent the spread of diseases, to the point of using the secret police forces to cover up any evidence of it. All this was because of ideological struggles. It's hard to exaggerate how politicized and deeply divided society was during this period. Various extremisms were the norm. Utopians were often seen as realistic. Religious and psychological ideas turned dangerously bizarre. Total fucking carnage for about 150 years, in all of Europe.

Eventually it stabilized and we now don't have to to constantly fear the next loony to grab the attention of the masses and seize power. I guess it's positive that people like Angelo has grown up in a world where he can afford to preposterously ignorant about his own country and culture.

Oh, yeah... and all the wars. But during this period we actually had fewer wars, and the wars we had were less deadly. It's just that the Napoloenic wars, Wars of German unification, World Wars and various civil wars were bigger and tended to involve more people that the death count added up. But we still had relatively less dead from wars all together. I think countries were internally mostly too unstable during this period, which made their rulers nervous about starting wars.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All the monuments in public places should be privatized.

A price should have to be paid for any monuments or displays in public places, if they are to remain in place, or for new ones to be put in any public space. The price should be paid to the local jurisdiction, into its general revenue.

Any exhibitions or displays of any kind in public should have to be paid for by private organizations which want them there. All should be permitted, no matter how offensive, if they are sponsored by private organizations which pay the price for them.

Perhaps a "commercial" display would have to pay a higher price than something non-commercial, assuming these can be distinguished.

Anything not paid for privately should be removed.

This should extend to the removal of pictures of Presidents on the currency bills, unless someone pays a price for them. These should probably be replaced by corporate logos or other commercial symbols which private companies would pay a price for, probably bidding for the space.

Public space should not be used for promoting anyone's personal beliefs or their admiration for certain idolized heroes or symbols of any kind, except in cases where the promoter pays the appropriate price.

Perhaps display of the national flag, or state flags, would be an exception to this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Any exhibitions or displays of any kind in public should have to be paid for by private organizations which want them there. All should be permitted, no matter how offensive, if they are sponsored by private organizations which pay the price for them.

So, you'd support a system where anyone with sufficient cash can erect a statue of two gay men fucking in downtown Any City. Just a matter of funding. Even if the statue displays people doing something people can't do in public. And putting it on public land makes it something the city endorses?

This should extend to the removal of pictures of Presidents on the currency bills, unless someone pays a price for them. These should probably be replaced by corporate logos or other commercial symbols which private companies would pay a price for, probably bidding for the space.

Would this also include taking 'in god we trust' off the currency, unless someone pays for it?

Public space should not be used for promoting anyone's personal beliefs or their admiration for certain idolized heroes or symbols of any kind, except in cases where the promoter pays the appropriate price.

So, since Mormons have the most ready cash, they could probably outbid Catholics and Baptists for raising symbols, dominating the public arena with Angel Moroni and his trumpet; Joe Smith; Brigham Young?

How would you determine the 'corporate price' if, say, someone raised a statue of Mr. Pennybags, because he won a Monopoly tournament. Would Milton Bradley have to pay this apparent advertisement? If they did not fund the original statue? And if the tournament winner dies, does the statue stay? Does anyone get to bid for razing it and raising their own? Or is it some sort of license thing? You get the corner of Third and Elm for five years, then have a chance at renewal or losing the corner?

 

[Arctish]

So, you'd support a system where anyone with sufficient cash can erect a statue of two gay men fucking in downtown Any City. Just a matter of funding. Even if the statue displays people doing something people can't do in public. And putting it on public land makes it something the city endorses?

This should extend to the removal of pictures of Presidents on the currency bills, unless someone pays a price for them. These should probably be replaced by corporate logos or other commercial symbols which private companies would pay a price for, probably bidding for the space.

Would this also include taking 'in god we trust' off the currency, unless someone pays for it?

Public space should not be used for promoting anyone's personal beliefs or their admiration for certain idolized heroes or symbols of any kind, except in cases where the promoter pays the appropriate price.

So, since Mormons have the most ready cash, they could probably outbid Catholics and Baptists for raising symbols, dominating the public arena with Angel Moroni and his trumpet; Joe Smith; Brigham Young?

Don't worry, Keith&Co. Donald Trump won't allow any golden statues depicting Moroni to be bigger than the golden statues depicting himself. He'll make sure his is bigger and on it's own island off Manhattten. It'll be yuge.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't worry, Keith&Co. Donald Trump won't allow any golden statues depicting Moroni to be bigger than the golden statues depicting himself. He'll make sure his is bigger and on it's own island off Manhattten. It'll be yuge.

I'm not 'worried,' i just think Lumpy hasn't thought this argument through any better than the rest of his arguments.

Oh, but maybe that's why he's against the Statue of Liberty? He wants to put Trump up on the spot?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So, you'd support a system where anyone with sufficient cash can erect a statue of two gay men fucking in downtown Any City. Just a matter of funding. Even if the statue displays people doing something people can't do in public. And putting it on public land makes it something the city endorses?

This should extend to the removal of pictures of Presidents on the currency bills, unless someone pays a price for them. These should probably be replaced by corporate logos or other commercial symbols which private companies would pay a price for, probably bidding for the space.

Would this also include taking 'in god we trust' off the currency, unless someone pays for it?

Public space should not be used for promoting anyone's personal beliefs or their admiration for certain idolized heroes or symbols of any kind, except in cases where the promoter pays the appropriate price.

So, since Mormons have the most ready cash, they could probably outbid Catholics and Baptists for raising symbols, dominating the public arena with Angel Moroni and his trumpet; Joe Smith; Brigham Young?

How would you determine the 'corporate price' if, say, someone raised a statue of Mr. Pennybags, because he won a Monopoly tournament. Would Milton Bradley have to pay this apparent advertisement? If they did not fund the original statue? And if the tournament winner dies, does the statue stay? Does anyone get to bid for razing it and raising their own? Or is it some sort of license thing? You get the corner of Third and Elm for five years, then have a chance at renewal or losing the corner?

I guess if the two gay men was considered artistic such statues could end up all over the place to replace the confederate ones torn down as a sign of the times.

 

[angelo]

FFS this tearing down of statues is spreading throughout the political correct West!
Here in Australia some idiots have destroyed statues of Captain Cook overnight.
Greens and one or two Green pc influenced councils are demanding the wording on plaques be re-worded because of claims some indigenous people may be offended!

 

[iolo]

FFS this tearing down of statues is spreading throughout the political correct West!
Here in Australia some idiots have destroyed statues of Captain Cook overnight.
Greens and one or two Green pc influenced councils are demanding the wording on plaques be re-worded because of claims some indigenous people may be offended!

You are proud of stealing the country and treating its owners as you have?

 

[Keith&Co.]

FFS this tearing down of statues is spreading throughout the political correct West!
Here in Australia some idiots have destroyed statues of Captain Cook overnight.
Greens and one or two Green pc influenced councils are demanding the wording on plaques be re-worded because of claims some indigenous people may be offended!

You are proud of stealing the country and treating its owners as you have?

Well, not 'proud,' but just look at what's happening! If we're going to let second class citizens decide who we honor and how we honor them, then what's the point of being a member of the first class of citizenry?
Then the natives will start to think THEY'RE full citizens, with a say in how the country's run! PC RUN AMOK!

 

[repoman]

Person of interest in spray painting looks to be lanky, youngish, hipster white guy.

So, is it someone who hates worship of Cook or someone wanting Cook statues seen as underdog and to blame Aborigines or leftists?