More on this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/21/texas-man-tries-to-plant-bomb-on-confederate-statue-officials-say.html




the violence from the left must stop

QuakerOats;1867867 wrote:No

So Pol Pot never aggressed against his people? Hitler never did? Stalin?

superman;1867939 wrote:I agree totally although you need to understand that many in BLM want Washington and Jefferson statues removed.

Yeah, and they are wrong.

QuakerOats;1867940 wrote:I know a fair amount about Morgan's Raiders; thanks.

Did you learn about it through a painting or a statue?
No, probably books and museums.

QuakerOats;1867942 wrote:More on this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/21/texas-man-tries-to-plant-bomb-on-confederate-statue-officials-say.html



the violence from the left must stop

Yeah, that is dumb.

Also destroyed the oldest Columbus statue in Baltimore (200 years old).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know race is the reason this discussion is at the forefront right now but Confederate statues have never made any sense to me. Why would you erect statues to a failed invading force? Do we have any Imperial Japanese Army/Navy statues in random public squares across the US? Would you find a monument to airborne troops in Hanoi? The logic of it just doesn't stand up.

O-Trap;1867944 wrote:So Pol Pot never aggressed against his people? Hitler never did? Stalin?

Yes, they did.

rocketalum;1867967 wrote:I know race is the reason this discussion is at the forefront right now but Confederate statues have never made any sense to me.

The best argument I've heard is certainly that we should never memorialize or celebrate someone who took up arms against the country, regardless of what else they did.

Otherwise, in many cases, these figures had a whole life of accomplishment and leadership, beyond the Civil War, that is notable. Of course, it's also worth noting that many of these monuments were erected during the civil rights/black suffrage periods.....so much less about history and culture and more about passive aggressive resistance to those movements.

gut;1867972 wrote:The best argument I've heard is certainly that we should never memorialize or celebrate someone who took up arms against the country, regardless of what else they did.

Otherwise, in many cases, these figures had a whole life of accomplishment and leadership, beyond the Civil War, that is notable. Of course, it's also worth noting that many of these monuments were erected during the civil rights/black suffrage periods.....so much less about history and culture and more about passive aggressive resistance to those movements.

Agreed. And those notable accomplishments can be discussed in a museum or history text where they can be given the proper context. We shouldn't be looking to erase these men from history but they waged war on the US why are we memorializing any of them? If they owned slaves actually seems pretty secondary to participating in open rebellion against the country.

Also good point on when most were constructed. It's hard to call it coincidence that most were erected during the turn of the century in line with 'Plessy v Ferguson' or during the civil rights era of the 1960's.

QuakerOats;1867969 wrote:Yes, they did.

Clarification: Did they do so when they ordered the extermination of people? Or only if/when they physically took part?

The aggression would be the act of committing the aggression, or atrocity as it were. Telling someone to do something is not the aggression. I know there are a lot of people (on the left) who wish to redefine words to fit an agenda; I don't subscribe to that nefarious activity.

QuakerOats;1867978 wrote:The aggression would be the act of committing the aggression, or atrocity as it were. Telling someone to do something is not the aggression. I know there are a lot of people (on the left) who wish to redefine words to fit an agenda; I don't subscribe to that nefarious activity.

IF that is the case, then how can one say that those men were aggressors? To my knowledge, they ordered genocide, but that doesn't mean they physically took part.

For hypothetical's sake, let's say they never actually physically acted in violence, but they still ordered subordinates to carry out the murder of millions of people. They're not guilty of aggressing at all?

You just said above that they did. Are you suggesting that they carried out the acts themselves?

They led the aggression. It is simple.

QuakerOats;1868112 wrote:They led the aggression. It is simple.

Is leading the aggression considered aggression itself?

If it is, then their commands still amount to aggression.

If their commands do not amount to aggression, then they were not aggressors inasmuch as they did not actively participate in the violence.

For what it's worth, I don't think this means that "mean" words or words popularly seen as "insensitive" or even "intolerant" are aggression.

But we know that a cheating spouse who convinces their side piece to murder their spouse ... or who hires a hit for the same purpose ... is guilty, even if they don't pull the trigger.

I think there is, for the most part, a chasm of difference between a declarative statement and an imperative statement in this regard. Maybe there's some fuzzy middle ground, but by and large, I think the concept is fairly clear.

The order is not the aggression.

QuakerOats;1868141 wrote:The order is not the aggression.

What is?

If the order were the aggression, but the order is not acted upon and no aggression occurs, the order cannot be the aggression.

Since the order then is not the aggression, the aggression would be something else.

You can take it from here.

QuakerOats;1868155 wrote:If the order were the aggression, but the order is not acted upon and no aggression occurs, the order cannot be the aggression.

Since the order then is not the aggression, the aggression would be something else.

You can take it from here.

By that extension, if your wife hires a hitman to kill you, but he refuses to do so, your wife has not aggressed against you.

If the aggression hangs exclusively on the actions of those carrying out the orders, as you've suggested, then there is no sound reason to say that those despots aggressed at all.

If the aggression hangs exclusively on the actions of those carrying out the orders ...

QO, but that's not exactly correct.

Charles Manson was convicted on the circumstance of the Tate/La Bianca murders even though he wasn't even there. He was the aggressor and ringleader. Prime example.

CenterBHSFan;1868170 wrote:QO, but that's not exactly correct.

Charles Manson was convicted on the circumstance of the Tate/La Bianca murders even though he wasn't even there. He was the aggressor and ringleader. Prime example.

It would appear that QO is arguing that whether or not those acting were successful is what makes the "conspirator" guilty of aggression or not, even though that part is completely outside his/her control.

If I put a gun to Otrap's head, and tell him to put a gum to QO's head and shoot.

Who is the aggressor?

Logic and reasoning tells you it is me, not Otrap.

Sorry QO, your reasoning is dumb.

In the case of the German Nazi's, the regular soldiers carrying out orders, while they should morally break away from the orders, are not the 'main' agressors. Those giving the orders are the main agressors. This is because the regular soldiers faced discipline up to death if they did not follow the orders.

CenterBHSFan;1868170 wrote:QO, but that's not exactly correct.

Charles Manson was convicted on the circumstance of the Tate/La Bianca murders even though he wasn't even there. He was the aggressor and ringleader. Prime example.

He was the ringleader, he was on the team, and an aggressive activity took place.

jmog;1868178 wrote:If I put a gun to Otrap's head, and tell him to put a gum to QO's head and shoot.

Who is the aggressor?

Logic and reasoning tells you it is me, not Otrap.

Sorry QO, your reasoning is dumb.

In the case of the German Nazi's, the regular soldiers carrying out orders, while they should morally break away from the orders, are not the 'main' agressors. Those giving the orders are the main agressors. This is because the regular soldiers faced discipline up to death if they did not follow the orders.

I never said they were not the aggressors. I said the ORDER is not the aggression.

QuakerOats;1868180 wrote:He was the ringleader, he was on the team, and an aggressive activity took place.

So the aggressive action has to be a team-sanction action? How does one determine what actions are done by an individual and what actions are done by the team?

QuakerOats;1868181 wrote:I never said they were not the aggressors. I said the ORDER is not the aggression.

What is the aggression? What is it that the leaders do that qualifies them to be considered the aggressors?

And, I will add, the reason we are having this discussion is because liberals want to be able outlaw certain speech. They want to decide whether certain speech ('orders') should be squelched and punishable, and that is dangerously wrong. They think if they can tie 'aggression' to speech, they can call speech aggression, i.e. unlawful violence, and they can eliminate it. I see where there is headed, maybe many do not.