You don't have the right to be rid of whatever offends you. (speech, crimes)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

You are offended by something.

You have the right to bawl about it. You don't have the right to make others get rid of it.

- All people have the right to their own beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to make others change their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that others must obey their beliefs.
- Nobody has the right to demand that something that offends them must be removed.

These two statements show the absurdity of demands to remove offending items:

- "I am offended by those who want everything that offends them removed."
- If everything that offends someone is removed, there will be nothing left.

People are demanding that street names must be changed. They do not understand how much it costs someone living on a street when government changes the name of a street. The people making the demand should be made to pay for the expenses the people living on the street must pay.

The ultimate case if this is one where a former property owner had a nice carved stone inscription of the address built into a stone house when he built it here. After the property was sold to a new owner, the city decided to change the name of the street. Now the city and the post office are demanding that the new owner of the house must change the inscription to show the new name of the street (a very large expense).

Robert E Lee did not own any slaves, and was offered commissions to lead both the North and the South armies. He chose the South solely because all of his land was in territory held by the South. If he had chosen the North, his property would have been confiscated by the South government. When the war ended, the North confiscated his land. It is now Arlington Cemetery.

Yet all of the BLMers are screaming that all of the statues of LEE must be taken down because he "fought for slavery". Waaaah! They don't even know his history. And after the war, he helped found Washington and Lee University.

And these screamers are demanding that many of the founding fathers be "removed from history" because they owned slaves. What these boneheads do not know is that EVERYONE who had any money before 1830 owned slaves. Slavery was the main "welfare system" for centuries. People who could not pay their debts sold themselves to pay the debts. It goes all the way back to Hammurabi.

Others making unreasonable demands:

- Making demands on others about COVIDE-19
- Demanding that people must disobey their own religions
- Demanding that religions must change their beliefs
- Demanding that people must obey your beliefs
- Forcing political beliefs on others
- Forcing YOUR solution to scientific problems onto others
- Using bad science to get your way
- Expecting to get something for nothing

Problem is folks are so easily offended. Would be easier to start with what doesn’t hurt their feelings.

[tolovefromANFIELD]

Originally Posted by ABQSunseeker

Robert E. Lee chose to fight for the South which wanted to continue enslaving other human beings. It was a stark moral choice and he chose wrong. Stop whining about his statues coming down.

You can't possibly be this naive? Civil war as much about slavery as Iraq war was about freedom.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

He ran a slave plantation as executor of his father-in-law's estate, and he ran it in a way that was considered rather inhumane even by contemporary standards. The will stated that the slaves would be manumitted (freed) "within five years" and - contrary to common custom at the time - Lee took the full five years. He also made money by renting out his slaves - a practice that separated families, as only the most able-bodied were attractive for renters. With slaves being kept deliberately illiterate, separation was considered a harsh thing to so. And he even lobbied for a change in Virginia law, so he could rent slaves out across state lines.

So yes - you may be technically correct that didn't own slaves. But he sure as all out was master of hundreds, and treated them even worse than was common at the time. That dog won't hunt.

The Civil War was triggered by secession. And secession was motivated by the slave states desire to protect slavery. We know this. They thoughtfully wrote it down.

Lincoln said that he would gladly yield on the slavery issue if it preserved the Union.

Like any war, there are MANY causes.

[Dane_in_LA]

I see we're back to the old classics.

That being said: If you're a citizen living in a given town, you 100% have the right to have a say in what statues are being displayed in places of honor. That's what's happening, and no one cares if the Daughters of the Confederacy choke on their mint juleps.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Problem is folks are so easily offended. Would be easier to start with what doesn’t hurt their feelings.

Yep. That narrows things down quick fast and in a hurry. The most of folks these dayse just about out of things that DON'T offend someone. And if even just one person get's to whining the media jumps on it and makes it seem as if every last one of us just can't abide the stars coming out at night or the sun rising.

Case in point is how quickly this thread got derailed because so many posters just couldn't stand any defense of Robert E Lee and next thing you know we're off into a slugfest over the causes of the War Between the States. Anyone remember the old Fat Albert cartoon Cosby had on Saturday mornings? Who was the little guy in the gang who's hero was Robert E Lee? A little Black kid in an inner city group of various misfits that hung out in a junk yard who idolized the Confederate commanding general.

I liked that show. It was all about just getting along and accepting people for who and what they are without judgement. Every member of the gang was unique in some way and just...different, and nobody cared. The little Black kid that wore a Richmond grey sack coat and kepi hat was just fine, whereas today folks would be looking to string Cosby up for even conceiving of such a character. Weird Harold, Dumb Donald, Mushmouth, the title character Fat Albert every one of the gang was some sort of misfit and they made it work.

Them were the days. Now each characters unique feature being shown would cause a ruckus with folks in the real world with similar traits and be called degrading. Even though the gang took those characters as they were and didn't think twice. Can't happen these days. To many perpetually offended types out here.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

Im not sure those things you are referring to are actually paying homage to the confederates, imo, its more of an important reminder of something significant in our history...

If they were, they were built 50 years too late.

Gettysburg started top be a protected space in 1864. The first monument went up in 1867.

Statues to losing generals didn't start showing up until 1915. That just happened to be when the second KKK was formed... It also just happened to be the year Birth of a Nation came out and spurred all of it.
Those statues had two goals: glorifying a failed revolt and keeping the black man in their place.

It's not so much as 'why aren't there Hitler statues in Germany', it's like why wern't Hitler statues built in the late 90s.

[LookinForMayberry]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

You are offended by something.

You have the right to bawl about it. You don't have the right to make others get rid of it.

I completely agree that we have to learn to live with what is offensive to us, because life is about self-determination and that applies to others as well as ourselves.

I pretty much agree that no matter how we try to re-write history, it doesn't change that it happened, though with each passing generation we forget more of it. We cannot proceed into a logical, productive future without accepting our past, and learning from it.

Still, are you not trying in this post to negate others' of their right to speak against what offends them, thereby negating your own premise?

[TheWiseWino]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

I know that mandates are unconstitutional AF.

Excuse me Mr. Bob, but when were you appointed to the Court? I know McConnell does some tricky **** to get folks on the Court, but I missed your confirmation.

If mandates are unconstitutional, then if ask any parent of a school aged kid, why their kid has all these vaccinations in order to go to school?

I'm 68 and remember having to have numerous vaccinations before I could enter a kindergarten classroom in the late 50's so that's a lot of Supreme Court sessions between then and now in which the Court has failed to rule vaccinations as being unconstitutional, which they haven't!

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by TheWiseWino

Excuse me Mr. Bob, but when were you appointed to the Court? I know McConnell does some tricky **** to get folks on the Court, but I missed your confirmation.

If mandates are unconstitutional, then if ask any parent of a school aged kid, why their kid has all these vaccinations in order to go to school?

I'm 68 and remember having to have numerous vaccinations before I could enter a kindergarten classroom in the late 50's so that's a lot of Supreme Court sessions between then and now in which the Court has failed to rule vaccinations as being unconstitutional, which they haven't!

There hasn’t been a case in front of the courts that dealt with a federal vaccine mandate yet, though there probably will be one now that Biden has decided to go authoritarian. There has been a state mandate case, but not federal. That being said, you’d be hard pressed to find anything in the Constitution which supports a federal mandate.

[SWFL_Native]

Facts don’t care about your feelings... Neither do I