This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

You sure went from "say the word if you're an alpha male and mean it" to "white people shouldn't be saying it" pretty quickly.

Do you use your brain at all when you post or do you simply munch a handful of pills and post whatever world salad you can quickly vomit up?

---

There's a difference between a word you shouldn't call someone and banning the word from your vernacular so that you use an initial euphemism. I wouldn't call my gf a b****, but if I did, I wouldn't call her the b word. If you are going to say a word than say the word. Stop hiding behind euphemisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Directly from your article:

"The African-American mayor of the majority black city has declined to revoke a building permit held by the Friends of Forrest.

"We thought it would be good for tourism. Our Civil War and Civil Rights history brings a lot of people to Selma,""

---

Also directly from the article:

Rose Sanders (who is black) organized a protest of and got 84,000 signatures opposing the statue. But hey, maybe all 84,000 people were white :shrug:

I never said all black people, but if you don’t think many black would be offended you have a screw loose.

all black people want is for white people to fight as hard for their equality as they fight for KKK monuments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile....88C1LA20120913

They are. That you’d even have to question whether there are black people offended by a KKK statue is pretty stunning.

---

I'm not questioning anything. I will put it bluntly in terms of this statue on private property. Black people being offended is not concerning to me. They can be offended. They can also kick rocks. It's on private property. I don't care if someone has a statue of Hitler banging Satan if it's on private property, no one has the right to want it removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I'm not questioning anything. I will put it bluntly in terms of this statue on private property. Black people being offended is not concerning to me. They can be offended. They can also kick rocks. It's on private property. I don't care if someone has a statue of Hitler banging Satan if it's on private property, no one has the right to want it removed.

---

“It’s your perception black people are offended” is absolutely questioning whether any in fact are.

I get the argument for personal rights. I cannot fathom the argument that “I’m not totally convinced there are black people who would be offended by KKK monuments”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

all black people want is for white people to fight as hard for their equality as they fight for KKK monuments

---

It's not my monument to fight for but it's also not black people's monument to want it removed.

Imagine a monument that is equally offensive to you as this monument is to black people. Now multiply that offense by 1000. You still don't have the right to want someone to take something down on their private property. You don't have that right, i don't have that right and black people don't have that right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

There's a difference between a word you shouldn't call someone and banning the word from your vernacular so that you use an initial euphemism. I wouldn't call my gf a b****, but if I did, I wouldn't call her the b word. If you are going to say a word than say the word. Stop hiding behind euphemisms.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

It's not my monument to fight for but it's also not black people's monument to want it removed.

Imagine a monument that is equally offensive to you as this monument is to black people. Now multiply that offense by 1000. You still don't have the right to want someone to take something down on their private property. You don't have that right, i don't have that right and black people don't have that right.

---

I get your point, though it’s not technically true, there are actually limits to things you can put on private property visible by the public (but that’s besides the point).

Suppose this monument were on a public cemetery, would you want it removed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

“It’s your perception black people are offended” is absolutely questioning whether any in fact are.

I get the argument for personal rights. I cannot fathom the argument that “I’m not totally convinced there are black people who would be offended by KKK monuments”

---

I never said they weren't offended. I said it was his perception. What I'm saying is actually worse in a way. In this case, their offense is meaningless to me. Anyone can be offended by anything on private property and it would be meaningless to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I get your point, though it’s not technically true, there are actually limits to things you can put on private property visible by the public (but that’s besides the point).

Suppose this monument were on a public cemetery, would you want it removed?

---

I said in an earlier post that i find it silly to be offended by the ten commandments. I'm not overly religious but to be honest, they just seem like a fair way to live life. That being said, if an atheist wants the ten commandments removed from a courthouse wall, that's legit. They have the right to ask for that. An atheist mailman has no right asking the the ten commandments to be removed from a front door. The same applies here. There's a difference between private and public property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I'm not questioning anything. I will put it bluntly in terms of this statue on private property. Black people being offended is not concerning to me. They can be offended. They can also kick rocks. It's on private property. I don't care if someone has a statue of Hitler banging Satan if it's on private property, no one has the right to want it removed.

---

you would care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I said in an earlier post that i find it silly to be offended by the ten commandments. I'm not overly religious but to be honest, they just seem like a fair way to live life. That being said, if an atheist wants the ten commandments removed from a courthouse wall, that's legit. They have the right to ask for that. An atheist mailman has no right asking the the ten commandments to be removed from a front door. The same applies here. There's a difference between private and public property.

---

I get that you believe people have the right to ask for these things to be removed on public property. I’m asking if this were public property if you think this monument should, in that instance, be removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I never said they weren't offended. I said it was his perception. What I'm saying is actually worse in a way. In this case, their offense is meaningless to me. Anyone can be offended by anything on private property and it would be meaningless to me.

---

Well it’s not just his perception if people are in fact offended, at that point it becomes fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I get that you believe people have the right to ask for these things to be removed on public property. I’m asking if this were public property if you think this monument should, in that instance, be removed.

---

I would say as with most issues, it's a case by case basis. I don't know enough about this guy to really say. It seems like he had an interesting war record but the KKK stuff is obviously damaging. My gut says this guy didn't do enough in the war to warrant a monument on public property given his dealing with the KKK. The only reason im hesitant is because there needs to be a distinct line drawn in leaders who warrant monuments. This guy offends people, sure take down his monument. George Washington or Abraham Lincoln offend people, kick rocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Well it’s not just his perception if people are in fact offended, at that point it becomes fact.

---

If you go back and reread the comment i made, i wasn't specifically referring to this case when i used the term "perceived offense." It was a general question in that private property trumps anyone's perceived offense. You have acknowledged this. Nate has yet to do so instead trying to play "gotcha" journalism.