Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
'Rioters in California Tear Down Statue of Ulysses S Grant...)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 75151444" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>So if I married a woman who's family partook of an unethical activity (even though she may not have endorsed it...people have very little control over what their parents or grandparents do...I can't even get my dad to quit smoking), and even rallied against the particular type of behavior in question, I'd be disqualified by that logic.</p><p></p><p>...and it does become a bit of a slippery slope when they start attacking a Lincoln statue (that happen to be paid for by freed slaves who wanted to honor him) because "it depicts 'a white savior' and therefore diminishes the effort that Black people made in the fight for their own freedom", and then onto someone like Mathias Baldwin, who was a prominent abolitionist, because Baldwin's great great grandfather was a "colonizer", it does start to look like more of a slippery slope.</p><p></p><p>It started with confederate monuments</p><p>Then monuments of union generals because they married into a family that owned slaves</p><p>Then monuments of full blown abolitionists, because their ancestry can be traced back to people who took land from Native Americans</p><p></p><p>There's really not too many more stops on that route before you get to "any statue of of a white guy that looks old"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 75151444, member: 123415"] So if I married a woman who's family partook of an unethical activity (even though she may not have endorsed it...people have very little control over what their parents or grandparents do...I can't even get my dad to quit smoking), and even rallied against the particular type of behavior in question, I'd be disqualified by that logic. ...and it does become a bit of a slippery slope when they start attacking a Lincoln statue (that happen to be paid for by freed slaves who wanted to honor him) because "it depicts 'a white savior' and therefore diminishes the effort that Black people made in the fight for their own freedom", and then onto someone like Mathias Baldwin, who was a prominent abolitionist, because Baldwin's great great grandfather was a "colonizer", it does start to look like more of a slippery slope. It started with confederate monuments Then monuments of union generals because they married into a family that owned slaves Then monuments of full blown abolitionists, because their ancestry can be traced back to people who took land from Native Americans There's really not too many more stops on that route before you get to "any statue of of a white guy that looks old" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
'Rioters in California Tear Down Statue of Ulysses S Grant...)
Top
Bottom