Reply With Quote
So you posted a picture you don't give a about.
And asked a question to the class about it.
K.
Again, that's not the way arguments work. When you argue that something should change, you have to justify it. "You can't show why I'm wrong" is a very obvious fallacy and isn't a defensible position for the party with the burden of proof. I'm not arguing that we need to name a new school after Lee. I am arguing that we don't have a reason to scrub Lee's name off a school, especially not due to any moral standards.
So you posted a picture you don't give a about.
And asked a question to the class about it.
K.
Yeah, the reason to scrub his name off is that slavery is reprehensible and he actually fought and killed fellow Americans for the right to uphold it.
It's really that simple.
It's a thread about political correctness on a discussion board. Posting an image and "asking class" about it is for discussion purposes, doesn't mean I give a . It means it's a topical news item related to the subject of the thread. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
And I'm saying that's not a valid reason and gave like a million different evidence points for it. It's cool if you just disagree with that, but you can't fall back on mere dismissal of the other side if you are going to advocate for the change. And I don't mean you in particular. I mean whoever is actually trying to argue for this change. If Lee isn't worse than a ton of other people with schools named after him, and it actually costs money and time to erase his name, then it's not defensible to do so.
And to keep it on the original topic, the push to do so is because people want to be politically correct, and PC doesn't allow for people to understand that shifting moral standards don't allow for us to dismiss the past or the people in there as being unfit for public consumption.
That might be the stupidest thing I read today. But it's early and I haven't read Wild Cobra yet.
I think taking his name down because he fought for slavery is a perfectly valid reason. You're the first person I've ever seen disagree with that.
Yeah, because no one but me has every argued against people removing public images and honor for Lee and Davis. I don't think you're looking very hard if you can't find people who disagree with you.
Gap inc. thought so, and that's really all the maters tbh.
Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?
Isn't is misogynistic for them to make girls represent the Gap?
They didn't think so. They just caved to a bunch of dumbass tweets.
Prove it.
They made the ad.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/273593
No, I haven't looked hard, but if it's that easy, please give me one person that thinks taking his name down because of that whole slavery thing isn't a valid reason. I'd like to read their reverse reasoning. Thanks.
apparently they think so now
First article I saw: http://kxan.com/2016/01/21/name-chan...tween-parents/
And yes, I think that's an awful opinion. But saying, "Lee was really awesome." Is very clearly saying that him owning slaves isn't a good reason.But longtime resident Carlton Wilkes countered, “Robert E. Lee was one of our greatest Americans this country has ever produced, bar none, with the possible exception of George Washington. My goodness, if we don’t want our kids to emulate him who do we want them to emulate?”
Second one: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...lementa/nqtYw/
So this one said that it's not a good reason because it won't actually make anything better.Trustee Ann Teich said she couldn’t support the decision because she didn’t believe changing the name would improve race relations. She previously suggested the district lead community discussions about racial issues and how to address them.
“I said earlier in the process in the fall that just changing the names without any kind of plan to really address the hearts and minds and to change the racial prejudices doesn’t really succeed,” Teich said
This one wanted to have a racial -measuring contest. Still a challenge to that view.Speaker Joseph Capone, who spoke later in the evening, addressed Reed’s comments.
“Everything you read about the man (Lee) tells you that’s the kind of person our children should be taught to emulate instead of being taught falsehoods,” Capone said. “The man says he’s upset because his granddaddy was a slave. My grandma was on the 1912 rolls of Indians and freedmen. I’ll take your slavery and raise you a genocide any day of the week.”
Then you have this: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...or-conf/nqnC5/
That's the end of PC movements. Lee is a school with good ratings, and the protests over something that really doesn't matter have been so vehement that they started interfering with the ability of the people at the school (who have no control over the name) to do their jobs educating kids. How the is that the right thing to do in this country?Trustee Amber Elenz said she’s for the change because too much time has been taken from the campus administration when its focus should be on educating students. “I want the school to be out of the front lines,” Elenz said. “It’s interrupting the work at Lee.”
So the biggest argument they have is that Lee is someone that should be emulated.
And we all concur it's a horrible opinion.
There you go.
No, that's a terribly false conclusion to make. His main stance is that kids should emulate Lee
Even then, it sounds like he'd be happy to own slaves himself, if I were to generalize and stereotype which I am.
and then issued an apology for it...
Because twitter.
I agree with your stance that his opinion is crap and that he could very well be racist. In the very least, he's ignoring Lee's obvious flaws. However, you asked me to provide you with people saying why they didn't think using racial sensitivity towards Lee's role in the Civil War to scrub his name was a good reason. I gave you three examples of it, with varying reasoning to support their opposition. You're welcome to disagree with them, and I am with you on the first and last one. But that doesn't negate that I met your criterion pretty easily.
Two of them didn't mention slavery at all. The other downplayed slavery by using a Native American genocide strawman.
Awesome examples.
That's such bull
r u scared?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
