Is tearing down statues the modern equivalent of the Nazi book burnings?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

A statue is not an infringement of anyones rights.

Neither is a Mapplethorpe photograph. But I don't think many communities would like to have them displayed in the town square.

"I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Voltaire's statues are next.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Are you an anarchist now?

You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

DB can't even spit proper!

a reply to: IAMTAT

You like the French?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Here's a little lesson in logical thought. You are not demonstrating logical thought.
www.thoughtco.com...

My attempted logic was to suggest that the symbolic actions of tearing down statues to oppose ideological ideas related to the slave economy may only be scratching the surface.

-MM

a reply to: smurfy

That's Bill,not DB.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

My attempted logic

A related form of argument, the slippery slope argument, takes reductio ad absurdum to an extreme and is often (but not always) fallacious.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

My attempted logic

For example, the White House was built by slaves - is it a logical fallacy to purpose that the same people tearing down statues of slave owners would also want to tear down such historical buildings? Perhaps I´m stretching it logically, but I don´t see it as an unlikely next step.

-MM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Are you an anarchist now?

You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Would that infringe upon the rights of others?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

He's such a racist.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Better they be placed in museums perhaps.
Like libraries, only for statues. Then those who want to see them can.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It would create panic and thus endanger others.

You cannot say or do anything you wish. Unless you live under anarchy or in a cave with no one else.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

It would create panic and thus endanger others.

You cannot say or do anything you wish. Unless you live under anarchy or in a cave with no one else.

So your claim is that a statue is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

I don't see it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Liquesence

Is tearing down statues the modern equivalent of the Nazi book burnings?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

Burning book is attempted erasure of knowledge.

Statues is removal is not.

Are not these statues historical records? If these statues are destroyed, will not the historical records they hold also be destroyed?

-MM

Statues are symbols of free expression.

What about the freedom of expression for antiquated ideals - do these exist or do they die with their contemporary? Who decides when an idea is antiquated and not subject to freedom of expression, and is this not a slippery slope when it comes to the Constitution?

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Liquesence

Is tearing down statues the modern equivalent of the Nazi book burnings?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

Burning book is attempted erasure of knowledge.

Statues is removal is not.

Are not these statues historical records? If these statues are destroyed, will not the historical records they hold also be destroyed?

-MM

Statues are symbols of free expression.

What about the freedom of expression of antiquated ideals - do these exist or do they die with their contemporary?

-MM

Does it matter if ideals are "antiquated"?

I still hold doors open for women.

I will tip a hat to a lady.

I will pull out the chair for my wife when we go out and eat.

Antiquated? Or "classic"?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Are you an anarchist now?

You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Would that infringe upon the rights of others?

'S talking about burning books, insinge might be a better word, except....

a reply to: DBCowboy

So your claim is that a statue is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Good. Because that's not what I said.
I said that there is no such thing as a right to do, say, or represent anything you want to do, say, or represent.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

It would create panic and thus endanger others.

You cannot say or do anything you wish. Unless you live under anarchy or in a cave with no one else.

Defund the police and we will see about that, won't we?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

So your claim is that a statue is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Good. Because that's not what I said.
I said that there is no such thing as a right to do, say, or represent anything you want to do, say, or represent.

How is a statue an infringement on anothers rights?

a reply to: DBCowboy
Its not
But it infringes on the feelz.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How is a statue an infringement on anothers rights?

I didn't say it was.

What I said was, people have a choice to read a book or not. I said that a book is not the same as a statue in a public place. The OP thinks otherwise.

What I implied was, community standards are to be considered when anything is displayed in a public setting.