Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.

So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.

No one is arguing either of these points as far as I can see. That the subjects of the Confederate statues are veterans is beside the point; it's their being traitors and losers that kind of undermines Urist McScoopbeard's point that they deserve statues in America on the basis of their military acumen.

...if every one of those soldiers fought for their nation, and they were all Americans, how on Earth did we have a war in the first place?

The most entertaining monument in the US is the one to Benedict Arnold's leg.

Besides, American armies have been dying on pointless tasks and causes since before there was an America.

[NullForceOmega]

Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point.  As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.

Edit: It is further worth noting that there are several monuments to Robert E. Lee, including the Arlington House memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.

[Sheb]

Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point.  As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.

Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.

[Trekkin]

Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point.  As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.

Edit: It is further worth noting that there are several monuments to Robert E. Lee, including the Arlington House memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.

Arlington House is specific enough in its remembrance of Lee that I don't actually have a problem with it, but regardless, you make a valid point. When we come up with a way to represent the people who fought and died for the Confederacy in a way that acknowledges both their valor and their crimes, I'll chip in for it. Let's not pretend that the current crop of monuments has that context, though.

[NullForceOmega]

Okay, I can go with that.  It is worth noting that while the majority of the statues in question are problematic, some are just straight up memorials to fallen soldiers, with no additional context.  To my mind removing those is akin to pulling down the WWII memorial or the Vietnam Wall, in that they are intended to be a reminder of the deaths the war caused, not celebrations of the ideals.

Nonetheless, pulling down those statues without due process of law is straight up destruction of public or private property and is an actual crime.

[Trekkin]

Okay, I can go with that.  It is worth noting that while the majority of the statues in question are problematic, some are just straight up memorials to fallen soldiers, with no additional context.  To my mind removing those is akin to pulling down the WWII memorial or the Vietnam Wall, in that they are intended to be a reminder of the deaths the war caused, not celebrations of the ideals.

Nonetheless, pulling down those statues without due process of law is straight up destruction of public or private property and is an actual crime.

No argument here with either point. Have people been trying to get monuments like the Civil War Unknowns Monument pulled down?

[Starver]

Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point.  As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.

Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.

Wife(/widow)!
(No pension, but see also. And if you link hop to Alberta Martin's page, - who got backpay...)

[SquatchHammer]

"They embraced them in brotherly love."

[Sheb]

Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point.  As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.

Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.

Wife(/widow)!
(No pension, but see also. And if you link hop to Alberta Martin's page, - who got backpay...)

I was thinking of this one.

[Starver]

Had heard of her, too. Yup. But I went searching (to help flesh out the story) and got somewhat fixated on the $70 bit.

Amazing how few handshakes (or other contact, in this case) are needed to get back so far.  There was something I read about the English Civil War (mid 17th Century, just a tad before the Thirteen Colonies took their shape), and the possible connectivity is remarkably terse.

[Paxiecrunchle]

Controversial Idea: "Faith Healing" should be illegal to perform on children with genuinely threatening medical conditions.

[ChairmanPoo]

How is that controversial?

[Paxiecrunchle]

How is that controversial?

I'm in the United States it seems to me that suggesting anything here that restricts anything that can be viewed as religious is controversial here. *shrugs*

[Sheb]

How is that controversial?

I'm in the United States it seems to me that suggesting anything here that restricts anything that can be viewed as religious is controversial here. *shrugs*

Not just religious, the US tends to let parents rather than medical proffessionals have much more of a say. That explain some of the outcry about that British kids that was prevented from moving to the US for experimental treatment that wouldn't have done any good.

[Trekkin]

It's also reflective of the American idea that you can believe whatever you want -- not just about unknowable philosophical abstractions but about testable things. Thus we tolerate flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers and proponents of all manner of medical woo, faith healing included. Call them wrong and they cry censorship by "Big Science"; make it illegal to try to cure cancer by wishing really hard and they claim they're being suppressed because Big Government doesn't want you to know the truth.

So yes, faith healing should be illegal. But it should also be laughable, and that a significant fraction does not find it so is evidence that we have perhaps spent too much time encouraging people to think for themselves and not enough time teaching them how.