The thread for things being taken down.

[El Barto]

Ah, the ethical vegetarian. My mom won't eat mammals. Birds she'll eat, but only if they're free range and organic. Fuck fish, apparently. They get no consideration.

[XeRocks81]

I eat all sorts of meat but I fully believe that a a hundred years from now(give or take)  humans will have stopped eating animals en masse.   It'll be a drastic change in the entire world's economy and I can't imagine what'll take to get there but I'm fairly certain vegetarians and vegans are a trend that is growing and will not go away.

I don't believe they are going anywhere either, but I wouldn't go so far.  I'd say it's more likely we are eating lab grown meats than giving up eating animals all together.  Humans have been eating meat for a very long time (quick google search says 2.5 million years) so I don't think the next 100 years will change much of that.

You're right, I may have overstated the case a tad      but in essence we agree that a widespread meat alternative will come sooner rather than later

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black/

So if we're to apply the modern standards to everything that happened in the past, is there anybody from the first 100 years of this country, including Lincoln, that wasn't a racist?

[cramx3]

It's a slippery slope

[Chino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black/

So if we're to apply the modern standards to everything that happened in the past, is there anybody from the first 100 years of this country, including Lincoln, that wasn't a racist?

I think I remember reading that John Adams and J Quincy were the only two presidents of the first eleven or twelve that never owned slaves. Does that count?

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black/

So if we're to apply the modern standards to everything that happened in the past, is there anybody from the first 100 years of this country, including Lincoln, that wasn't a racist?

I think I remember reading that John Adams and J Quincy were the only two presidents of the first eleven or twelve that never owned slaves. Does that count?

By modern standards, no. At least not for Adams the first. While he was very opposed to slavery, he did nothing in his twenty-seven years of elected service to support abolition. People nowadays do far less to be branded and chastised for racism. Adams would simply be an old, rich, white man trying to maintain the status quo.

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black/

So if we're to apply the modern standards to everything that happened in the past, is there anybody from the first 100 years of this country, including Lincoln, that wasn't a racist?

I think I remember reading that John Adams and J Quincy were the only two presidents of the first eleven or twelve that never owned slaves. Does that count?

By modern standards, no. At least not for Adams the first. While he was very opposed to slavery, he did nothing in his twenty-seven years of elected service to support abolition. People nowadays do far less to be branded and chastised for racism. Adams would simply be an old, rich, white man trying to maintain the status quo.

Well, it's a shade different.  Adams wrote extensively on the idea of basically "tabling" slavery in order to form the union.  I feel like Adams would be smart enough to see the difference of a country that is basically an infant versus a country that is 240+/- years old.

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black/

So if we're to apply the modern standards to everything that happened in the past, is there anybody from the first 100 years of this country, including Lincoln, that wasn't a racist?

I think I remember reading that John Adams and J Quincy were the only two presidents of the first eleven or twelve that never owned slaves. Does that count?

By modern standards, no. At least not for Adams the first. While he was very opposed to slavery, he did nothing in his twenty-seven years of elected service to support abolition. People nowadays do far less to be branded and chastised for racism. Adams would simply be an old, rich, white man trying to maintain the status quo.

Well, it's a shade different.  Adams wrote extensively on the idea of basically "tabling" slavery in order to form the union.  I feel like Adams would be smart enough to see the difference of a country that is basically an infant versus a country that is 240+/- years old.

I agree. The problem is that the country isn't smart enough to see the difference between a ~240 union and America in its infancy.

[XeRocks81]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity. 

[El Barto]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

I don't think so, but perhaps there's a distinction to be made between "able" and "willing" that's causing the trouble. In any case, the result is the same and just as silly. Not sure if you noticed but this thread is actually a couple of years old. If you want examples of people being unable or unwilling to discern nuance and/or context, read the first few pages. I'm not being unfair in my criticism.

[Stadler]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This thread is proof of that.   The whole knocking down of statues is proof of that.   My kid walked out of her English class as school (one of the best high schools in the COUNTRY, I'll have you know) because her teacher wasn't able to properly look at historical figures in their complexity.   

[Implode]

#notallmodernpeople

[eric42434224]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This thread is proof of that.   The whole knocking down of statues is proof of that.   My kid walked out of her English class as school (one of the best high schools in the COUNTRY, I'll have you know) because her teacher wasn't able to properly look at historical figures in their complexity.

No.  This thread and your example only prove that some people are unwilling to look at historical figures in context, but we already know that.  Unwilling does not mean unable.  I would also posit that the few loud examples of the unwilling just overshadow the large number of the willing.  Willing to look at historical figures in context, just not willing to be loud about it.  Examples are everywhere, including your own, and to just say ABSOLUTELY NOT with just anecdotal evidence is merely generalizing without much critical thought

[yeshaberto]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This thread is proof of that.   The whole knocking down of statues is proof of that.   My kid walked out of her English class as school (one of the best high schools in the COUNTRY, I'll have you know) because her teacher wasn't able to properly look at historical figures in their complexity.

No.  This thread and your example only prove that some people are unwilling to look at historical figures in context, but we already know that.  Unwilling does not mean unable.  I would also posit that the few loud examples of the unwilling just overshadow the large number of the willing.  Willing to look at historical figures in context, just not willing to be loud about it.  Examples are everywhere, including your own, and to just say ABSOLUTELY NOT with just anecdotal evidence is merely generalizing without much critical thought

Eric, the history/tension between you and Stadler is why I am calling out this post...tone it down or enjoy a break!

[eric42434224]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This thread is proof of that.   The whole knocking down of statues is proof of that.   My kid walked out of her English class as school (one of the best high schools in the COUNTRY, I'll have you know) because her teacher wasn't able to properly look at historical figures in their complexity.

No.  This thread and your example only prove that some people are unwilling to look at historical figures in context, but we already know that.  Unwilling does not mean unable.  I would also posit that the few loud examples of the unwilling just overshadow the large number of the willing.  Willing to look at historical figures in context, just not willing to be loud about it.  Examples are everywhere, including your own, and to just say ABSOLUTELY NOT with just anecdotal evidence is merely generalizing without much critical thought

Eric, the history/tension between you and Stadler is why I am calling out this post...tone it down or enjoy a break!

With all due respect, this is starting to become a problem for me.  If there is tension here, it is not with me.  If someone complained, the issue is with them.  I have not made any complaint about Stadlers posts, but I do have the right to disagree with him.  I did so in a manner that was not hostile or personal in any way.  If that post had been in response to anyone else, no one would have batted an eyelash.  Not only that, there are posts in this very thread that are FAR worse, but since they do not have the added hurdle of some perceived beef, they are fine.  In short, there is nothing to tone down.

[El Barto]

You were bating him. Seemed pretty obvious to me.

[eric42434224]

You were bating him. Seemed pretty obvious to me.

Nope.  100% disagreeing with him.  If I had posted that response to anyone else, it isn't even a blip on the radar. I was agreeing with XeRocks81 and defending that position.  If you read my response without any imaginary beef between Stadlr and I, it seems perfectly reasonable and within the rules.

[El Barto]

Context matters.

[eric42434224]

Context matters.

Pm ing

[antigoon]

pls dont get banned

[bosk1]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This thread is proof of that.   The whole knocking down of statues is proof of that.   My kid walked out of her English class as school (one of the best high schools in the COUNTRY, I'll have you know) because her teacher wasn't able to properly look at historical figures in their complexity.

No.  This thread and your example only prove that some people are unwilling to look at historical figures in context, but we already know that.  Unwilling does not mean unable.  I would also posit that the few loud examples of the unwilling just overshadow the large number of the willing.  Willing to look at historical figures in context, just not willing to be loud about it.  Examples are everywhere, including your own, and to just say ABSOLUTELY NOT with just anecdotal evidence is merely generalizing without much critical thought

Eric, the history/tension between you and Stadler is why I am calling out this post...tone it down or enjoy a break!

With all due respect, this is starting to become a problem for me.  If there is tension here, it is not with me.  If someone complained, the issue is with them.  I have not made any complaint about Stadlers posts, but I do have the right to disagree with him.  I did so in a manner that was not hostile or personal in any way.  If that post had been in response to anyone else, no one would have batted an eyelash.  Not only that, there are posts in this very thread that are FAR worse, but since they do not have the added hurdle of some perceived beef, they are fine.  In short, there is nothing to tone down.

No, the issue IS with you and you DO need to tone it down.  I don't follow threads closely, so I missed a lot of what has gone on.  I happened to pick up a post of Stadler's that got him a temp ban, but since I was skimming quickly had missed some of yours in that thread that were clearly over the line.  You've been given warnings and are fresh out, so if this continues, you will not post here. 

[eric42434224]

Barto you're painting with a pretty broad brush with your "modern standards" you seem to hold in such contempt.  I think plenty of "modern" people are able to look at historical figures in their complexity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This thread is proof of that.   The whole knocking down of statues is proof of that.   My kid walked out of her English class as school (one of the best high schools in the COUNTRY, I'll have you know) because her teacher wasn't able to properly look at historical figures in their complexity.

No.  This thread and your example only prove that some people are unwilling to look at historical figures in context, but we already know that.  Unwilling does not mean unable.  I would also posit that the few loud examples of the unwilling just overshadow the large number of the willing.  Willing to look at historical figures in context, just not willing to be loud about it.  Examples are everywhere, including your own, and to just say ABSOLUTELY NOT with just anecdotal evidence is merely generalizing without much critical thought

Eric, the history/tension between you and Stadler is why I am calling out this post...tone it down or enjoy a break!

With all due respect, this is starting to become a problem for me.  If there is tension here, it is not with me.  If someone complained, the issue is with them.  I have not made any complaint about Stadlers posts, but I do have the right to disagree with him.  I did so in a manner that was not hostile or personal in any way.  If that post had been in response to anyone else, no one would have batted an eyelash.  Not only that, there are posts in this very thread that are FAR worse, but since they do not have the added hurdle of some perceived beef, they are fine.  In short, there is nothing to tone down.

No, the issue IS with you and you DO need to tone it down.  I don't follow threads closely, so I missed a lot of what has gone on.  I happened to pick up a post of Stadler's that got him a temp ban, but since I was skimming quickly had missed some of yours in that thread that were clearly over the line.  You've been given warnings and are fresh out, so if this continues, you will not post here.

If you, and yesh, could be more specific that might help.  It all seems to me at this point, that it is more about me disagreeing with a specific poster than it is breaking any rules.  I have had a few pm of posters agreeing that I did nothing wrong.  However I am more than willing to change my behavior if you can simply point out the posts where I broke rules.  I would hope that disagreeing with someone is not against the rules.  If I did break a rule, I will gladly apologize, but would like the opportunity to see what posts and rules you are referring to (the ones that are "clearly over the line")  Is that a fair request?

EDIT.....after pm with Barto......a big nevermind lol