Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance2 mins ago
Colston Vandals Cleared
the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@20.10.gulliver1 reported me for not calling him by his name.Just following Site Rules he said.No use being difficult is it now Atheist.Any problems please contact gulliver1.
Thank you,pixie374.The Site Rules caught me out.From now on i will make sure that there are no more infringements of this sites rules.Dont blame me,blame gulliver1.
Dont blame me Atheist,blame gulliver1.He followed the Site Rules as we all should do.The Site Rules arent there for no reason.
Ellipsis - // And that's why these people lost it, and why they were let off. //
Is that supposed to be a justifiable reason for their loutish behaviour?
Because civil proceedings simply didn;t move fast enough for them, they are entitled to damage a statue, and then be absolved of the resulting charges?
That may cut it for you, and for the jury, but I am not remotely convinced.
The original plaq
Is that supposed to be a justifiable reason for their loutish behaviour?
Because civil proceedings simply didn;t move fast enough for them, they are entitled to damage a statue, and then be absolved of the resulting charges?
That may cut it for you, and for the jury, but I am not remotely convinced.
The original plaq
I'm sure the Site Rules refer to using names that people don't like? A mutual complacency would be fine.
... The original plaque was of its time - applauding Colston for his philanthropy, and not mentioning what was perceived then as a perfectly legitimate method of acquiring the wealth he was kind enough to spread around the city.
The second, in my view, inappropriately labours the point about his link with slavery, which as I have pointed out, would be far better explained with proper context in the confines of a museum.
The third one is simply woke PC self-pitying flagellation, pretending to apologise for things that happened hundreds of years ago.
There is a world of difference between accepting history as it was, and a lot of it is hard to appreciate now, and trying to look good by supposedly saying 'sorry, although to whom is not made clear.
History is about context, and understanding, and looking at events from the point of view of the time they occurred.
Trying to place modern values and attitudes on people from centuries ago is a singularly pointless exercise, undertaken for the simple and equally pointless notion of aggrandaising the apologists who simply wish to underline their own self-perceived moral superiority by simply being shocked at how horrible life was in times gone by.
Everyone with an ounce of humanity and common sense will recognise that slavery was an evil of its time, but trying to pretend either that it did not happen, or that it did and we must atone for it, is doubly pointless.
History is what got us to where we are now.
If we recognise where we have have been, and the mistakes we made, we stand a chance of not simply repeating them.
Airbrushing the bits of history that supposedly make us ashamed is defeating the learning of lessons that will make us a better society moving forward.
The second, in my view, inappropriately labours the point about his link with slavery, which as I have pointed out, would be far better explained with proper context in the confines of a museum.
The third one is simply woke PC self-pitying flagellation, pretending to apologise for things that happened hundreds of years ago.
There is a world of difference between accepting history as it was, and a lot of it is hard to appreciate now, and trying to look good by supposedly saying 'sorry, although to whom is not made clear.
History is about context, and understanding, and looking at events from the point of view of the time they occurred.
Trying to place modern values and attitudes on people from centuries ago is a singularly pointless exercise, undertaken for the simple and equally pointless notion of aggrandaising the apologists who simply wish to underline their own self-perceived moral superiority by simply being shocked at how horrible life was in times gone by.
Everyone with an ounce of humanity and common sense will recognise that slavery was an evil of its time, but trying to pretend either that it did not happen, or that it did and we must atone for it, is doubly pointless.
History is what got us to where we are now.
If we recognise where we have have been, and the mistakes we made, we stand a chance of not simply repeating them.
Airbrushing the bits of history that supposedly make us ashamed is defeating the learning of lessons that will make us a better society moving forward.
Latest Posts
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
ChatterBank151 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.