• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A debate of monumental proportions

A

AYSM

Pffffft
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
905
Reaction score
271
Location
You Can't Get Here From There
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Greetings all, it's been years since I've joined in one of these forums.
Been doing a lot of ranting, raving, laughing, etc. at my television and a bit of personal writing that might be fun to debate, I look forward to it.

My day started with writing in my notebook:

All Art should be preserved
Monuments are Art

Along with freedom of speech
Should come freedom from speech

In other words, on the monument issue, those under debate could be moved to a more appropriate place of honor.

Create National Parks (or local) perhaps around graveyards and battlefields that are relevant.

Whatever the location, it should minimize the in your face aspect of freedom of speech as society moves along.

Or auction the suckers off and make them collectables, lol.



Since writing that I've gained in my education e.g. one monument here in Arizona got tarred and feathered and another painted (news to me we were a part of the confederacy even worth documenting).

Also, what about stone mountain? Can't move it...decorate it with other historical relics from a past history that shouldn't be denied...people can chose to enjoy the other features of the park and ignore the museum...or stop and learn some history...freedom of speech...freedom from speech.
 
:prof Your font size is annoying
 
dyb773flop said:


All Art should be preserved
Click to expand...


If i walk into a certain shop and get discretely handed a plain paper bag containing nude pictures of children it is called child pornography and is illegal. If i walk into the louvre and study paintings of nude children it is called art and is legal. Can you tell me what the difference is?
 
soylentgreen said:
If i walk into a certain shop and get discretely handed a plain paper bag containing nude pictures of children it is called child pornography and is illegal. If i walk into the louvre and study paintings of nude children it is called art and is legal. Can you tell me what the difference is?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that child pornography as you described and as defined should be considered to be "art"?
 
dyb773flop said:
Are you suggesting that child pornography as you described and as defined should be considered to be "art"?
Click to expand...

No, i am pointing to a fact. There are paintings of nude children hanging in art galleries all over the world and are considered to be art and not pornography. The only similarity is that they both contain nude children. Yet one is porn and the other is art. What makes the difference?

And if you are wondering what this has to do with statues of confederates then that is that the answer is the same as to why one statue is art and the other is not even though they may be the same statue.
 
dyb773flop said:
Greetings all, it's been years since I've joined in one of these forums.
Been doing a lot of ranting, raving, laughing, etc. at my television and a bit of personal writing that might be fun to debate, I look forward to it.

My day started with writing in my notebook:

All Art should be preserved
Monuments are Art

Along with freedom of speech
Should come freedom from speech

In other words, on the monument issue, those under debate could be moved to a more appropriate place of honor.

Create National Parks (or local) perhaps around graveyards and battlefields that are relevant.

Whatever the location, it should minimize the in your face aspect of freedom of speech as society moves along.

Or auction the suckers off and make them collectables, lol.



Since writing that I've gained in my education e.g. one monument here in Arizona got tarred and feathered and another painted (news to me we were a part of the confederacy even worth documenting).

Also, what about stone mountain? Can't move it...decorate it with other historical relics from a past history that shouldn't be denied...people can chose to enjoy the other features of the park and ignore the museum...or stop and learn some history...freedom of speech...freedom from speech.
Click to expand...

Welcome to DP, D.

My thoughts about the monuments are that a municipality ought to insist that due process be followed when removing these historical statues. And those that deface or destroy them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as they say, up to and hopefully including thirty days in jail and restitution. But when we have the example of the Boston police today tweeting "Don't throw urine, cans or rocks," I'm thinking we've lost the will.

As to freedom from speech, we have that, don't we? Change the channel. Don't attend rallies led by hate groups. Or, if a rally turns INTO sound bites we don't like? Hey, if we don't like the party, we can get up and leave. As to your wife, I'm thinkin' you're pretty much stuck there...
 
soylentgreen said:
No, i am pointing to a fact. There are paintings of nude children hanging in art galleries all over the world and are considered to be art and not pornography. The only similarity is that they both contain nude children. Yet one is porn and the other is art. What makes the difference?

And if you are wondering what this has to do with statues of confederates then that is that the answer is the same as to why one statue is art and the other is not even though they may be the same statue.
Click to expand...

Doubtful that you will be handed anything in a brown paper bag considered child pornography, that would be found in the louvre, much less a statue.

A statue that I am considering to be art would be so whether in a town square, a museum or something you stumble across in a brown paper bag.

I suppose if you can show me anywhere in either an accepted dictionary definition or court case where child pornography is considered to be art, I shall modify my thesis...in the mean time I submit that you're making a bit of a subjective reach.
 
MaggieD said:
Welcome to DP, D.

My thoughts about the monuments are that a municipality ought to insist that due process be followed when removing these historical statues. And those that deface or destroy them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as they say, up to and hopefully including thirty days in jail and restitution. But when we have the example of the Boston police today tweeting "Don't throw urine, cans or rocks," I'm thinking we've lost the will.

As to freedom from speech, we have that, don't we? Change the channel. Don't attend rallies led by hate groups. Or, if a rally turns INTO sound bites we don't like? Hey, if we don't like the party, we can get up and leave. As to your wife, I'm thinkin' you're pretty much stuck there...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the welcome Maggie,

I totally agree with due process and prosecution of those who destroy such items.

Not really sure what happened in Boston today had to do with statues but with tens of thousands of people turning out to resist hate with no property damage reported. Seemed pretty willful, heck, even did Trump proud. The hate groups forgot to show.

I don't have a problem with hate groups expressing their free speech. I kind of get a chuckle out of it when I see a big tuff talking guy like that Cantwell dude talking tough about killing others and then making a fool of himself whimpering like a baby when he heard there may be a warrant for his arrest and he was afraid he might get killed.

It can be a bit difficult to change the channel when they import their hate to an otherwise peaceful community and if you're willing to change the channel on people like that who sanction murder then I feel sorry for you.

Not sure what wife you are referring to...is that an offer?
 
dyb773flop said:
Thank you for the welcome Maggie,

I totally agree with due process and prosecution of those who destroy such items.

Not really sure what happened in Boston today had to do with statues but with tens of thousands of people turning out to resist hate with no property damage reported. Seemed pretty willful, heck, even did Trump proud. The hate groups forgot to show.

I don't have a problem with hate groups expressing their free speech. I kind of get a chuckle out of it when I see a big tuff talking guy like that Cantwell dude talking tough about killing others and then making a fool of himself whimpering like a baby when he heard there may be a warrant for his arrest and he was afraid he might get killed.

It can be a bit difficult to change the channel when they import their hate to an otherwise peaceful community and if you're willing to change the channel on people like that who sanction murder then I feel sorry for you.

Not sure what wife you are referring to...is that an offer?
Click to expand...

D, I think I'm gunna like having you around...
 
soylentgreen said:
If i walk into a certain shop and get discretely handed a plain paper bag containing nude pictures of children it is called child pornography and is illegal. If i walk into the louvre and study paintings of nude children it is called art and is legal. Can you tell me what the difference is?
Click to expand...

If I walk into the louvre I won't be seeing children that were exploited to show sexual acts. I'll be seeing children that came from someones imagination painted onto a canvas, usually to denote either evil being done or about goodness and innocence. Child pornography on the other hand is explicitly about exploiting children for the sexual pleasure of perverts. Usually done against the child's wishes or full knowledge of just what it means to have sex.
 
dyb773flop said:
Doubtful that you will be handed anything in a brown paper bag considered child pornography, that would be found in the louvre, much less a statue.

A statue that I am considering to be art would be so whether in a town square, a museum or something you stumble across in a brown paper bag.

I suppose if you can show me anywhere in either an accepted dictionary definition or court case where child pornography is considered to be art, I shall modify my thesis...in the mean time I submit that you're making a bit of a subjective reach.
Click to expand...

No, it is not to be fouind in anything so mundane as a dictionary. It can be found though in the very words you have just used. In bold and especially underlined. Art is what you consider it to be. Art is the perfect example of one mans floor is anothers ceiling.

Another good example is the girl and bull on wall street. Is it just art or is someone making a political statement?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If I walk into the louvre I won't be seeing children that were exploited to show sexual acts. I'll be seeing children that came from someones imagination painted onto a canvas, usually to denote either evil being done or about goodness and innocence. Child pornography on the other hand is explicitly about exploiting children for the sexual pleasure of perverts. Usually done against the child's wishes or full knowledge of just what it means to have sex.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct but that is not the point to be drawn fom this.
If you walk into the louvre and admire the brush strokes and technique of a nude painting it is art. If you sit there and start to mastubate over it it is then porn.
The point here is that no one can argue that these statues must remain because they are art. Art is and is only is a personal choice.
 
soylentgreen said:
If i walk into a certain shop and get discretely handed a plain paper bag containing nude pictures of children it is called child pornography and is illegal. If i walk into the louvre and study paintings of nude children it is called art and is legal. Can you tell me what the difference is?
Click to expand...

Context.


Sally Man already asked and answered this question.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it is not to be fouind in anything so mundane as a dictionary. It can be found though in the very words you have just used. In bold and especially underlined. Art is what you consider it to be. Art is the perfect example of one mans floor is anothers ceiling.

Another good example is the girl and bull on wall street. Is it just art or is someone making a political statement?
Click to expand...

So you don't have anything other than your belief that child porn is art to make the argument...to each his or her own.

As to "just art" or "political statement" that "or" would tend to require some research since I am ignorant of that to which you refer, however, I'm guessing I might see it as both art and a political statement.
 
soylentgreen said:
If you sit there and start to mastubate over it it is then porn.
The point here is that no one can argue that these statues must remain because they are art. Art is and is only is a personal choice.
Click to expand...

Please don't.

My argument is not necessarily remain where they are because they are art...simply not destroyed.

Perhaps another is is moment?
 
We just need to get past the hysteria and hatred and get on with life.
 
dyb773flop said:
So you don't have anything other than your belief that child porn is art to make the argument...to each his or her own.

As to "just art" or "political statement" that "or" would tend to require some research since I am ignorant of that to which you refer, however, I'm guessing I might see it as both art and a political statement.
Click to expand...

No thats just you trying to be pedantic and an admission that you have no clue what so ever about the bull and the girl on wall street. My other example.
Not to mention your missing the point about art and what is art. Two people staring at the same statue of a confederate soldier. One sees art the other sees politics. Both are right. Therefor no one should argue that the statues remain becasue they are art. That is simply a subjective opinion.
 
Antifa destroying Civil War monuments is equivalent to ISIS blowing up historical artifacts.

These morons are trying to erase history, but they won't succeed any more than ISIS will.

And they're sowing hatred just like ISIS is.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. These loony leftists are doing a gigantic disservice to the entire human race.
 
dyb773flop said:
Greetings all, it's been years since I've joined in one of these forums.
Been doing a lot of ranting, raving, laughing, etc. at my television and a bit of personal writing that might be fun to debate, I look forward to it.

My day started with writing in my notebook:

All Art should be preserved
Monuments are Art

Along with freedom of speech
Should come freedom from speech

In other words, on the monument issue, those under debate could be moved to a more appropriate place of honor.

Create National Parks (or local) perhaps around graveyards and battlefields that are relevant.

Whatever the location, it should minimize the in your face aspect of freedom of speech as society moves along.

Or auction the suckers off and make them collectables, lol.



Since writing that I've gained in my education e.g. one monument here in Arizona got tarred and feathered and another painted (news to me we were a part of the confederacy even worth documenting).

Also, what about stone mountain? Can't move it...decorate it with other historical relics from a past history that shouldn't be denied...people can chose to enjoy the other features of the park and ignore the museum...or stop and learn some history...freedom of speech...freedom from speech.
Click to expand...

Culture cannot have the most neurotic people making the decisions about art for everyone. These decisions should be made by the healthy people with the neurotic taught to deal with their unconscious problems. Statues and art are inanimate objects. If you give these power over you that is called idol worship. The life of the statue is imaginary and connected to unconscious projection, where unconscious contents shine onto reality, to be made conscious.

The reason those on the left are afraid of the statues from the past is because of their own unconscious guilt due to being Democrats. They are consciously taught to see themselves a holier then thou.. However, unconsciously their cannot justify the historic past of the Democratic party. It was the party of slavey and atrocity The atrocities of that past is projected into the art, with them unable to cope due to their Democratic party belief system.

The Republicans are not projecting the same way, since their past was positive in terms of slavery, so they do not see anything unconsciously wrong in the statue. The statue does not come to life based on projected guilt.
 
soylentgreen said:
No thats just you trying to be pedantic and an admission that you have no clue what so ever about the bull and the girl on wall street. My other example.
Not to mention your missing the point about art and what is art. Two people staring at the same statue of a confederate soldier. One sees art the other sees politics. Both are right. Therefor no one should argue that the statues remain becasue they are art. That is simply a subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you at least got the point that I'm ignorant as regards the bull.

I also understand that you must believe that child porn is art to have even made your argument.

I already addressed your "remain because they are art" comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom