Are you arguing that being a "grown up" means never offending other people? I'm really not trying to troll you, just not sure how to interpret your last sentence.

That's not what I said and that's not what I meant. Being a grown up means deciding what you want to offend people about. It means taking responsibility when you offend someone.

offending other people should never be the standard. By your definition we should ban South Park because it offends nearly everyone, so fsck your sensitivities.

The confederate flag should be banned because the kkk and other white supremacists adopted it, rebranded it as their own flag, and most importantly, no one cared to stop them. Try that with the Irish flag and see what the Irish have to say about it.

> "By your definition we should ban South Park because it offends nearly everyone, so fsck your sensitivities."

My standard is: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? Someone could make a case that South Park has done this, but it would be hard for me to take it seriously.

The southern states seceded to preserve slavery; slavery was and is evil and they were wrong to secede in order to preserve it. But secession was and is constitutional, given the Tenth Amendment and no constitutional provisions against secession or mandating a perpetual union; the states had a right to do it, even though it was wrong.

The southern armies did not fight for slavery: it was legal in the United States before, during and after the war. They did not even fight for independence: the seceding states were legally independent as soon as their secessions took effect. Rather, they fought to defend their homes from a foreign invader.

Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible; fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy.

Edit: That said, given that the flag in question is so closely associated with white supremacy, it is hard to be too incensed over the ban.

Of note, slavery remained legal in the United States until well after the military defeat of the Confederacy: Lee surrendered on the 9th of April; the last Confederate ship surrendered in England on the 6th of November; the 13th Amendment making most slavery unconstitutional was not ratified until the 6th of December.

> "Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: "

Agree

> "secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible;"

Agree

> "fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy."

Lost me here. Fighting in self defense is understandable and necessary sometimes, but in defense of what principles? Context cannot be ignored.

Protecting your family for a foreign invading army, Sure some rich folks have slave, but what do i have to do with it? Shouldn't i protect my home from invaders?

That's completely understandable. I'm talking about how to view the statues and flags and things that people are still defending.

because its their ancestors their land and their pride.

in your eyes they fought to preserve slavery, in their they fought bravely against the more powerful north to preserve their homes.

Their homes wouldn't have been at risk except that their leaders (elected leaders!) decided to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery.

And your point is? They shouldn't fight an invasion because of their leaders? they should just let themselves be pillaged?