“As I said before, there is no standard set of guidelines for qualification.”
You said that, and I told you that you were wrong. Here you ignore what went before, simply renewing your incorrect assertion. That is what Alinsky said to do.
“You’re applying your own criteria”
Alinsky says to isolate your opponent. You’re really conversant with his precepts.
“and seem to be outraged”
Alinsky says to mock your opponent. You’ve really got that down.
“your criteria are not accepted as the law of the land”
The criteria I apply are those of tradition and long practice in the United States.
“I and most other rational people believe that human slavery is an evil which should be eliminated”
Black slavery in America *was* eliminated, approximately 150 years ago, so what in the world are you on about? Or was that just an opportunity to imply that I must condone and even wish for the restoration of black slavery? Who cares if it’s true, right, as long as it’s insulting?
“I have no idea…don’t see the relevance...?
Well, you should.
“And no one now living was a soldier in the Civil War—the only reason US Grant has a place on US currency.”
Is there no end to this nonsense? I can detect no respect for the truth whatsoever (And no, I shouldn’t). The argument about “no one now living” was not applied to the selection of portraits for our money. That argument applied solely to the question of unjustified resentment among living people against the actions of people long dead. Here you are applying a statement about one thing to a completely different argument. Since we’re not allowed to “mind read,” I will not speculate as to your motives for this nauseatingly dishonest conduct.
“You realize, of course, that your argument can be applied to any figure currently portrayed on US currency?”
If the speaker is willing to be dishonest, then yes, that could be said. Of course, it would be as off-target as when you made the same error.
“You keep referring to some imagined humiliation”
Go, Alinsky. Rah, rah, rah. He says to ignore or mock any actual support your opponent may present, especially if it makes you look like an idiot.
“you still haven’t explained why you find this humiliating, or provided any concrete example of the humiliation taking place.”
That statement is entirely contrary to the facts. Let’s see, what do we call it when somebody says something he knows to be false?
“What is humiliating about the fact that a US president who lived long before your time or mine will be moved to the back of the $20, while a deserving black woman is portrayed on the front?”
1. As explained, you have misapplied an argument in one context to a completely different matter. Jackson is a significant historical figure.
2. Once again, Tubman’s achievements, even contributing to 600,000 unnecessary deaths, do not rise to the level required of those which qualify one to be on our currency.
“I can’t see a reason for such insecurity.”
With Alinsky, one is never stuck for a dishonest ploy. If you don’t have an actual argument to make, just reach down into the sludge at the bottom of the dumpster, pull out a dripping handful of bullshit, close your eyes, and fling it.
“To quote your own words, GTF over it, already.”
Oh, and the signature ploy of the leftist: the false moral equivalence.
I said GTF over something that ended 150 years ago. You said GTF over something that is happening today.
“humiliate the extraordinarily sensitive”
Alinsky. Mock.
“while the rest of us”
Alinsky. Isolate.
“are “drooling morons” who are “deluded, insane or stupid”.
I didn’t come up with this, you know, and saying I did won’t make it so. Enough people have written on this that your “the rest of us” is just a fantasy.
“And now you attempt to divert the conversation”
V.I. Lenin. Accuse others of what you do.
“as if the mere use of the word entitles you to call me “Boris”.
I am entitled to call you Boris because I am a free man. The things you have posted make it appropriate to call you Boris.
“This is laughable.”
Alinsky. Mock.
“Any escaped slave of any skin color is obviously not going to have the same privileges as a free person born into wealth.”
And is therefore highly unlikely to achieve anything to make her worthy to be on our money. Thanks for making my argument.
“It seems to me that the problem isn’t with the rest of us.”
What “us?” You got Hillarius Rodina Clintesterone in your pocket? Or, more likely, are you in hers?
Alinsky. Isolate.
“The kind of political hyper-sensitivity you exhibit is normally the domain of 18 year old college liberals looking for safe spaces to escape nasty trigger words which humiliate them. I assume the word “privilege” is one of yours.”
Alinsky. Mock.
You failed even to mount a single argument against my position. What a waste of time.
I’m done with this. I came to FR so I wouldn’t have to argue with liberals.