donald trump is trying to kill you

You are just young, like many of the people that have your beliefs, who grew up with internet access their whole lives.

Even with this in mind. I will still hold these views in the future. Reason is because I have a standard which is required for me to change my mind. It require a good enough claim, evidence and explanation in order for me to change my mind. Since I have enough knowledge I can safely say I would never be a right-winger.

Just seeing pictures, and reading books, don't do them justice.  

It can go either way on statues and monuments, you can read a book, or see a picture of a monument, then want to go see it in person... or you can see it in person, then want to go read about it.  I don't know why you are arguing that fact with me. 

 it just makes more of an impact seeing a huge statue in person than taking a picture and tearing it down.  This is opinion and not really something that can be debated.  You have given no supporting evidence that monuments do not create interest, because there isn't any.  It is an opinion.

We disagree on the importance of historical monuments, it is as simple as that. 

Age is probably one of the reasons we disagree. 

I did not say we should destroy books

I never said you did. I am saying your argument is A is good because it can lead to B. Monuments are good because it can lead what you want to do with your life.
If I said will earlier then I was wrong. It should be can lead to not will lead to.

but you are partly doing that too when you destroy the physical history of our country.  

Places of the Berlin Wall still stand, you know why?  People want to see it. 

There are many pictures and many books regarding it, why still have it? 

Because it is a major attraction, it is now a monument to remember History.

Kids can ask parents about it, schools can go see it, learn more about it and enjoy a nice field trip at the same time.  

Places of the Berlin Wall still stand, you know why?

Because it is a "wall" monument of a 'wall' aka concrete barrier, and not a monument of a person. 

A concrete wall, ---or barbed wire fence or land mines---   as a barrier to the free, flow-of-people,  has a substantially  more physically visual and emotional impact on people tourists or otherwise.

Comparing a historical wall of physical imprisoment to historical statue a man or woman is not a fair assessment.

Walking into Alcatraz prison ---off coast of California or anywhere else--- and imagining the emotional and pychologicalogical feelings is so much more relevant than a statue of human.  Statues of humans is about ego.

Ego { * i * }  of general statue vs boots { * @ * } on the ground fort they had to climb over the walls.  

A is better than B, so B must be destroyed? 

Which is what you are saying

Even though, some people appreciate B? 

And some people despise B, but no one who is actually living today, lived during that time period.

 A span of 180 years is different than a span of 40 years,

 If people were still living and went through what they thought was a devastating time and they remembered it, I would be all for taking them down,

but it lasted. Now it is in the past, and we need to remember, not destroy. 

Are people who elect to protest a potential course of action considered as members of society?

Are people who elect to protest? 

So do you support Trump?

How about Hillary vs Trump?

Overly Broad, and may take hours to answer

I mean overall. I am sure you have already thought about this so who would you pick on everything you know? You at the end of saying who you would pick state a reason if you want. 

Are people who elect to protest a potential course of action considered as members of society?

Are people who elect to protest? 

Please to clear up what you mean there. 

I meant in the sense of making a choice to protest.

is that if there really were legitimate protesters among the group portrayed as white nationalists, its essentially a violation of our commitment to free speech to associate them as unreasonable on a political basis.

The unite the right rally was based on far right ideas so if you mean "legitimate" protesters being people who don't associate with that then they were in the wrong protest and in this context would be illegitimate protesters since that rally was based on far-right ideas.  

So all of the people protesting the government or whatever were wrong, and all of the people protesting the protesters were far right wing, and correct? 

How did you get this? Where did I make a value statement on government or the far right?

I think you should consider that you might have been conned.

So all of the people protesting the government or whatever were wrong, and all of the people protesting the protesters were far right wing, and correct? 

How did you get this? Where did I make a value statement on government or the far right?

I think you should consider that you might have been conned.

I think you should consider when you don't know what you are talking about and put words into my mouth without asking for my actual position. 

Far-Right is assumed to be a relative outlier.  The rally was "based on far right ideas", therefore we can dismiss everyone in attendance as far right.  There is established context surrounding a statue.

Where did I make a value statement on government or the far right?

Reread, in a more temperate tone I guess?  I'm actually trying not to put words in your mouth. 

Reread, in a more temperate tone I guess?  I'm actually trying not to put words in your mouth. 

You say I have been conned without showing evidence. 

 So you are saying that anyone who believes that the statue's should stay up is in no way a fine person?

Never made the claim. If the society deems the statues to be good then who am I to judge.

A, just that B must be destroyed without consulting the constituents of the town.

Anyway, I think there were fine people on both sides.

I would appreciate an apology.

Okay, tell me what a value statement is.

would appreciate an apology.

I think you should d*e. What do you say about that?

Value statement: Government + Far Right

That sounds unhealthy.  If its not meant matter of factly, it would be nice if you conveyed sincerely how you now understand it was wrong

Previous conversation implied that government could be utilized to certain aspirations, and that the far right is perceived as having little to know value, though that may or may not be translatable out of context.

Its a suggestion, to consider, what may or may not be.  I'm not saying that thinking absolves my statement of thought

I got to this position by seeing if I was right or wrong. I wasn't a liberal or progressive for my entire life and since I got here due to a standard I apply. I know that I am not being "conned" because conservatives failed to meet the guideline of have a good claim, evidence and explanation.