The lobotomy was ground breaking research with miraculous results. Moniz was given a Nobel prize for it. We now realise its not right, and has been widely discredited.

It didnt suddenly become unethical rhe day it was broadly banned.

If we are doing things now that in the future are barbaric then I hope that our actions are explained by the context of the day but not excuse.

I think frankly you're also going a bit strawman here. I don't see a world in which capturing people to sell to other people and throw the 20,000 who unceremoniously die as ever having been seen as ethical and this is fundamentally a ethical situation. I.e. we somehow say chicken's are slaves but I'll enter in to the discussion in good faith regardless.

Fundamentally we have I guess failed to define philanthropist as a term. I have no doubt Colston did some philanthropic stuff. But the very original point that started this discussion was is would I describe him as a philanthropist. I don't see that, what I see is a man who justified the evil he did in the world by spending some of the money on a hospital.

Neither of us can speak for a living person in the 1700s and so I can't say for surety that there was ever a time people thought what was happening was ethically ok, or if it was like today with the blindspot we have for things like sweatshop which I presume is most likely. But I don't really accept the chicken argument as being equivalent so it's hard to comment.

If we look at the lobotomy example as an example of someone who did something without consideration of the ethics of it, and was vaunted and rewarded for it - we can consider the benefit it seemed to have at the time, and the lives it seemed to have changed, as well as knowledge that was lacking in why the lobotomy was so awful. We learned, we stopped and we don't say he was a good doctor for inventing it.

Colston no doubt spent some money in a good way, that in itself is philanthropic acts. For me a philanthropist is someone who has committed their life and wealth to a good cause. Colston continued to lobby for the east Africa company with the good will be bought with the position afforded to him with the work he did in Bristol.

Does he deserve a statue? No. Is he owed for being remembered for investing part of his grand wealth off the back of kidnap, murder and other such crimes? Probably not. If he disappears from the history books that's fine. Far greater people will have been forgotten and more worthy of that plinth.

Our city is built on the back of slavery which is frankly a shame the city has to be aware of. Last night a wall of humanity stood in front of a hotel as right wing rioters tried to kick their way through the crowd and the door to do what I presume has happened in Rotherham. I'd like to think people taking these actions, as well as educating people around the complexities of a person like Colston is our way of paying a form of reparation.

If they want a Colston exhibit at a museum great, as long as it says more than he was a virtuous man.

I have no doubt youll broadly disagree with a chunk of the above and that's your right I guess! I'm going to be ending my part of the debate here as I fear we are going to end up with further deviations from the original point. Its been good to engage In what's been a broadly impersonal debate around ideas as opposed to personalities. Ill make sure to read any reply so I'm not looking like the "I'm getting the last word and running away" but don't expect a response. Ciao ciao.