The debate "Historical sites must be preserved" was started by
July 24, 2015, 2:34 am.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
spellbeechamp posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
spellbeechamp, thelogos, sloanstar1000, sabrina, toughgamerjerry, Adavion, illuminata, ferida1237, I_Voyager, omfgcandy, Thaboykiller, wmd, nonliberalllama, AstroSpace, thatdebatingchick, Prit, thisrisingtide, musejay1, The_lamp and 20 visitors agree.
PsychDave, pajrc1234 disagree.
While we must learn from history, there has to be a balance. Preserving something because it has cultural significance is important. Preserving something because it is old is not. History happens in all places at all times, but we still need to move on. I am not opposed to preserving important landmarks and cultural symbols, but just because a building is "historic" does not automatically confer great importance on it.
Destroying historical sites is immoral and bad as you will waste the effort of past civilisations.