I think the objection being implicitly raised by GP here was rather of the problem of 'at what human flaw should we stop toppling statues and celebrations as we update our morals over time? '.
It appears to be a valid question, in that slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
Where does one draw the line then? Clinton has done plenty of awful stuff; I can totally imagine that in the future plenty of people will name stuff after her if she has a decent presidential term.
No, because a while back we passed a law that all things must be named after Reagan. I'm just waiting for the Ronald Reagan Memorial Lavatory to show up at a highway rest stop...
One draws the line wherever one draws the line. You have your own line, no doubt. mlinksva is stating his/hers. Intelligent people can disagree. It's completely subjective.
Indeed. I would not mind if naming things after individual humans was seen as profane and never done. But I have a far, far lesser goal: ending the naming of things after humans who have claimed to own other human beings.