Jump to content
Cato

Flag Desecration

Recommended Posts

Guest JAG

Bro, it's never okay to beat someone up except maybe to protect innocent people from harm.

 

Or if you're getting paid, like in UFC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or if you're getting paid, like in UFC!

Voluntary mutual consent. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major SG51 US Military~because it does not stand for ideology and actions of individuals. it represents a country, a nation. people can not change the definition of words or objects to their own personal liking. It is what it is. As for it being illegal....I don't care one way or not. It is the flag of the country I live in, therefore I should respect it. If people can not respect the flag that represents the nation they live in whether citizen or alien...Maybe they should ask themselves why they live here, instead of desecrating it for their own personal reasons of dislike, protest or what have you and think of the possibility that by desecrating the flag they are desecrating themselves...their home. Who desecrates their own home?

(SG51 is his nickname. I have no idea how he got this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major SG51 US Military~because it does not stand for ideology and actions of individuals. it represents a country, a nation. people can not change the definition of words or objects to their own personal liking. It is what it is. As for it being illegal....I don't care one way or not. It is the flag of the country I live in, therefore I should respect it. If people can not respect the flag that represents the nation they live in whether citizen or alien...Maybe they should ask themselves why they live here, instead of desecrating it for their own personal reasons of dislike, protest or what have you and think of the possibility that by desecrating the flag they are desecrating themselves...their home. Who desecrates their own home?

(SG51 is his nickname. I have no idea how he got this)

I'm not sure why you'd post something from someone else who doesn't even agree with you. All he's given is a common-sense recommendation on how one ought to behave. He does not argue for making it illegal.

Edited by Cato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you'd post something from someone else who doesn't even agree with you.

But I agree with what he says towards the end. When you desecrate the flag. You desecrate your home for your petty little pointless debating, protest, for fun, other sick jokes or challenges. It is disgusting.

And this debate here. Is a pointless debate. Same with some others. Now, if you dont mind, im gonna go write a forum thread elsewhere and leave this petty debate.

Signed,

Nemesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I agree with what he says towards the end. When you desecrate the flag. You desecrate your home for your petty little pointless debating, protest, for fun, other sick jokes or challenges. It is disgusting.

You said that it should be illegal. You've yet to defend this stance once.

You've just talked about how horrible it is. It's as if you think those of us who view it as a form of free speech think it's right or proper to go around burning flags. You're just ranting like a lunatic about how bad flag desecration is as if that wasn't common knowledge. We are arguing about its legal status.

 

Edited by Zabby
Edited out parts that violate civility rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, for people who think that burning an american flag is disrespectful, how do y'all feel about turning the flag into clothing? That's always weirded me out, honestly. If we're not okay with the flag touching the ground, how can we be okay with it touching sensitive parts of our body for fashion or fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, for people who think that burning an american flag is disrespectful, how do y'all feel about turning the flag into clothing? That's always weirded me out, honestly. If we're not okay with the flag touching the ground, how can we be okay with it touching sensitive parts of our body for fashion or fun?

That isnt as bad.but it should be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You apparently don't care that SOLDIERS DIED FOR YOU SO YOU HAVE FREAKING FREEDOM! That is just sick.

On a side note, im sure multiple marines and others would love to beat up those that burn or mess up a perfectly fine flag. Now if the flag is ripped and that, bring it to the National Guard or something.

 

 

It is disrespectful to those who died fightinng for our freedom. If you think it is ok to desecrate the flag. You arent a real US citizen

 

 

Goodluck with throwing a patriotic man in jail. He/she would have been trying to save the flag. Plus, it would take a lot just to detain a veteran

 

Patriotism - A Menace to Liberty by Emma Goldman and read by Sandra Oh.

 

Edited by C. Ingram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, for people who think that burning an american flag is disrespectful, how do y'all feel about turning the flag into clothing? That's always weirded me out, honestly. If we're not okay with the flag touching the ground, how can we be okay with it touching sensitive parts of our body for fashion or fun?

 

Do. Not. Like. 

 

Granted, in my mind there are levels of sin here. Actually taking an american flag, cutting it up and turning it into a pair of pants is super distasteful. Yoga pants bearing old glory? *sigh* Terrible. But less cringe worthy. For me its kind of the same as when Forever 21 sells "rosaries" in it's jewelry section as a fashion statement. Or when people kept buying leggings with golden crosses on them. I'm not gonna stop them from buying em but it's tacky and disrespectful. 

 

It's just about reverence and respect I suppose. And again, there are levels. I don't have a problem with people wearing flag themed or patriotic clothing. I don't mind if you make clothing in likeness to the flag just like... if you legitimatly take a pair of kitchen shears to one and turn it into a poncho. v_v

 

Kid_rock.jpg

Edited by Marley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriotism - A Menace to Liberty by Emma Goldman and read by Sandra Oh.

 

 

That's a really good video, though I was hoping it was going to be spoken word poetry.

 

That's all I wanted to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Out of curiosity, for people who think that burning an american flag is disrespectful, how do y'all feel about turning the flag into clothing? That's always weirded me out, honestly. If we're not okay with the flag touching the ground, how can we be okay with it touching sensitive parts of our body for fashion or fun?

 

I really.  Really. Want an American flag suit :D  I could business so hard in one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you do if you were a soldier and you saw someone laughing and burning the flag??

 

i think i would be dissapointed in that man. and dislike him. nothing more. why would i do anything more? he's just burning a bit of cloth with a little sensitive value in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it should be illegal, it falls under freedom of speech, a way to protest. I do see it as kind of disrespectful, physical violence is not a logical option to go with if this were happening. Personally I like the idea the flag itself is supposed to symbolize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It is protected by Freedom of Speech. 

 

Does an act which intentionally serves to symbolically denigrates the system which provides free speech actually fall within that system? Is it not perhaps the case that defying a symbol of free speech amounts to forfeiting that right? (Not saying for sure this is how it works, but it's worth consideration.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does an act which intentionally serves to symbolically denigrates the system which provides free speech actually fall within that system? Is it not perhaps the case that defying a symbol of free speech amounts to forfeiting that right? (Not saying for sure this is how it works, but it's worth consideration.)

You either have free speech or you don't, it is not conditional.

Before someone says "but you can't say 'fire' in a crowded theater, yes, whatever, and I can ban the word " potatoes" in my house, it's private property.

I know because I actually have banned the word potatoes in my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You either have free speech or you don't, it is not conditional.

 

 

OK, then maybe limited speech is better than free speech. Giving a legal term an extreme definition--that has never actually practiced in any jurisprudence worth mentioning--doesn't change what policies are actually best, it just makes people talk past each other.

 

 

Before someone says "but you can't say 'fire' in a crowded theater, yes, whatever, and I can ban the word " potatoes" in my house, it's private property.

 

 

It isn't about private property. It's about the consequences of words. Libel, threat, and seditious speech are and almost always have been illegal.

 

Freedom of speech is a good thing not as a deontological principle but because societies with free speech work better than those without. There are limits to that benefit, however, and the law has always functionally realized this.

 

Does an act which intentionally serves to symbolically denigrates the system which provides free speech actually fall within that system? Is it not perhaps the case that defying a symbol of free speech amounts to forfeiting that right? (Not saying for sure this is how it works, but it's worth consideration.)

 

 

That said, free speech has typically been an issue in contexts where the king is threatened by public criticism, so he shuts it down. Freedom of speech is predicated to a large extent on the idea that society runs better when you are allowed to criticize its institutions. Therefore, it pretty much defeats the point of free speech if you then say "but the king still gets a free pass (enforced with violence) if he defends free speech."

 

And that's pretty much what this anti-flag-burning argument is saying. This is especially true since most flag-burners aren't protesting "the state" or "free speech" but usually something more like "the war in Vietnam."

 

Of course it gets fuzzy when violent revolution is plausibly on the horizon, but that's a situation completely alien to real life.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×