Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Flag burning?

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 6:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am for it for these reasons:
1. The Amendment would restrict people's freedom. Burning a flag in protest is indeed disrespectful to the country, but the prohibition of it would disrespect freedom.
2. Flag burnings are rare. The number of flag burnings in the United States is rare, with only 45 cases of it in US history.[5] The number of flag burnings have generally been non-existent in recent years, especially because of the new wave of patriotism that came after 9/11. The number of incidents in 2003 were six, in 2004 three, and 2005 twelve, most being cases of vandalism.[6]
3. It would put the country at par with the totalitarian regimes of other countries. Some countries that have bans on flag desecration include China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. The people who make this argument believe that the proposed Amendment would lower the United States to their levels, though many democratic countries such as France, Germany, and Italy also have bans on flag desecration.[7]
4. The wording in the Amendment is loose. Because the Amendment prohibits desecration of the flag, the word could mean anything, from Boy Scouts burning it in respectful retirement to blowing one's nose on a handkerchief that had the flag imprinted on it. The word "flag" is also vague, because it could also mean anything from a drawing to an imprint on a T-Shirt. [1]

Source: http://conservapedia.com... [1]

I will never do it, but other people should be allowed to do so. 1st amendment lol.

Also look at: http://www.aclu.org...

http://www.flagburning.org...

https://www.msu.edu...

lol I am just trying to prove a point. I think I'll piss off people though...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:05:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Possibly the only thing I agree with you on.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 6:44:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I am for it for these reasons:
1. The Amendment would restrict people's freedom. Burning a flag in protest is indeed disrespectful to the country, but the prohibition of it would disrespect freedom.
2. Flag burnings are rare. The number of flag burnings in the United States is rare, with only 45 cases of it in US history.[5] The number of flag burnings have generally been non-existent in recent years, especially because of the new wave of patriotism that came after 9/11. The number of incidents in 2003 were six, in 2004 three, and 2005 twelve, most being cases of vandalism.[6]
3. It would put the country at par with the totalitarian regimes of other countries. Some countries that have bans on flag desecration include China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. The people who make this argument believe that the proposed Amendment would lower the United States to their levels, though many democratic countries such as France, Germany, and Italy also have bans on flag desecration.[7]
4. The wording in the Amendment is loose. Because the Amendment prohibits desecration of the flag, the word could mean anything, from Boy Scouts burning it in respectful retirement to blowing one's nose on a handkerchief that had the flag imprinted on it. The word "flag" is also vague, because it could also mean anything from a drawing to an imprint on a T-Shirt. [1]

Source: http://conservapedia.com... [1]

I will never do it, but other people should be allowed to do so. 1st amendment lol.

Also look at: http://www.aclu.org...

http://www.flagburning.org...

https://www.msu.edu...

lol I am just trying to prove a point. I think I'll piss off people though...

1. lol what?
2. Doesn't change anything.
3. Your point?
4. Desecration of the flag is bad. Period.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:39:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:05:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Possibly the only thing I agree with you on.

Lol, this. Btw, when did you make the jump from leftist to Anarchist? And what pushed you over?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property. I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:39:33 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:05:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Possibly the only thing I agree with you on.

Lol, this. Btw, when did you make the jump from leftist to Anarchist? And what pushed you over?

Reading and conversating. If I had to pick a definite point (which is unlikely to be exact), I'd say it was a conversation I had with Cody via PM. Something clicked I guess, though I think it was only after completely immersing myself in the literature that I came to identify myself truly as an anarchist. And hey I still consider myself a leftist to a large degree. Though I guess that depends on one's definitions.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?
I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?
I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.

What if talking about politics starts a revolution that gets millions of people killed?

Should we ban political conversations?

What if suppressing the freedom to burn flags starts a revolution? That would be ironic...

These "maybe" questions could apply to just about anything. Your sort of logic is what leads to authoritarian government that severely limits freedom. But I'm sure you see yourself as the patriotic one here.

Ha.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?

Lol this is seriously priceless. It's so obvious you're just grasping at straws (to use the mafia vernacular) to hold on to your belief. If someone is lit on fire, that is the crime, that is aggressive.

What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?

First, it's almost completely impossible to determine what specifically causes a revolution. Second, there's still the question of if the revolution was itself justified. Third, this position completely neglects the position that people are indeed responsible for their actions. Aren't conservatives big into that? Fourth, and again same as the point about lighting a guy on fire, if the hypothetical revolution really isn't justified than that is punishable, not the guy who lit his flag on fire.

I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:51:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:49:19 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?

Lol this is seriously priceless. It's so obvious you're just grasping at straws (to use the mafia vernacular) to hold on to your belief. If someone is lit on fire, that is the crime, that is aggressive.
But what caused the crime?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?

First, it's almost completely impossible to determine what specifically causes a revolution. Second, there's still the question of if the revolution was itself justified. Third, this position completely neglects the position that people are indeed responsible for their actions. Aren't conservatives big into that? Fourth, and again same as the point about lighting a guy on fire, if the hypothetical revolution really isn't justified than that is punishable, not the guy who lit his flag on fire.
Assuming that it wasn't justified and is punishable, shouldn't the person who started it get the blame?
I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:43:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:33 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Lol, this. Btw, when did you make the jump from leftist to Anarchist? And what pushed you over?

Reading and conversating. If I had to pick a definite point (which is unlikely to be exact), I'd say it was a conversation I had with Cody via PM. Something clicked I guess, though I think it was only after completely immersing myself in the literature that I came to identify myself truly as an anarchist. And hey I still consider myself a leftist to a large degree. Though I guess that depends on one's definitions.

Yea, Cody was definitely one of the easier people to talk to since he wasn't frothing at the mouth over the topic. And by leftist, I mean someone who would support socialism, which is obviously at odds with Market Anarchism.

In any case, you definitely seemed to have honed your debating skills since the last time I was on the site.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:57:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:51:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:49:19 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?

Lol this is seriously priceless. It's so obvious you're just grasping at straws (to use the mafia vernacular) to hold on to your belief. If someone is lit on fire, that is the crime, that is aggressive.
But what caused the crime?

Wow, that makes sense. Except it proves too much and is completely at odds with conservatism which is the ideology you supposedly support. First, this ignores the enormous amount of calculation required of law enforcement in order to track the "real" culprit. Second and more importantly, the same reasoning can be used to support increasing welfare and governmental aid to vulnerable members of society since their poor economic conditions can be said to cause anything bad they do. Seems a lot like a liberal mindset. Then again that comes with it's own problems. There's the issue of paternalism and justification, the problems that a "nanny" state leads to as far as expanding the power of the state, and then right back to the issue of impossible calculation on the part of the government.

What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?

First, it's almost completely impossible to determine what specifically causes a revolution. Second, there's still the question of if the revolution was itself justified. Third, this position completely neglects the position that people are indeed responsible for their actions. Aren't conservatives big into that? Fourth, and again same as the point about lighting a guy on fire, if the hypothetical revolution really isn't justified than that is punishable, not the guy who lit his flag on fire.
Assuming that it wasn't justified and is punishable, shouldn't the person who started it get the blame?

Yes. That person should be punished for *wait for it* starting a violent and unjustified murderous revolution, not burning a flag. I assume you would also support the government banning the use of radio or the press since both are equally rallying to the point of sparking revolution. Atheistallegiance's point is especially relevant here.

I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:00:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:05:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Possibly the only thing I agree with you on.

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:01:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:51:29 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:43:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:33 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Lol, this. Btw, when did you make the jump from leftist to Anarchist? And what pushed you over?

Reading and conversating. If I had to pick a definite point (which is unlikely to be exact), I'd say it was a conversation I had with Cody via PM. Something clicked I guess, though I think it was only after completely immersing myself in the literature that I came to identify myself truly as an anarchist. And hey I still consider myself a leftist to a large degree. Though I guess that depends on one's definitions.

Yea, Cody was definitely one of the easier people to talk to since he wasn't frothing at the mouth over the topic. And by leftist, I mean someone who would support socialism, which is obviously at odds with Market Anarchism.

In any case, you definitely seemed to have honed your debating skills since the last time I was on the site.

In that case it's hard to say. I don't have a problem in theory with the mutualism of Benjamin Tucker or the socialism of Ptor Kropotkin, so long as A.) it is anarchistic and B.) so called socialist communes or societies do not unjustly interfere with those members of society who wish to interact in a more market oriented fashion. It's true I personally support a market economy over a socialist one as more economically viable and morally just, but that doesn't rule out what other people can do in a non-aggressive manor.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:06:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 11:01:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:51:29 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Yea, Cody was definitely one of the easier people to talk to since he wasn't frothing at the mouth over the topic. And by leftist, I mean someone who would support socialism, which is obviously at odds with Market Anarchism.

In any case, you definitely seemed to have honed your debating skills since the last time I was on the site.

In that case it's hard to say. I don't have a problem in theory with the mutualism of Benjamin Tucker or the socialism of Ptor Kropotkin, so long as A.) it is anarchistic and B.) so called socialist communes or societies do not unjustly interfere with those members of society who wish to interact in a more market oriented fashion. It's true I personally support a market economy over a socialist one as more economically viable and morally just, but that doesn't rule out what other people can do in a non-aggressive manor.

Well, I don't think you can have socialism and voluntarism at the same time. The very defining aspect of socialism is the pooling of resources through aggressive means (compulsory government taxation). Once the compulsory aspect goes away, you essentially have Capitalism, or a system based on contracts and consent.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:14:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 11:06:18 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/24/2011 11:01:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
In that case it's hard to say. I don't have a problem in theory with the mutualism of Benjamin Tucker or the socialism of Ptor Kropotkin, so long as A.) it is anarchistic and B.) so called socialist communes or societies do not unjustly interfere with those members of society who wish to interact in a more market oriented fashion. It's true I personally support a market economy over a socialist one as more economically viable and morally just, but that doesn't rule out what other people can do in a non-aggressive manor.

Well, I don't think you can have socialism and voluntarism at the same time. The very defining aspect of socialism is the pooling of resources through aggressive means (compulsory government taxation). Once the compulsory aspect goes away, you essentially have Capitalism, or a system based on contracts and consent.

I think it's possible, in the sense of anarcho-communism. Of course it depends on who's doing what as is the case of any political setup. Some anarcho socialists are essentially the same as market anarchists. They may have their own views on how they would have society or the economy setup, voluntarism reigns supreme. Benjamin Tucker would be a prime example. Profit, rent, and wages were descriptively wrong, however that didn't come up in his normative theory because voluntarism was first order. I think it's possible, and if a socialist society is voluntaristic, that's fine by me.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 12:04:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 11:14:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/24/2011 11:06:18 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/24/2011 11:01:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
In that case it's hard to say. I don't have a problem in theory with the mutualism of Benjamin Tucker or the socialism of Ptor Kropotkin, so long as A.) it is anarchistic and B.) so called socialist communes or societies do not unjustly interfere with those members of society who wish to interact in a more market oriented fashion. It's true I personally support a market economy over a socialist one as more economically viable and morally just, but that doesn't rule out what other people can do in a non-aggressive manor.

Well, I don't think you can have socialism and voluntarism at the same time. The very defining aspect of socialism is the pooling of resources through aggressive means (compulsory government taxation). Once the compulsory aspect goes away, you essentially have Capitalism, or a system based on contracts and consent.

I think it's possible, in the sense of anarcho-communism. Of course it depends on who's doing what as is the case of any political setup. Some anarcho socialists are essentially the same as market anarchists. They may have their own views on how they would have society or the economy setup, voluntarism reigns supreme. Benjamin Tucker would be a prime example. Profit, rent, and wages were descriptively wrong, however that didn't come up in his normative theory because voluntarism was first order. I think it's possible, and if a socialist society is voluntaristic, that's fine by me.

Well, people could certainly make their own voluntary societies that function more in line with communism than capitalism, but it just couldn't really operate under the definition of socialism or a state.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 12:34:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 12:04:11 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/24/2011 11:14:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:

I think it's possible, in the sense of anarcho-communism. Of course it depends on who's doing what as is the case of any political setup. Some anarcho socialists are essentially the same as market anarchists. They may have their own views on how they would have society or the economy setup, voluntarism reigns supreme. Benjamin Tucker would be a prime example. Profit, rent, and wages were descriptively wrong, however that didn't come up in his normative theory because voluntarism was first order. I think it's possible, and if a socialist society is voluntaristic, that's fine by me.

Well, people could certainly make their own voluntary societies that function more in line with communism than capitalism, but it just couldn't really operate under the definition of socialism or a state.

I think that's a misonception derived from a misunderstanding of what socialism is. Socialism doesn't necessarily fall under statism, though it's most popular strain (Communism) does. Defining socialism and the state as necessary recipricols ignores the tradition of anti-statist socialism e.g. syndicalism, anarcho communism, geoanarchism, etc.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 11:37:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?
I could go on....

What if words incite violence? Should that hypothetical pretext be a good reason to ban free speech? I certainly hope not, as it is a strawman in defence of censorship.

I don't think a single person who supports the right of flag burning to actually agree with the act itself. I'm sure you'll find that most people see it as infantile and counterproductive, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed within defined parameters. My only provision would be its ability to physically harm people and/or property because, well, its a fire and fires spread!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 1:30:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?
I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.

if they do light people on fire name 1 instance
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 2:35:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 1:30:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?
I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.

if they do light people on fire name 1 instance

http://www.freerepublic.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jm_notguilty
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 2:46:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 2:35:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?

I find it funny when conservatives make this assertion yet they support gun rights.

What if someone shoots someone while having target practice?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 2:52:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious whenever someone says they are "for flag burning" when they mean "for the right of someone else to burn a flag?"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 2:46:34 PM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 12/25/2011 2:35:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?

I find it funny when conservatives make this assertion yet they support gun rights.

What if someone shoots someone while having target practice?

lol disregard that. It was like 1 am when I posted that.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 8:30:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 2:52:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious whenever someone says they are "for flag burning" when they mean "for the right of someone else to burn a flag?"

No.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 10:02:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 12:34:15 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/25/2011 12:04:11 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Well, people could certainly make their own voluntary societies that function more in line with communism than capitalism, but it just couldn't really operate under the definition of socialism or a state.

I think that's a misonception derived from a misunderstanding of what socialism is. Socialism doesn't necessarily fall under statism, though it's most popular strain (Communism) does. Defining socialism and the state as necessary recipricols ignores the tradition of anti-statist socialism e.g. syndicalism, anarcho communism, geoanarchism, etc.

Well, the traditional use of the term Liberal is no longer applicable since Libertarian has replaced it, and the original term has taken on a whole new meaning. Socialism works the same way since its hardly ever used to describe forms of Anarchism, but instead governmental ownership and distribution of resources.

Most definitions listed in a Google search and in Wiki demonstrate this, and it's used that way by most people.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 10:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 2:52:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious whenever someone says they are "for flag burning" when they mean "for the right of someone else to burn a flag?"

no because the right to burn a flag is a given American right:first amendment. But personally I am against it. Like people are pro drug yet they are personally against it
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 10:52:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 2:35:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/25/2011 1:30:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:43:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 10:39:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's funny to me that it's the same group of people who claim to support property rights and free exchange who are also against people committing a completely non-aggressive act on their own property.
Non-agressive? That is questionable.
What if they light someone on fire while lighting the flag?
What if lighting the flag causes a revolution which kills millions of people?
I could go on....
I know I would never be able to say I support private property rights and capitalism while at the same time telling people what they can do with there own sh1t with a straight face.

if they do light people on fire name 1 instance

http://www.freerepublic.com...

you are pro gun rights (like me) and some people shoot themselves by accident
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross