Is Flag Burning a Good Method of Expression of Political Views? (school, education)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, but I never suggested that we ignore anyone. I've already stipulated that I, as well as you, want to get to the 'why' that is expressed through behavior. Discernible context is how that's achieved. Burning the flag provides no context. Burning the flag because <insert reason> provides a basis for discussion.
I don't dispute the factors you presented regarding causation of the Civil War or Civil Rights movement, so I'd appreciate your not indirectly lumping me in with the folks who deny or ignore such things.
The "rage of BLM" as you put it is an overly broad wording, though I'd be happy to discuss the intricacies of the movement with you either privately or in a new thread if you're interested. I enjoy reading your posts in general.
Yes, rage can lead to all sorts of actions (re: flag burning), but as flag burning is a symptom of rage in your example it becomes imperative that we know the cause of the underlying rage so that we (hopefully) may confront and rectify it together.
For the final time, and with respect:
Context matters.
I also want to understand the 'why' factor, but I need context to do so.
I don't think that you and I disagree on this point really.
Good post. But other posters here have said when they see a flag burned, then they don't want to know why.
Good post. But other posters here have said when they see a flag burned, then they don't want to know why.
Then they should abstain from the conversation if they're being honest with themselves. We cannot compel them to abdicate their thoughts or opinions, of course, but we can mutually condemn them for producing an argument from ignorance. Exercising rights, after all, does not constitute immunity from consequences.
Then they should abstain from the conversation if they're being honest with themselves. We cannot compel them to abdicate their thoughts or opinions, of course, but we can mutually condemn them for producing an argument from ignorance. Exercising rights, after all, does not constitute immunity from consequences.
In any event, I just don't understand why protesters seem to think offending or inconveniencing people is a good idea. Reminds me of when Black Lives Matter tied up Manhattan traffic just before Thanksgiving 2014. My son was on his way into New York City by bus from Lehigh University and I was on my way to pick him up at Port Authority. His bus took three hours to make it from Liberty Airport in Newark to New York. I never made it in since the traffic was, as shown by MapQuest gridlocked all the way from NYC back to Mamaroneck in Westchester County. Fortunately I reached my son, an intelligent, resourceful 18 year old at the time and he walked across town to Grand Central Terminal. I picked him up at the Metro North Station in Larchmont.
Do you think I was influenced favorably towards BLM?
Flag burning has a similar effect on people; it either enrages or disgusts them or at best their neutral. I'm not going to say, "those people must really hate Trump so so will I." The question for debate is whether flag burning is a good way to express political views. I submit that it is not.
For one thing, I do not think that protests is typically a good way of expressing political views. Flag burning is a pretty effective way to protest, so logically, it's value as political speech is low as a result.
The reason I say protests is ineffective is becasue it's just a mob of people. Some protests are effective, to be clear. Gandhi led successful protests. Martin Luther King Jr. lead successful protests. But this is becasue they were arguing something obvious. That might seem ridiculous, but let's compare BLM to MLK. What's the difference? Both are black rights movements correct? Well no, MLK argued for civil rights. There's no real question as to who it was for, but unlike BLM, everyone already actually agreed with MLK. No one doesn't think civil rights are important and all MLK was arguing was that they should logically be applied universally. Because it was for something that was, and I hate this term, self evident, it was proper political speech. It motivated something effective and real.
BLM does not have that because they're barely arguing anything. Sure, they think black people are valued less, but in reality, this isn't necessarily true. Black people may struggle more but this not the result of their lives being less valuable. And let's face it, they act as if cops are just killing black people thoughtlessly, but the statistics show that a cop is far more likely to be killed by a black person that the other way around. The issue is that when it is addressed, it's called racist, but it's not as it's not making a racist claim. It's a statement of statistical fact. Because this is denied, when it's acceptance would be necessary for bettering the life of black people, the movement is exposed as being mostly fraudulent. If it's neither supporting something that is in some way obvious or arguing for something that need nor or cannot exist, it's not political speech and is instead just a mob of people.
That was a bit of a rant that may seem off topic, but the point was clear. Flag burning, while technically protected political speech, is ineffective political speech and in any proper context, not really political speech at all since it most likely resulted only in mob rule and is coming from some meaningless point. I suppose an exception is possible, but rare in this case.
There are 1000's who die for the flag(Soldiers, Cops) etc. Its an insult to them . They should be arrested.
Usually only extremists or illiterates do burn flags of other countries. These guys are taking it to a whole new level of stupidity.
Progress comes through education and knowledge.
Utter nonsense. No one dies for a piece of cloth. They may die to protect the principles that piece of cloth represents, but in the case of the US flag one of those principles is the right to speak freely and protest that which one sees wrong. And that includes burning the flag.
No it is not, and I seriously doubt that our Servicemen and women really fought for the rights of these idiots. My Father spent 4 years in the Pacific during World War II, and he did NOT defend the right to burn the flag. The interpretation of "free speech" in our nation is often ridiculous, as in this case.
Actually he did. Your father took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." That means all of it, even the parts his kid doesn't like seventy years later.
I agree with your wanting to know why, but again, the act of burning the flag on its own doesn't get us there. There is no context with which to discern the 'why.' I can burn the flag for any or no reason at all. Doing so does not facilitate the discussion that ought to be had.
I don't watch TV so perhaps you are referring to some event I am not aware of, but in the past when I saw flag burning going on it was done in conjunction with a protest over something like the Iraq war. It was very clear what the context was. I am not sure I have ever seen someone just randomly burn a flag. That seems kind of dumb to not make it clear what he/she was upset about.
I am not sure I see the need for discussion with the person. Burning a flag as part of a protest, for instance over Trump's immigration policy, is more of an exclamation mark. The protesters are saying they are not just upset, they are REALLY upset. I get it. It is a form of expressing severe displeasure.
Actually he did. Your father took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." That means all of it, even the parts his kid doesn't like seventy years later.
He did not agree with the right to burn flags, and neither do I. You can spin it any way you want to- it's still wrong- period.
No one is burning your friends flag in spite of him.
And if you believe in the freedoms the flag represents, you must accept the freedom to burn the flag or risk being hypocritical.
The people represent and vote for the government. The flag represents the government just the same as the general population. The government is a literal reflection of the people. No?
What people are really saying is that they are more than frustrated with the government/policies/social climate of the nation. Civil unrest is a historical sign of deeper issues. To look at millions of protesters with disgust is merely showcasing your apathy toward issues that may not directly affect you and/or a ignorance of history.
Conversely....... don't try to force your ideals on me. If you want to protest a certain policy the government is doing.........burn a copy of that policy..........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
