frame

Burning the flag should be illegal.

Opening Argument

I'm totally against this. Burning a flag is freedom of speech, and no-one should be punished for doing so.
billpassednatbaronsagsrfannorthsouthkorea
  1. Burning the flag?

    20 votes
    1. Hang them by their toes!
      30.00%
    2. Freedom of speech!
      70.00%
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • People shouldn't be allowed to burn the flag, due to the un patriotic action.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • People shouldn't be allowed to burn the flag, due to the un patriotic action.
    It's what our founding fathers fought for. Burning any piece of cloth should be totally legal. Now if we were in an oppressive government...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • People shouldn't be allowed to burn the flag, due to the un patriotic action.
    Even if you disagree with flag burning people still have the right to do it. 
    natbaronsErfisflatWoodenWood
  • No, people have the right to burn flags. It is a right to not show patriotism to your country and not agree with their beliefs.
    Erfisflat
  • Freedom of speech enables people to burn their flag. This should be allowed, because it is part of Freedom of Speech.
    Erfisflat
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    edited August 17
    This is an argument of the Freedom of Speech versus the act of forfeiting your allegiance.  If you pledge your allegiance to the flag...then you burn that flag...just what exactly are you implying?  The implication is that you do NOT have allegiance to the flag and well...that's a problem.  If you have no allegiance to the flag then your allegiance to our Country comes into question naturally and rightfully so.  So while I don't think it should be illegal, I DO think it should be seen as a declaration of one's intent to leave the United States.

    There's your solution: "It's perfectly fine to burn the flag, just as long as you know that if you do it...you're leaving as per your implied statement of disloyalty.  I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonable to expect someone who has no loyalty or allegiance to the U.S. to GTFO.  It wouldn't be a punishment, more like buying a plane ticket.
    Erfisflat
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    This is an argument of the Freedom of Speech versus the act of forfeiting your allegiance.  If you pledge your allegiance to the flag...then you burn that flag...just what exactly are you implying?  The implication is that you do NOT have allegiance to the flag and well...that's a problem.  If you have no allegiance to the flag then your allegiance to our Country comes into question naturally and rightfully so.  So while I don't think it should be illegal, I DO think it should be seen as a declaration of one's intent to leave the United States.

    There's your solution: "It's perfectly fine to burn the flag, just as long as you know that if you do it...you're leaving as per your implied statement of disloyalty.  I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonable to expect someone who has no loyalty or allegiance to the U.S. to GTFO.  It wouldn't be a punishment, more like buying a plane ticket.
    Why should I have to leave? I'm not the lying govern (control) ment (mind).
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • What if our the founding fathers had been told to "just leave".
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat

    This may not be apparent to everyone in the U.S., but no one HAS to stay here...   No one is forced to be an American.  Anyone that doesn't like America can leave....anytime...for any reason.  Now this is a difficult concept to explain so I'll add some examples.  The U.S. is an organization, it's unlike any other organization of its type but an organization none-the-less.  That said...let's imagine, if you will, that you're attending a PTA meeting and you wholly and fully hate the PTA.  Let's say you outwardly say "F$%! the PTA" and take their flyers and symbol outside and set them on fire...do you think they would want you there anymore?  Now apply the same concept to every single organization in the U.S., do you think that ANY organization would want to have anything to do with you if you did those things?

    Now imagine how Americans feel when someone stomps on and burns their flag and says "F%! America".  It's not illegal...but do you think Americans would want that person here?  Social Justice should be people shaming other people for doing stuff like this...

    To answer your first question, you DON'T "Have" to leave and I'm not suggesting that you do have to.  But any fool can look at the person at an organizational meeting who's screaming and throwing a temper tantrum, burning the symbol that represents the organization as a whole and wonder "Why the F$%! are you still here"?  "What does burning the flag solve"?  "It looks like you're just trying to get attention without actually doing anything to solve the problem".  "There's pretty harsh words for people who belly-ache about problems without actually doing anything to solve them".

    And to answer your question, I doubt anyone said "Leave" verbatim to our founding fathers...but it doesn't take a genius to take a hint...and they did leave.  They broke off from British rule and declared their independence.  If they had been told to leave...they probably would have done something similar and the only difference is that we could say today that "Britain told us to leave so we did".

    "I don't like this, I hate this, I'm angry and so I'm going to set things on fire so that everyone can see how discontent I am with these issues...it won't solve anything, it won't change anything but at least everyone will see me Bit$%#%! and maybe they'll pay enough attention to me to make me feel better".  Yea we need more people like this in the U.S. like we need more Cancer.
    1Hacker0agsr
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited August 21
    @Vaulk
    "no one HAS to stay here..."

    And no one should HAVE to leave for exercising their constitutional rights. The fathers loved their new home, just as we love our home, friends and family. It's not the place we live that we disagree with. The founding fathers fought for their land, against an overreaching government. Once we start allowing the infraction of the only few rules that the people have, we start moving towards an Orwellian style America. Some would even argue that we are there already. Read 1984 or animal farm much?
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    edited August 25
    @Erfisflat,

    .........I've already agreed with your point if you read above.  You said:

    Erfisflat said:
    @Vaulk
    "no one HAS to stay here..."

    And no one should HAVE to leave for exercising their constitutional rights.
    So for everyone's benefit I'll REPOST what I literally posted before this
    Vaulk said:
    @Erfisflat

    To answer your first question, you DON'T "Have" to leave and I'm not suggesting that you do have to.
    So I'm not sure what purpose your statement has other than to insinuate or suggest that I'm somehow......against it.....even though I already stated that no one has to leave and that I am specifically NOT suggesting that anyone does have to leave.

    Lastly, your response did nothing to address my points that (While I'm not saying anyone HAS to leave) burning the symbol of our entire country does absolutely N O T H I N G to solve ANY problem.  In fact I would argue that it only perpetuates the problem in the cases where there is an actual divide versus a perceived divide.

    Burning the American Flag as a response to anything other than it being accidentally dropped onto the ground (And even then there's a special process for it, you don't just torch it on the spot) solves nothing.  It doesn't change anyone's perception of the flag, it is NOT part of any problem solving method.  So what then could be the purpose of burning the flag?

    Final answer: As a complaint: "I'm pissy and I don't know how to solve anything so I'm going to do something offensive until someone gives me enough attention so that maybe other people can't ignore me anymore".  This is commonly referred to as "Bit$#%ng", "Belly-aching" or "Whining"...but we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease so if we made the squeaky wheel smell bad and look offensive...phew we might just get some real results faster!

    So @Erfisflat I need two things from you on your next post:

    1. I need you to explain why exactly your argument against me (In tone and presentation) is somehow aligned with my exact statements and therefor: "What exactly are you arguing in this regard"?

    2. Since this debate is about what ought to be and not what is, explain how the process of burning the flag is good, positive or otherwise constructive in any way, shape or form for the American People.  If you cannot then I will expect that you concede that it's nothing but harmful, disrespectful to those who died fighting for it and overall reflects poorly upon those who do it in such a way that is desserving of shame.  Then MAYBE we can talk about the downfalls of making it illegal.

     



    love2debate
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited August 25
    @Vaulk

    Right, so as you contend, the resolution is negated, and it should be perfectly legal to burn a flag. 

    "Lastly, your response did nothing to address my points that (While I'm not saying anyone HAS to leave) burning the symbol of our entire country does absolutely N O T H I N G to solve ANY problem.  In fact I would argue that it only perpetuates the problem in the cases where there is an actual divide versus a perceived divide."

    It's not meant to actually solve anything. That is not what freedom of speech is about. If someone in a country that you perceived as an enemy burned that country's flag, you'd have no problem with that.

    "...  So what then could be the purpose of burning the flag? "

    Exercising an individual's right to freedom of speech of course. What was the purpose of this?


    Did it solve anything? This?



    "I need you to explain why exactly your argument against me (In tone and presentation) is somehow aligned with my exact statements and therefor: "What exactly are you arguing in this regard"?"

    "I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonable to expect someone who has no loyalty or allegiance to the U.S. to GTFO."

    This was your initial position. By GTFO you no doubt mean forced to leave. That position has since changed to match mine:

    "you DON'T "Have" to leave and I'm not suggesting that you do have to. "

    So my question is, since you appear to have flip flopped,
    "What exactly are you arguing in this regard"?"

    "Since this debate is about what ought to be and not what is, explain how the process of burning the flag is good, positive or otherwise constructive in any way, shape or form for the American People."

    It is about what should be illegal. Since (now) you agree that Citizens of a country should not be forced to leave, and that nothing illegal has been done, I feel your argument has become rather moot...

    " If you cannot then I will expect that you concede that it's nothing but harmful, "

    Whom exactly does burning a flag harm? No concession coming there...

    "disrespectful to those who died fighting for it

    I bought mine at Wal-Mart. Coincidentally it was made in Korea. My forefathers died in wars too, but it wasn't for any piece of cloth. THEY FOUGHT FOR MY RIGHT TO BURN IT.

    " and overall reflects poorly upon those who do it in such a way that is desserving of shame. 

    Far from it.

     Then MAYBE we can talk about the downfalls of making it illegal."

    This is the topic of the debate...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • We must gather information about people and learn everything about them but we must not punish, we must try to talk with them.
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    edited September 9
    @Erfisflat

    1. In 1963 Thích Quảng Đức burned himself to death in Saigon to protest the persecution of Bhuddists by the South Vietnamese Government.  The purpose of this was to inspire and protest.  It successfully pressured the Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm into announcing reform regarding the treatment of Bhuddists.  When the President failed to follow through with the reform, the result was an Army Coup and assassination of the President. 

    So what did it solve: Religious Persecution.  It certainly wasn't the sole contributing factor but nothing ever is in this regard.

    Comparing the burning of the Flag by someone who lives in the United States in today's world to a Bhuddist setting himself on fire and committing suicide to protest religious persecution of the highest order...well it's intellectually dishonest. 

    2. The March on Washington August 28, 1963.  What was the purpose of this and was it successful?

    Answer: The march was successful in pressuring the administration of John F. Kennedy to initiate a strong federal civil rights bill in Congress. During this event, Martin Luther King delivered his memorable ''I Have a Dream'' speech. So yes, it successfully solved a great deal of problems but certainly not all.  It was a good thing and needed to happen.  Keep in mind that racial segregation and divide were incredibly predominant at that time...so much more than today and...you guessed it...nobody was burning flags.

    3. "GTFO" doesn't imply in any way, shape or form "Exile".  When I suggest that someone ""Should" Get the F%$# out" that means that "They" (Of their own volition) should take it upon themselves to pack up and leave.  That does not imply, infer, suggest or hint at them being forced to do anything of any sort.  You are wrong about my stance on this...plain wrong and I honestly think that you know it.  At this point I have to point out again that you're intentionally misrepresenting my arguments in order to undermine my stance instead of refuting it.  Logical Fallacy.

    4. Whom does burning the flag harm?  To desecrate means to treat something sacred with violent disrespect.  Since the Flag is a symbol and therefor a representation of the fundamental ideology of the United States, then desecration of that symbol serves as disrespect and is therefor a direct insult to not only our fundamental ideology but to those who have laid their life down and paid the ultimate sacrifice for this country.  The Flag represents the entirety of the Country...not just the things you or I don't like...so burning it serves to insult the entirety of our Ideology...not just the parts that are causing problems.  The American Flag represents specifically, Purity, Innocence, Hardiness, Valor, Vigilance Perserverance and Justice...desecrating the flag serves as violent disrespect of these virtues regardless of intent.  It also serves to undermine these virtues which, for our Country, is damaging.  So who does it hurt when you take part in an organization and then intentionally desecrate all that the organization stands for?  It hurts the organization, it indicates disloyalty, rebellion, betrayal against all those things that the organization stands for.  Does the flag only stand for the injustices (There's no denying that they are present) that are present in our Country or does it stand for everything?  Can the American Flag EVER...ONLY represent one thing?  The answer is no, so desecrating it is to outwardly and overtly solidify your stance against ALL the things the flag stands for.

    http://www.usflag.org/colors.html

    5. Your right to burn the Flag wasn't established until 1969, prior to that it was a crime to desecrate the flag so talking about generations of forefathers who fought and died for our rights to burn it is intellectually dishonest.  The first service members who fought for your right to burn the flag were the last to fight in Vietnam...every Service Member before that fought for your right to live under that flag and respect it.  Let's not talk about our forefathers fighting for our rights to burn the flag like it's always been that way...the VAST majority of fighting service members DID NOT fight for anyone's rights to desecrate the flag...it was illegal until fairly recently.

    Overall, I've found that more often than not you comfortably twist my arguments to suit your agenda.  Your intellectually dishonest statements support your arguments but only until they're pointed out for their dishonesty.  You tend to argue off point and use HUGELY unfair comparisons that in no way, shape or form could EVER be considered accurate.  Using pictures doesn't somehow connect the unfathomable distance between the comparisons you've made that only appear to further your argument at the skin layer.  I find your arguments to be deceptive, misleading and underhanded...other debaters should be warned about attempting to refute your points for risk of being labeled unfairly or having their words twisted to serve a crooked agenda.



    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Erfisflat

    It's hard to say because such an action can telegraph danger, "I'm burning the American flag" might become "I'm emptying rounds in Washington D.C", but for now I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say - freedom of speech.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited September 10
    @Erfisflat

    It's hard to say because such an action can telegraph danger, "I'm burning the American flag" might become "I'm emptying rounds in Washington D.C", but for now I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say - freedom of speech.
    The people that are exercising their freedom of speech rights know that emptying rounds is futile against the empire. Sometimes, I just buy them for kindling.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • edited September 10
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    It's hard to say because such an action can telegraph danger, "I'm burning the American flag" might become "I'm emptying rounds in Washington D.C", but for now I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say - freedom of speech.
    The people that are exercising their freedom of speech rights know that emptying rounds is futile against the empire. Sometimes, I just but them for kindling.

    Not necessarily, although there are legitimate movements that are informed (and burn the flag symbolically), a lot of movements like BLM burn down flags as shock factor, people like that might open fire in a public place.
  • Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    It's hard to say because such an action can telegraph danger, "I'm burning the American flag" might become "I'm emptying rounds in Washington D.C", but for now I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say - freedom of speech.
    The people that are exercising their freedom of speech rights know that emptying rounds is futile against the empire. Sometimes, I just but them for kindling.

    Not necessarily, although there are legitimate movements that are informed (and burn the flag symbolically), a lot of movements like BLM burn down flags as shock factor, people like that might open fire in a public place.
    "People like that?" Please elaborate. Do you have any examples?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited September 11
    @vaulk

    Thank you for the history lesson. Yes, there are instances of people speaking up against an overreaching power. Sometimes, it is successful, sometimes it is not, either way, a statement is made.

    "You are wrong about my stance on this...plain wrong and I honestly think that you know it."

    I have gathered from our arguments that you are in favor of the resolution. That is why we are here. By you saying flag burners should get the f out, I reasonably assumed, since you affirm the resolution, that meant forcefully. If however, you mean I should want to get out, I can assure you, this isn't the case.

    With that, the resolution is negated, as we are in agreement that burning a flag is freedom of speech and we shouldn't suffer any repercussions for such. You calling a logical fallacy is humorous by the way. On with your other points. 

    "To desecrate means to treat something sacred with violent disrespect."

    This sounds like some sort of entity being worshipped. This is basically what is happening, and another reason I'm against the resolution. Let's consider what the Bible says on the matter, for a different view.

    "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..."

    To me, the American flag has achieved the status of "any graven image", anyone else? 

    "The Flag represents the entirety of the Country"

    In the pledge, the flag and the country are separate enities.

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands."

    We are literally pledging allegiance to the dyed piece of cloth itself. This doesn't seem the tiniest bit disconcerting to anyone but me?

    "If further evidence is needed, consider these words from the Congressionally enacted U.S. Flag code (Title 36 USC 10, PL 344). "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing."

    Unique among all nations, we have a Flag Day, a Flag code etiquette, a national anthem dedicated to the flag and a verbal salute to the flag. Twenty-seven states require school children to salute the flag daily."

    So in essence, since it has been made into law, we are harming a living thing, that living thing that is being worshipped. I apologize for burning your false idols. Many, many of them have met their end at my hands.


    "Your right to burn the Flag wasn't established until 1969, prior to that it was a crime to desecrate the flag so talking about generations of forefathers who fought and died for our rights to burn it is intellectually dishonest."

    I'll pretend as if you made a mistake at labeling my argument intellectually dishonest. Maybe you don't know what intellectual dishonesty is.

    As I've stated before, the constitution of the US is a small number of rights we intend to preserve. "The Constitution is a document that provides each citizen with broad rights. The right to assemble peacefully; the right to speak and publish freely; the freedom to worship without interference; freedom from unlawful search and seizure; freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude; the right to vote. It is these freedoms that define what it means to be an American. 

    The contention that flag worship is blasphemy was a key element before the Supreme Court in 1940. In that case it upheld the right of a Pennsylvania school district to expel two students who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The two teenagers were members of the Jehovah's Witness denomination. Their church believed that pledging allegiance to the flag violated the Biblical admonition (Exodus 20) against worshipping or bowing down to any graven image of God. The court decided that the need for national security and national unity allowed Congress to force individuals to violate the Ten Commandments.

    In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its 1940 decision. That reversal probably had less to do with religion than with the Court's realization that, at the height of a war against totalitarian regimes, a central feature of which was a slavish devotion to national symbols, compelling us to worship the flag was inapt. (As a side note, that same year the Flag Code itself was changed. No longer were students required to salute the flag with one arm extended forward. The similarity to the Nazi salute was too embarrassing. From that time onwards, we were told to put our hands over our hearts.)"

    Freedom of speech is what the forefathers fought for. Burning a flag is freedom of speech, regardless of when it was finally recognized as such.

    "Overall, I've found that more often than not you comfortably twist my arguments to suit your agenda." 

    If I've misrepresented your arguments in any other way aside from the resolution, feel free to point it out.

    "Your intellectually dishonest statements support your arguments but only until they're pointed out for their dishonesty."

    Please explain where I am being dishonest. It seems that I have touched a nerve and you've resorted to just calling me a liar.

    " You tend to argue off point and use HUGELY unfair comparisons that in no way, shape or form could EVER be considered accurate.  Using pictures doesn't somehow connect the unfathomable distance between the comparisons you've made that only appear to further your argument at the skin layer. "

    I've given examples of exercising one's right to free speech in it's many forms. Desecration of the flag has come in many forms, and is to some people, a statement for those who believe the United States is not living up to its ideals.

    I'm not sure what you think my "agenda" is, or how you think it is "crooked", please elaborate.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/22268/the_blasphemy_of_flag_worship

    http://ncac.org/blog/then-and-now-old-glory-under-fire
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Vaulk

    In the pledge, the flag and the country are separate enities.

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands."

    We are literally pledging allegiance to the dyed piece of cloth itself. This doesn't seem the tiniest bit disconcerting to anyone but me?

    You seem to be missing the following bolded portion of your own quote:

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands."  This pledge acknowledges that the flag stands for the republic of the United States of America.  This is almost all of my previous point...that burning the flag is desecration of all that the flag stands for...the entire republic of the United States of America.

    And to your first point:

    Erfisflat said:
    @Vaulk

    This sounds like some sort of entity being worshipped. This is basically what is happening, and another reason I'm against the resolution. Let's consider what the Bible says on the matter, for a different view.

    "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..."

    To me, the American flag has achieved the status of "any graven image", anyone else? 


    I'm afraid your understanding of "Worship" is actually a misunderstanding. 

    Worship:
    The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/worship

    The U.S. flag is not a "Deity", I doubt this needs to be debated as it does not meet the qualifications to be as such.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deity

    Lastly, "Graven image" is a reference to an Idol and the U.S. flag is neither.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/idol
    Erfisflat said:
    @Vaulk

    I'll pretend as if you made a mistake at labeling my argument intellectually dishonest. Maybe you don't know what intellectual dishonesty is.

    As I've stated before, the constitution of the US is a small number of rights we intend to preserve. "The Constitution is a document that provides each citizen with broad rights. The right to assemble peacefully; the right to speak and publish freely; the freedom to worship without interference; freedom from unlawful search and seizure; freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude; the right to vote. It is these freedoms that define what it means to be an American. 

    The contention that flag worship is blasphemy was a key element before the Supreme Court in 1940. In that case it upheld the right of a Pennsylvania school district to expel two students who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The two teenagers were members of the Jehovah's Witness denomination. Their church believed that pledging allegiance to the flag violated the Biblical admonition (Exodus 20) against worshipping or bowing down to any graven image of God. The court decided that the need for national security and national unity allowed Congress to force individuals to violate the Ten Commandments.

    In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its 1940 decision. That reversal probably had less to do with religion than with the Court's realization that, at the height of a war against totalitarian regimes, a central feature of which was a slavish devotion to national symbols, compelling us to worship the flag was inapt. (As a side note, that same year the Flag Code itself was changed. No longer were students required to salute the flag with one arm extended forward. The similarity to the Nazi salute was too embarrassing. From that time onwards, we were told to put our hands over our hearts.)"

    Freedom of speech is what the forefathers fought for. Burning a flag is freedom of speech, regardless of when it was finally recognized as such.


    Firstly, intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.  Your original post that warranted the label of intellectual dishonesty was
    Erfisflat said:
    @Vaulk

    My forefathers died in wars too, but it wasn't for any piece of cloth. THEY FOUGHT FOR MY RIGHT TO BURN IT.
    The statement above is representing a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation because, simply put, your forfathers, vastly, did not in fact fight for your right to burn the U.S. flag.  As I stated previously it was a crime to burn the flag prior to 1969 and so every fighting service member prior to that year (Approximately 66 wars including WWI, WWII and The Korean War) did NOT fight for the right to burn the flag as you stated...the right to burn the flag didn't even exist for any but the last 4 Wars.  After 1969 there was the very end of Vietnam, the gulf war, Iraq and Afganistan.  The statement that your forefathers dying in wars of the past is somehow indicative of their fighting for your right to burn the flag is either intellectually dishonest or somehow you truly believe, despite the evidence to the contrary, that they did.

    Erfisflat said:
    @Vaulk

    Please explain where I am being dishonest. It seems that I have touched a nerve and you've resorted to just calling me a liar.
    Explanation: Your original post:

    Erfisflat said:
    @Vaulk

    It's not meant to actually solve anything. That is not what freedom of speech is about. If someone in a country that you perceived as an enemy burned that country's flag, you'd have no problem with that.

    "...  So what then could be the purpose of burning the flag? "

    Exercising an individual's right to freedom of speech of course. What was the purpose of this?


    Did it solve anything? This?


    You've insinuated from your previous statement that exercising your freedom of speech isn't about solving anything and then used the above two pictures to illustrate your point by asking what these two instances solved...when in fact these two instances DID solve problems.  This example that you provided actually backfired on you because you've suggested that freedom of speech isn't about solving anything or fixing problems and then used these pictures to attempt to prove it but BOTH of these pictures were of events that truly DID make HUGE impacts on the world and brought about substantial changes as they were intended to.  THIS is a prime example of intellectual dishonesty, this is you using pictures of mega-impact events and suggesting that these events not only WEREN'T about bringing change for the better but that they didn't solve anything!  The idea that you could even imply that these events weren't about solving anything is so ridiculous that it's downright insulting to anyone with a junior high education or above!  This is the equivalent of saying that bombs weren't meant to destroy things and then showing a picture of Hiroshima when the Atomic Bomb hit in 1945.
    TransgendersAreGay
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".



  • @Vaulk
    "You seem to be missing the following bolded portion of your own quote: "

    The insertion of the word and, as I stated, means that the flag itself, and the republic for which it stands are separate entities. You're cherry picking here. This means we are pledging our allegiance to a dyed cloth, as well as the empire for which it stands.

    "I'm afraid your understanding of "Worship" is actually a misunderstanding."

    I understand perfectly well what "worship" means, don't try to debate semantics. No deity is needed for all definitions.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship


    4 :  extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem worship of the dollar

    And the definition used for idol in this context is the secondary one, from your source dictionary.

    1.1 A person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered.
    ‘a soccer idol’

    You ignoring an obviously valid definition is noted. The point stands. You are a cherry picking idol worshipper. 

    "Firstly, intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion."

    That's the definition, yes. But you left off the last bit.

    Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.

    I'm applying criticism where it needs to be. My position is that the flag, just like any other, is just a dyed cloth. There is no need for reverence. There is no need to say that it is a living thing.

    This is the default position because well, these are the facts. If there were any reason to criticize  these facts, you'd have said so by now. I am overly critical of your position because you've turned that material object into an idol for worship. A living thing deserving of my respect and reverence. Even more so than actual living things or peoples (foreigners). Your position (I'm assuming, since you have not yet clarified this) is that my life and/or freedom here is less important than a dyed piece of cloth. I am opposed to that position. I am a critic of this position, not the default (facts).

    Burning a flag is one way to express political dissent. Just like setting yourself on fire in the street, marching down the street, or holding a sign up on the street. The message, results and "shock value" are irrelevant. 

    "  As I stated previously it was a crime to burn the flag prior to 1969 and so every fighting service member prior to that year (Approximately 66 wars including WWI, WWII and The Korean War) did NOT fight for the right to burn the flag as you stated...the right to burn the flag didn't even exist for any but the last 4 Wars. "

    There were more efficient ways to express political dissent, the first case of flag burning wasn't even reported until 1900. We have built ourselves an unequal empire. Burning a flag is much more efficient as a means to express political dissent than storming a ship and dumping all of it's tea into the ocean. What they did fight for was the right to free speech. Since this qualifies as free speech, this is why my forefathers fought for, whether you'll admit it or not.

    "You've insinuated from your previous statement that exercising your freedom of speech isn't about solving anything and then used the above two pictures to illustrate your point by asking what these two instances solved...when in fact these two instances DID solve problems."

    But what if they didn't, not every act of free speech against an overreaching government is successful. Some solve proplems, some go ignored. Me metaphorically torching ole glory in this debate might be successful in keeping it legal in the future, it may not. That is a red herring, the topic for discussion is the possible consequences

      This example that you provided actually backfired on you because you've suggested that freedom of speech isn't about solving anything or fixing problems and then used these pictures to attempt to prove it but BOTH of these pictures were of events that truly DID make HUGE impacts on the world and brought about substantial changes as they were intended to. 

    See above. Don't be too harsh on that strawman, he didn't do anything. It isn't about solving anything. It's about the ability and freedom to do or say something that does no physical harm to anyone.


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited September 11
    Double post, sorry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • As a Vietnam veteran who lives daily with the consequences of my service to my country, and as the son of a WWII combat veteran, and the grandson of a WWI combat veteran, I can attest to the fact that not all veterans indeed perhaps most veterans do not wish to exchange fought-for freedoms for protecting a tangible symbol of these freedoms. I oppose this amendment because it does not support the freedom of expression and the right to dissent.

    Now, 31 years, 1 week and one day following the loss of my legs in combat, I am again called upon to defend the freedoms which my sacrifices in combat were said to preserve. It's been a long 31+ years. I have faced the vexing challenge of reconciling myself with the reality of my military history and the lessons I have learned from it and the popular portrayal of veterans as one dimensional patriots, whose patriotism MUST take the form of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, euphemisms, and reductionism-where death in combat is referred to as "making the ultimate sacrifice" and the motivation for service and the definition of true patriotism is reduced to dedication to a piece of cloth.

    The strength of our nation is found in its diversity. This strength was achieved through the exercise of our First Amendment right to freedom of expression-no matter how repugnant or offensive the expression might be. Achieving that strength has not been easy-it's been a struggle, a struggle lived by some very important men in my life and me.

    I am offended when I see the flag burned or treated disrespectfully. As offensive and painful as this is, I still believe that those dissenting voices need to be heard. This country is unique and special because the minority, the unpopular, the dissenters and the downtrodden, also have a voice and are allowed to be heard in whatever way they choose to express themselves that does not harm others. The freedom of expression, even when it hurts, is the truest test of our dedication to the belief that we have that right.

    Free expression, especially the right to dissent with the policies of the government, is one important element, if not the cornerstone of our form of government that has greatly enhanced its stability, prosperity, and strength of our country.

    Freedom is what makes the United States of America strong and great, and freedom, including the right to dissent, is what has kept our democracy going for more than 200 years. And it is freedom that will continue to keep it strong for my children and the children of all the people like my father, late father in law, grandfather, brother, me, and others like us who served honorably and proudly for freedom.

    The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per se. It's in the principles that it stands for and the people who have defended them. My pride and admiration is in our country, its people and its fundamental principles. I am grateful for the many heroes of our country-and especially those in my family. All the sacrifices of those who went before me would be for naught, if an amendment were added to the Constitution that cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in the history of our great nation.

    I love this country, its people and what it stands for. The last thing I want to give the future generations are fewer rights than I was privileged to have. My family and I served and fought for others to have such freedoms and I am opposed to any actions which would restrict my children and their children from having the same freedoms I enjoy.

    Gary May, who lost both legs to a landmine explosion while serving in Vietnam
    Evansville, Indiana

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch