Allow flag burning?

Post by **bitWISE** » Tue May 24, 2005 3:55 am

If you want the first amendment left alone, tell your representatives:

http://action.aclu.org/flagaction

Post by **The HavoX** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:11 am

i cant tell if burning a US flag is either free speech or an act of terror

Post by **feedback** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:22 am

The HavoX wrote:i cant tell if burning a US flag is either free speech or an act of terror

That might have something to do with you being a fucking idiot.

Post by **The HavoX** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:26 am

in that case ill get my flamethrower and some gasoline

Post by **feedback** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:27 am

also, how did you get unbanned? that's fucking slithery of you, you have big balls coming back here like that

Post by **The HavoX** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:30 am

it was only for three weeks anyway :icon31:

Post by **feedback** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:31 am

I can't fucking stand you

Post by **tnf** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:34 am

The opponents of this (people who want to outlaw burning the flag) will say that there are all sorts of 'speech' that isn't allowed...

I'm not in favor of flag burning as a gesture (I think there are more respectful ways to voice your distaste with the government's actions) but I do think that outlawing a given act like this puts us on a potential slippery slope. First you outlaw the more blatant displays, then eventually you work in outlawing more subtle ones....

Philosophy types here - I have a general question -
Are there logical flaws, in your opinion, with arguments based on the 'slippery slope' principle? The reason I ask is that, this weekend, I was having a discussion with someone about the stem cell research being done in Korea, and the person mentioned that by making such research legal here we put ourselves on a slippery slope of moving towards all sorts of evils (you know the typical Republican concerns about stem-cell research.) And now here, I am using a slippery slope argument in regards to the flag burning situation.

I've never thought much about the style of argument in general, and I know a lot of it deals with the situation you are applying it to, but I'd be interested to hear people's take on them in general...

Post by **tnf** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:34 am

feedback's traps are going to kick your ass.

Post by **Kills On Site** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:48 am

Well as with any form of free speech I believe it is your free speech until it imposes on someone else's forms of freedom, so if you want to burn a flag on your own property I don't think anyone should stop you. Of course if you are screaming and infringing on others right to silence then it is breaking the law I believe. Of course people have the right to hate you for burning a flag. Although if your flag burning is infrnging on others rights or becoming dangerous then it should be stopped. While I hate flag burning and think it is a very disturbing thing, and I have every right to think that way and I have every right to state my opinion, but I also think that they have every right to safely burn a flag as lnog as it is not infringing on others rights

Post by **Furtive** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:27 am

The HavoX wrote:it was only for three weeks anyway :icon31:

stop using " :icon31: "
that's my icon.

Post by **Furtive** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:28 am

feedback wrote:I can't fucking stand you

that goes for you too.

Post by **eepberries** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:41 am

Furtive wrote:stop using " :icon31: "
that's my icon.

die

Post by **Furtive** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:44 am

eepberries wrote:
Furtive wrote:stop using " :icon31: "
that's my icon.
die

is that a theat?

Post by **eepberries** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:45 am

Furtive wrote: is that a theat?

No, but this is:

I will fly a plane into you.

Post by **Furtive** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:56 am

eepberries wrote:
Furtive wrote: is that a theat?
No, but this is:

I will fly a plane into you.

then you would kill yourself in the process. :icon31:

Post by **feedback** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:20 am

I like Furtive's style, the only place he's going is up. Sky's the limit for you, guy.

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:39 am

sup feedback

Post by **MKJ** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:41 am

feedback wrote:
The HavoX wrote:i cant tell if burning a US flag is either free speech or an act of terror
That might have something to do with you being a fucking idiot.

is that because its so obvious or because its not?

i personally dont see how that could be "an act of terror".
ofcourse, here in dutcholand we dont care that much about "The Flag" and dont have one hanging in every classroom and on every streetcorner so..

Post by **Hannibal** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:54 am

tnf wrote:

Philosophy types here - I have a general question -
Are there logical flaws, in your opinion, with arguments based on the 'slippery slope' principle?

As with everything else, it depends. The biggest problem you usually find is that some wiseacre assumes a causal chain (i.e., legalizing weed....w.....x....y....z....legalizing crack) without giving any argument/evidence to support each step in the chain. Politicians are notorious for being retards on this front.

Flag burning?

Bill Hicks wrote:

Dude: "Hey buddy, let me tell you somethin.. my daddy died for that flag!! "

Bill Hicks: "Pshh really?! Wow! I bought mine! hehe... yea... they sell them at, you know... k-mart and shit..."

Dude: "yea he died in the Korean war for that flag!"

Bill Hicks: " Oh! what a coincidence... mine was made in Korea! wow! the world is that big!"

Bill Hicks: " No one, and i repeat, no one... has ever died for a flag... a flag is a piece of cloth. They might have died for freedom, which, by the way, is the freedom also to BURN the fucking flag.

Post by **feedback** » Tue May 24, 2005 9:03 am

Keep It Real wrote:sup feedback

oh hi

Post by **werldhed** » Tue May 24, 2005 12:56 pm

tnf wrote:I've never thought much about the style of argument in general, and I know a lot of it deals with the situation you are applying it to, but I'd be interested to hear people's take on them in general...

Here's my long-winded take:
I've always brushed off such arguments as baseless because the slippery slope will only occur if the collective populace allows it. For example: banning gay marriage. The typical argument is that it will lead to people marrying more than one person, or marrying minors, or relatives, or animals, etc. Of course those things won't happen because nobody will allow them to happen. So my response to opponents goes like this:
ME: "So you don't want gays to marry because your neighbor might end up marrying his dog?"
THEM: "Yes. Where will it stop?"
ME: "Probably at the marriage of gays, because will you (or anyone you know) vote to allow marriage between a man and a dog?"
THEM: "Uh...no of course not!"
ME: "Then there's nothing to worry about. If nobody condones bestiality, then we won't go down that slope."

Of course at this point they change their argument.

If you happen to point out the fallacy of the slippery slope, a response might be that there's no way of knowing that the general populace WON'T stop at the first step. My answer to that is if society has reached a point where such behavior is acceptable, then what is the problem with it happening? If in 50 years someone introduces a bill to allow polygamy, we only have to worry if it is a popular bill. And if it is popular, then it must be widly accepted in society, and what would be the problem then? When interracial marriage happened, most people probably said, "Oh, don't worry. We'll never let something unnatural happen, like two men marrying." Well, now it's gaining public acceptance, so yes, it has become a slippery slope, but it will only happen as quickly as society allows it to. Now we've moved on to the marriage of gays, but it's not neccessarily a bad thing. Same with legalizing pot -- sure, in some time it might be that some groups demand we legalize crack. If society has reached a point that this is acceptable behavior, it will happen, and there will be no problem. If society still thinks it's moronic to legalize crack, it won't.

The problem is when the Gov't makes laws that promote themselves -- such as stifling dissent. That's a slippery slope because public opinion doesn't matter at that point, since it's slowly being silenced. It would be the same with revamping the House Ethics Rules. The more power a law gives a gov't, the easier it is for them to PULL us down the slippery slope.

[/soapbox]

Post by **-Replicant-** » Tue May 24, 2005 1:54 pm

werldhed wrote:
tnf wrote:I've never thought much about the style of argument in general, and I know a lot of it deals with the situation you are applying it to, but I'd be interested to hear people's take on them in general...
Here's my long-winded take:
I've always brushed off such arguments as baseless because the slippery slope will only occur if the collective populace allows it. For example: banning gay marriage. The typical argument is that it will lead to people marrying more than one person, or marrying minors, or relatives, or animals, etc. Of course those things won't happen because nobody will allow them to happen. So my response to opponents goes like this:
ME: "So you don't want gays to marry because your neighbor might end up marrying his dog?"
THEM: "Yes. Where will it stop?"
ME: "Probably at the marriage of gays, because will you (or anyone you know) vote to allow marriage between a man and a dog?"
THEM: "Uh...no of course not!"
ME: "Then there's nothing to worry about. If nobody condones bestiality, then we won't go down that slope."

Of course at this point they change their argument.

If you happen to point out the fallacy of the slippery slope, a response might be that there's no way of knowing that the general populace WON'T stop at the first step. My answer to that is if society has reached a point where such behavior is acceptable, then what is the problem with it happening? If in 50 years someone introduces a bill to allow polygamy, we only have to worry if it is a popular bill. And if it is popular, then it must be widly accepted in society, and what would be the problem then? When interracial marriage happened, most people probably said, "Oh, don't worry. We'll never let something unnatural happen, like two men marrying." Well, now it's gaining public acceptance, so yes, it has become a slippery slope, but it will only happen as quickly as society allows it to. Now we've moved on to the marriage of gays, but it's not neccessarily a bad thing. Same with legalizing pot -- sure, in some time it might be that some groups demand we legalize crack. If society has reached a point that this is acceptable behavior, it will happen, and there will be no problem. If society still thinks it's moronic to legalize crack, it won't.

The problem is when the Gov't makes laws that promote themselves -- such as stifling dissent. That's a slippery slope because public opinion doesn't matter at that point, since it's slowly being silenced. It would be the same with revamping the House Ethics Rules. The more power a law gives a gov't, the easier it is for them to PULL us down the slippery slope.

[/soapbox]

A most excellent take at that. This pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject as well. The only thing I would do to summarize is to say that the "slippery slope" argument is really simply an illustration of a multitude of paths which open up to society when laws (IE gay marriage) promote change. This change can go in multiple directions; for example, a path towards a more accepting society is opened by the passage of a gay marriage law. However, there's also the possible path, as some argue, for the liberalization of society leading towards complete freedom and lack of restrictions (IE marrying your dog). Granted, these are merely perceptions and not actual paths upon which society will travel, as explained above, but its a helpfull illustration. The "slippery slope" argument would be better understood as in a waterslide illustration- we choose which slide to go down, but in the end society dictates where we all end up.

Post by **R00k** » Tue May 24, 2005 2:08 pm

Anybody who wants to belittle their own cause by burning our flag should be completely free to do so.

Post by **Billy Bellend** » Tue May 24, 2005 2:15 pm

yea i guess if they are them, and if i am us/we, you know they can burn it up whatever.

but to be fair we should burn up their flags too ey.

problem is im not arsed no doubt because i dont believe in that type of activism. plus its not something i do.

i like liesure.

anyway so when thare burning it up, i'd apreiciate if they burnt up thier flags as well because i cant make it.

i'am sure everybody can understand the concept of fair right?

all sorted nice and tidy like