Flag waving.......Flag burning - Page 8

Cinna · March 22, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean defending only the speech you agree with. "Freedom of speech" means defending other people's right to express ideas that you've spent your whole life fighting against.

No one said they'd ban burning the flag. We've just said that those that do better watch out for our counter free-speech

.

They have before, and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. Just like with burning crosses. Wait, what was the upshot with that? Anyone?

Zero · March 22, 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Freedom of speech doesn't mean defending only the speech you agree with. "Freedom of speech" means defending other people's right to express ideas that you've spent your whole life fighting against.

People who find flag burning offensive because it offends people who have died for the flag should think for sec. That they also died for the rights of the flag burners to do their thing.

David Floyd · March 22, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

No one said they'd ban burning the flag. We've just said that those that do better watch out for our counter free-speech

And if I see someone assaulting someone else just for burning a piece of cloth, then I'll have to defend the person doing the burning.

Imran Siddiqui · March 22, 2003, 21:49

No one is talking about assaulting anyone (or battering anyone either).

But, assume someone is battering someone for burning the flag. Isn't your intevention against your moral code that you shouldn't use violence except for self-defense?

David Floyd · March 22, 2003, 21:50

Not really. I've already stated several times that defending another person is a perfectly moral activity, although there is no moral compunction to do so.

David Floyd · March 22, 2003, 21:51

And by the way, yes, that means I have no problem killing Saddam, as long as a)no other Iraqis are killed in the process, b)no Americans are killed, except for those who specifically volunteer for the action, and c)I'm not forced to pay for it - the act is paid for through voluntary donations ONLY.

Imran Siddiqui · March 22, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Not really. I've already stated several times that defending another person is a perfectly moral activity

So, wait... are you saying the Gulf War '91 was morally justified because the US was coming to the aid of another country that needed help?

.

David Floyd · March 22, 2003, 21:54

No, because I was forced to pay for it, for one thing.

David Floyd · March 22, 2003, 21:55

For another, the US didn't ask the 500,000+ troops if they wanted to go help Kuwait.

Imran Siddiqui · March 22, 2003, 21:58

Quote:

No, because I was forced to pay for it, for one thing.

You didn't even PAY taxes in '91, Floyd!

And you aren't forced to pay for anything. You can leave if you don't want to pay

.

Quote:

For another, the US didn't ask the 500,000+ troops if they wanted to go help Kuwait.

They volunteered, that means giving consent to the government's sending them anywhere.

Ben Kenobi · March 22, 2003, 23:20

tia:

Quote:

I'm proud of my family and my country and I will make no apologies for that.

No problem, after all this is your thread! You can tell all those trolls to contribute or buzz off and no one will say a thing.

Also, don't blame yourself for others getting banned, you were not posting inciteful posts or continuing a flame war. Those posters did that all by themselves.

David Floyd · March 23, 2003, 00:28

Quote:

You didn't even PAY taxes in '91, Floyd!

I do now, though.

Quote:

They volunteered, that means giving consent to the government's sending them anywhere.

I suppose they also consented to letting the government just shoot them at will, huh?

No, they volunteered to defend the nation. They made the grave mistake of voluteering for an immoral, aggressive organization, but that doesn't make forcing them to fight moral.

Tiamat · March 23, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
tia:

No problem, after all this is your thread! You can tell all those trolls to contribute or buzz off and no one will say a thing.

Also, don't blame yourself for others getting banned, you were not posting inciteful posts or continuing a flame war. Those posters did that all by themselves.

As always the voice of reason

I would have told Tass to go fly but the point would have been what? That only would have served to inflame him more, however, I do appreciate the non-troll status he seems to be on.

I will say this.......David I love you to death you know this.....but don't turn this into one of your troll debate things or I will have to shoot you!!

Ming · March 23, 2003, 01:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiamat
but don't turn this into one of your troll debate things or I will have to shoot you!!

If he keeps up his trolling, you won't have to... because he won't be around here posting...

Nubclear · March 23, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Not really. I've already stated several times that defending another person is a perfectly moral activity

So, wait... are you saying the Gulf War '91 was morally justified because the US was coming to the aid of another country that needed help?

.

Actually, I'd like to chirp in here.

Yes, I believe GulfWar 91 was completly justified. Instead of raping and murdering Iraqi citizens, he would do the same to Kuwati citizens. Therefore he had to be surpressed from Kuwait.

Quote:

I would have told Tass to go fly

From the times we've chatted....I believe that

Quote:

I do appreciate the non-troll status he seems to be on.

Maybe the banning knocked some sense into me

Imran Siddiqui · March 23, 2003, 02:49

Quote:

I suppose they also consented to letting the government just shoot them at will, huh?

No, they volunteered to defend the nation. They made the grave mistake of voluteering for an immoral, aggressive organization, but that doesn't make forcing them to fight moral.

They didn't volunteer to 'defend the nation' or else they'd be in the National Guard (which is sent anyway, tough). The Army, Navy, AF all are sent around the world to advance US interests. They knew it signing up.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 04:13

I knew in the navy no country would have the balls to take on one of our navy ships.

An aircraft carrier is safer than nearly every american city.

Although terrorists have shown the weakness of ships in port.

In any case if people didn't love their country when the joined the military they would essentually be blood thirsty killers or mercenaries. I mentioned that in an earlier thread. I don't consider myself a merc.

KrazyHorse · March 23, 2003, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
says a person who lives in a country protected by another country with patriotic people.

Protected from what?

General Ludd · March 23, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Protected from what?

Americans

If they wheren't defending us, they'd probably be invading us.

yavoon · March 23, 2003, 12:51

freedom of speech works both ways. you can burn the flag and people can call you unpatriotic )@(#* for doing it. sometimes that is lost.

the flag burners feel it is not only their right to burn it, but their right to not be ridiculed for it.

chequita guevara · March 23, 2003, 13:31

Actually, I think they feel they shouldn't be assaulted for it, which is fair.

yavoon · March 23, 2003, 13:36

if u mean physically, yes. if u mean ridiculed, no.

Odd · March 23, 2003, 13:39

It´s funny... everytime I read a pro-war post, I sympathize more with the anti-war cause...

- We´re fighting for freedom, the freedom to blindly support everything the White House decides! That´s why we hate those french, openly opposing the most powerful nation on earth in it´s moment of rage. That´s so coward! Why don´t they have the courage to obey the strong and attack the weak? Besides, if you oppose war, you oppose America!

and then there´re the anti-war... everytime I read an anti-war post I think that pro-war might be right after all...

- We´re so sad that America is answering violence and hate with more violence and hate... So how do we convince americans that we can all live in a world of love, with no unilateral decisions, where everyone respects everyone country´s and oppinion´s? By cursing their name, hating their country, calling their president a nazi and burning everything they hold dear, of course!!

*Note - This was just a joke towards the more radical edges, of course most posters don´t think like that.

chequita guevara · March 23, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
if u mean physically, yes. if u mean ridiculed, no.

In what world does "assaulted" mean "ridiculed?" Threatening and ridiculing are two very different things. One's illegal, the other isn't.

Alex · March 23, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Dear Bad People: Take notice. The Marines are coming, and they're pissed!! Love, America

Typical.

Since I'm anti-war, I guess I'm one of the "bad people". If this is true, I only ask the marines to kill me swiftly, without pain. Thanks.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 14:15

I'm sure the marines will abide by your wishes- not

They will kill you slowly with great deals of pain.

Those murderous marines will prevail!!

yavoon · March 23, 2003, 14:39

yes and I never insinuated that they should be physically assaulted. so obviously my brain had a hard time understanding why u were replying to me.

especially considering I was relating specifically in the domain of freedom of speech. ur post in hinesight seems rather useless.

Alex · March 23, 2003, 17:13

Diss, do you really believe that the war is motivated for a genuine and humane effort to free Iraqi people from oppression? I'm asking because I find it hard to believe that someone could be so naïve...

Dis · March 23, 2003, 17:38

I do not know what Bush is thinking in his head. So I cannot answer your question. Bush may be going to war for the wrong reasons.

And I do not support those reasons.

I have my own reasoning for supporting this war. They may or may not be the same reasons Bush has. I cannot get inside his head.

Alex · March 23, 2003, 17:39

Too bad you're not in command, huh?