I got a kick out of this story.

Quote:Quote:

A Pakistani protestor has died after inhaling smoke from burning U.S. flags during a rally against the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims.

Abdullah Ismail died in Mayo hospital in Lahore having complained of feeling unwell during the angry demonstrations in the eastern Pakistan city yesterday.

Quote: (09-18-2012 03:20 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

I got a kick out of this story.

Quote:Quote:

A Pakistani protestor has died after inhaling smoke from burning U.S. flags during a rally against the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims.

Abdullah Ismail died in Mayo hospital in Lahore having complained of feeling unwell during the angry demonstrations in the eastern Pakistan city yesterday.

Haha. This is hilarious. Well, at least he died for a worthy cause. Oh wait, no he didn't. Idiot.

American flag. Made in China. Laced with lead.

Seinfeld's revenge:

This is an old one but LOL anyway. Schadenfrede would be an understatement.

Our country may be going down the toilet, but the American spirit is still deadly!

Quote: (09-18-2012 06:13 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

American flag. Made in China. Laced with lead.

Mwahaha

I wanted to bump this thread because of the flag burning attempt that happened at the RNC today.

It's making the rounds today online as well.

thread-57017...pid1353401

Flag Burning is a hot button issue (however low on the totem pole for this election)

Personally seeing someone burn a flag doesn't "trigger" me, more I'm shaking my head in disappointment.

This country welcomed my parents and extended family with open arms, I'm the first generation born her.

Now I'm definitely on the patriotic band wagon, however, I'm flying a flag from my truck or have stickers. I do wear shirts supporting vet foundations.

I personally will never understand how burning a flag proves anything, besides bad taste in many peoples eyes.


In some countries - you'd be jailed or worse for burning their flag.


People dying for the flag/freedom/the right to burn it is a debate that has flaws on both sides.


I wanted to get RVF's opinions on this.

Do you think they have the right to burn the flag ?

Do you think it should be banned ?

Do you think it's really considered free speech ?

In addition to RVF'ers any Vets input would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not American.

I think they have a right to burn the flag and its considered freedom of speech.

I also think its in bad taste and a childish low-investment method of provocation and protest.

You're upset about how the country is going? So what? What are you doing about it besides attention whoring?

I think it should be a Class 1 Misdemeanor. I've never seen someone burning a flag that was a worthwhile human being, so fine them and put them in jail.

Quote: (07-20-2016 06:08 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

I wanted to get RVF's opinions on this.

Do you think they have the right to burn the flag ?

Do you think it should be banned ?

Do you think it's really considered free speech ?

In addition to RVF'ers any Vets input would be greatly appreciated.

1. One has the right to burn the flag. I have the right to think that guy's emotional and thankless. I'd hold my nose and mostly look the other way.
2. Don't ban it. These guys get controversy and negative publicity thrown their way. Play dumb games, win dumb prizes

Quote: (07-20-2016 06:19 PM)Speculation Wrote:  

I'm not American.

I think they have a right to burn the flag and its considered freedom of speech.

I also think its in bad taste and a childish low-investment method of provocation and protest.

You're upset about how the country is going? So what? What are you doing about it besides attention whoring?

3. Flag burning is a way to signal edginess. However, if it were ISIS burning the flag, that's an entirely different context. Enemy.

Flags nowadays are made from the woven fibre of the smallpox-infested blankets given to Native Americans of yore.

It's sustainable.

Flag burning should be legal as it is freedom of speech. Burning fabric on public property, especially during civil disobedience, is arson and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Anyone who burns any nations flag, even an ISIS flag, is an attention whore who achieves nothing.

It's important to distinguish between "wrong" and "crime".

Burning your nation's flag is wrong and anti-social, in the same way saying "9/11 was awesome!" is anti-social, but it shouldn't be a crime because it violates no one's rights. It should be policed by social ostracism only. That given, there should be no "anti-discrimination" laws that hamper that process.

I agree it shouldn't be a crime, but if you'd be arrested for lighting a fire in that spot normally, you should be arrested for burning a flag. Endangering other people isn't covered by the 1st Amendment, and lighting something that's high surface area and lightweight on fire is a good way to set other people or things on fire accidentally if the wind picks up.

Vet here. 24 years.

I would care years ago. Now, I don't get distracted by attention-whoring gestures. I already knew they were the enemy, the flag makes no difference either way. If they kissed the flag, I would still know they are the enemy. Stay focused.

There are reasons to burn a flag, if it is too old, you can bring it to your local VFW and they will burn it, or if it touches the ground.
Attention whoring should not be a reason to burn a flag, it's legal, but not a good reason.

Prosecute those idiots for arson and endangering people's lives, the guy who got his hand burned putting out the antifa's attention event should file charges.

To me the issue is not so much the flag burning itself - it is the provocation inherent in it. You very rarely see guys nip behind the bikeshed at lunchtime to discretely burn a nation's flag. Invariably, they get right up close to the opposing side and burn it when they know it will prove most enraging.

So for me, the principle is not that you burn a flag and should therefore be punished - it's that society should recognise that there are acceptable responses to provocation. Someone who burns a flag is picking a fight. Consciously, deliberately, looking for trouble. For me, if you go looking for trouble, you can have no complaints when you find it.

Flag burning should be legal, but it should also be treated as an act of self-defense when a patriotic citizen stomps you into the dust for doing so.

The idea of flag burning being made illegal is, to my mind, a result of the same faulty thinking which seeks to create artificial distinctions in other such cases. A very good illustration is the idea of hate crime. The idea that it is somehow worse to gratuitously call someone (with malice) a nigger than a cunt is, to me, fatuous. Both, are unpleasant, uncivilized acts of unsolicited aggression. The idea that they should be prosecuted differently because one of them is 'extra hate-y' (the legislation may or may not include this phrase), is manifestly absurd.

Unsolicited acts of aggression and deliberate provocation invite a forceful response. The law should not be a tool for sanitising life. However, it should offer protections to a measured response to provocation, whether that is the patriot boxing the chops of some unwashed socialist yahoo, or the black man who reminds his aggressor that those days are well and truly in the past.

^ I disagree, it's been a long time since the days of duels, where mere provocation of words was grounds for deadly battle. Civilized people are expected to follow the rule "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can't hurt me".

Flag burning is even less provocative than that -- you're not even attacking anyone's character. You're just expressing your disdain for what that flag represents to you. If they burned a picture of you -- that might be different.

Otherwise we enter the territory of the 'microagression', where violence is considered an acceptable response to a disagreeable idea. At which point civilization ceases, and we go back to beating each other to death with bones for "looking at me funny".

Quote: (07-21-2016 04:55 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

To me the issue is not so much the flag burning itself - it is the provocation inherent in it. You very rarely see guys nip behind the bikeshed at lunchtime to discretely burn a nation's flag. Invariably, they get right up close to the opposing side and burn it when they know it will prove most enraging.

So for me, the principle is not that you burn a flag and should therefore be punished - it's that society should recognise that there are acceptable responses to provocation. Someone who burns a flag is picking a fight. Consciously, deliberately, looking for trouble. For me, if you go looking for trouble, you can have no complaints when you find it.

Flag burning should be legal, but it should also be treated as an act of self-defense when a patriotic citizen stomps you into the dust for doing so.

snip

Removed the rest of the post I agreed with.

Re: the bolded. I disagree with the reasoning presented.

This is a very unusual definition of self-defense, it shifts 100% of the onus onto the flag-burner as if the assaulter has no ability to control himself like a child: I don't think it's self-defense to attack someone who's burning a flag(unless he threw the burning flag at you haha). The flag-burner didn't do anything to you.

Just because your patriotic passer-by finds it morally reprehensible that doesn't justify him beating up someone else because he has no state control. Even if the flag-burner is picking a fight, that doesn't mean you have to respond to it.

That redefinition of self-defense creates a slippery slope where I could justify a motorist pulling out a gun and shooting and killing another driver who cut him off (the driver with the gun felt provoked and if your action is interpreted as provocation by a stranger, you should expect physical violence, because someone one else interpreted your action) or any crime of passion.

Quote: (07-21-2016 05:25 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Quote: (07-21-2016 04:55 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

To me the issue is not so much the flag burning itself - it is the provocation inherent in it. You very rarely see guys nip behind the bikeshed at lunchtime to discretely burn a nation's flag. Invariably, they get right up close to the opposing side and burn it when they know it will prove most enraging.

So for me, the principle is not that you burn a flag and should therefore be punished - it's that society should recognise that there are acceptable responses to provocation. Someone who burns a flag is picking a fight. Consciously, deliberately, looking for trouble. For me, if you go looking for trouble, you can have no complaints when you find it.

Flag burning should be legal, but it should also be treated as an act of self-defense when a patriotic citizen stomps you into the dust for doing so.

snip

Removed the rest of the post I agreed with.

Re: the bolded. I disagree with the reasoning presented.

This is a very unusual definition of self-defense, it shifts 100% of the onus onto the flag-burner as if the assaulter has no ability to control himself like a child: I don't think it's self-defense to attack someone who's burning a flag(unless he threw the burning flag at you haha). The flag-burner didn't do anything to you.

Just because your patriotic passer-by finds it morally reprehensible that doesn't justify him beating up someone else because he has no state control. Even if the flag-burner is picking a fight, that doesn't mean you have to respond to it.

That redefinition of self-defense creates a slippery slope where I could justify a motorist pulling out a gun and shooting and killing another driver who cut him off (the driver with the gun felt provoked and if your action is interpreted as provocation by a stranger, you should expect physical violence, because someone one else interpreted your action) or any crime of passion.

I agree that it is not straight forward.

However, assault, for the purposes of the common law is defined as the threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent capacity for causing that harm.

Case law abounds where 'Fuck you, bitch' or words to that effect, have been treated as grounds for finding an assault took place. In fact, you would struggle to find a judge or lawyer who didn't think aggressive language like that didn't constitute a nominal assault (whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute for it is a different thing).

If I say 'fuck you, motherfuckers' to a group of soldiers in uniform, and comport myself aggressively towards them, then I have committed an assault. Why should burning a flag, which may not involve saying anything at all, in front of an audience chosen deliberately for the effect such an action will have on them, be considered less of a provocation, or indeed less of a threat?

The proportionality of a response is something for a court and jury to decide. If a response to a present threat is proportional, then it will be an act of self-defense, by definition.

If an act is disproportionate, then sentencing may well be reduced due to the initial assault, but self-defense would not apply as a defense, as it is what's known as a complete defense - if it is found to be an act of self-defense you are completely absolved of any wrongdoing.

There is no redefinition of self-defense in what I describe. What I am suggesting is that a punch in the mouth as a response to an unsolicited act of aggression should be treated as a proportionate and reasonable response to an assault. Your mistake, to the extent you make one, is in thinking that the first assault is necessarily, categorically made by the hypothetical veteran in the situation where a communist burns a flag in front of him as an act of deliberate aggression. My belief is that contrary to what Phoenix suggests, society would be a far more civilized place if the threat of righteous violence from fellow citizens were more prevalent, as people would think twice before being unpleasant or unkind.

I think burning the flag should be legal, but a flag burner should also be required to burn their passport, birth certificate, social security card and drivers licence along with it.

^ You still haven't explained the link between burning a flag and assaulting an individual. Common law doesn't recognize vague "collective victimhood", there has to be specific parties that have been provably assaulted, and being offended isn't an assault. I can't see how burning a flag, no matter who it is in front of, can be an assault, unless there are other exacerbating factors like it's close enough for the heat to hurt them or you say "I'm going to do this to you". Otherwise burning a Koran would be grounds for being sued by any and every muslim, for instance.

And if being unpleasant or unkind was grounds for violence, Australia would be a bloodbath 24/7. What you consider unpleasant isn't what your neighbour considers so. I can't imagine how you've concluded this would reduce violence.

Quote: (07-21-2016 06:31 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

^ You still haven't explained the link between burning a flag and assaulting an individual. Common law doesn't recognize vague "collective victimhood", there has to be specific parties that have been provably assaulted, and being offended isn't an assault. I can't see how burning a flag, no matter who it is in front of, can be an assault, unless there are other exacerbating factors like it's close enough for the heat to hurt them or you say "I'm going to do this to you". Otherwise burning a Koran would be grounds for being sued by any and every muslim, for instance.

And if being unpleasant or unkind was grounds for violence, Australia would be a bloodbath 24/7. What you consider unpleasant isn't what your neighbour considers so. I can't imagine how you've concluded this would reduce violence.

I don't remember using the phrase 'collective victimhood'. That appears to be a mis-characterisation of my position. It is possible to make threat to a group, just as it is possible to threaten an individual. Should the threshold be met, there is grounds for finding assault.

A bunch of jihadis or communists burning American flags at a parade is an aggressive action. If someone goes out of their way to turn up somewhere to deliberately behave aggressively towards you, then I don't honestly see how you think that is any less someone picking a fight than them shouting 'fuck you, bitch' in your face. If the latter counts as an assault for the purposes of the common law, then it seems to me to be an act of intellectual artifice to suggest any meaningful distinction exists in the former case.

As for the bolded, if you'd ever had to face the reality of being popped in the mouth for your condescension, you might find yourself rather more careful in your choice of words from that point on (in fact I'd guarantee it). You don't see a need for it, because you live in a world where you are freed from the consequences of the poor behaviour you may from time to time exhibit. If you don't recognise it, it may simply be a case of not knowing that anything different exists. My conclusions are based on my own experience, perhaps of a rougher world than the one you know.

Quote: (07-21-2016 07:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

As for the bolded, if you'd ever had to face the reality of being popped in the mouth for your condescension, you might find yourself rather more careful in your choice of words from that point on (in fact I'd guarantee it). You don't see a need for it, because you live in a world where you are freed from the consequences of the poor behaviour you may from time to time exhibit. If you don't recognise it, it may simply be a case of not knowing that anything different exists. My conclusions are based on my own experience, perhaps of a rougher world than the one you know.

Interesting then, it is, that the Japanese have the least poor behaviour of probably any group in the world, and they are also the least likely to respond aggressively to slights/bad behaviour/offense, and their police are among the most pleasant in the world. They'll ostracize you real quick though. Contrast that with the Muslims, who believe that offending any part of their religion is grounds for being slaughtered, and observe their track record of "good behaviour". Saying "responding to slights with violence improves behaviour" is not only counter-intuitive, it doesn't bear out the real world.

I've been attacked before, sure. But typically for having an opinion someone else disagreed with, which they then escalated into name calling, which they then escalated into violence. Some people really are that stupid and immoral -- they can't tell the difference between disagreement and being slighted. Things like that don't make me "be more careful in my choice of words" generally, they make me mark that particular person as a thug, and consider going to the police depending on how it panned out.

When condescension is met with "getting popped in the mouth", there is still condescension -- but only from the biggest thug. You are saying that what people have the right to say and do should be determined by their capacity to successfully inflict violence on others. That begets barbarism.