It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the 2016 Election is important : America's flag burns on US soil.

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

All healthy societies are authoritarian.


The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.


What do you think laws are? Name me a healthy society that has no laws.
You liberals get so triggered by the word and turn it into something it's not.
edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ok then burning copies of the Koran should be illegal as that can incure violence.

Any anti immigrant and Muslim speech or actions should be outlaws for the same reasons

Off colour jokes should be banned as they could offend someone to the point of violence

Ect ect ect

Now you have a huge mess.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth

Ok then burning copies of the Koran should be illegal as that can incure violence.

Any anti immigrant and Muslim speech or actions should be outlaws for the same reasons

Off colour jokes should be banned as they could offend someone to the point of violence

Ect ect ect

Now you have a huge mess.


You can refer to one of my earlier posts where I mentioned this very thing.

You are right in that the danger of any restriction on free speech is that more and more free speech gets taken away.

However, we don't have complete free speech today, despite some people seeming to think we do. This is not an all or nothing argument - never has been and never will be.

On your points:

Burning the Koran? yes i think that should be illegal if done provocatively. Not if you are burning one for kindle in your own home to light a fire though.

Any immigrant or Muslim speech? You would have to be more specific. Some is already rightly illegal, for example calling for people to kill all Muslims. Discussion on the faults within the religion is not illegal (rightly so).

Jokes? No, should not be illegal

edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

All healthy societies are authoritarian.


The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.


What do you think laws are? Name me a healthy society that has no laws.
You liberals get so triggered by the word and turn it into something it's not.


Of course laws are authoritarian. As is every government.

Which is why the current tactic of the Right pretending that it wants "smaller government" or "greater individual freedom" is so absurd. You want to keep people from burning a colored piece of cloth. Must have complete control, yah?

You wingers get so triggered when anyone states the obvious facts.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

All healthy societies are authoritarian.


The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.


What do you think laws are? Name me a healthy society that has no laws.
You liberals get so triggered by the word and turn it into something it's not.


Of course laws are authoritarian. As is every government.

Which is why the current tactic of the Right pretending that it wants "smaller government" or "greater individual freedom" is so absurd. You want to keep people from burning a colored piece of cloth. Must have complete control, yah?

You wingers get so triggered when anyone states the obvious facts.



Good so we agree all healthy societies are authoritarian, which was my original statement. The only debate is the scale of authority and how far it reaches into peoples lives. It's better to discuss that than all or nothing extremes.

I don't see a national flag as a coloured piece of cloth. I see it as a symbol of the country and it's values. Symbols, whether people like it or not, are very powerful and stir emotion. Many liberals are not patriotic and don't care about their country, which is a choice they are entitled to.

I don't think the scale of govt and greater individual freedoms are restricted to either side of the debate.

Liberals worry a lot about which toilet someone can use and want to force others to accept sharing toilets with the opposite sex.
Patriots worry about things like respecting the country as whole.

It's just a different set of concerns.

Both require some form of authority in the law.
edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, we do not agree that all healthy societies are authoritarian. There you go again.

You see a flag as a symbol. Others see that burning that flag as a symbol. Why are you allowed your symbol and others aren't?

And please, stop the generic wide sweeping nonsense about what you think "liberals" think and do; it's logically obnoxious.

I've never met a non-patriotic American liberal, on the contrary, most of those who call themselves liberals are far more educated regarding our Constitution and what it actually says than the "average" wingnut.

Are you talking about the UK here? Labour? Who? Can you be specific and talk about real people rather than the convenient caricatures you're espousing here?

Also, I notice that you very rarely use British standard spelling in your posts ... do you consciously switch between British and American English? Odd that.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

No, we do not agree that all healthy societies are authoritarian. There you go again.

You see a flag as a symbol. Others see that burning that flag as a symbol. Why are you allowed your symbol and others aren't?

And please, stop the generic wide sweeping nonsense about what you think "liberals" think and do; it's logically obnoxious.

I've never met a non-patriotic American liberal, on the contrary, most of those who call themselves liberals are far more educated regarding our Constitution and what it actually says than the "average" wingnut.

Are you talking about the UK here? Labour? Who? Can you be specific and talk about real people rather than the convenient caricatures you're espousing here?

Also, I notice that you very rarely use British standard spelling in your posts ... do you consciously switch between British and American English? Odd that.


All healthy societies have laws. Laws are authoritarian. We're only discussing the scale of authoritarianism. What's not to agree with?

Liberals just want to impose authority in a different way to other groups, including those on the right. But, it's authoritarian nonetheless.

Flag waving in your own country vs Flag burning in your country - which do you think might be more likely to incite violence? Can you find me an instance of US flag waving on US soil that led to violence? I guess there may be some... but I can find many instances relating to flag burning.

UK/US spelling? - I hate red lines under words and this site seems to want the US version of the spelling. Not sure why that's relevant.
edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So, the government should ban all freedom of speech if it leads to (or could lead to) violence???

That would be "healthy" in your estimation? "Jawohl."

Again, who are you talking about when you refer to "liberals" ... you called me one, and I am patently not.

I think you're confused about what "liberals" are in the US.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

So, the government should ban all freedom of speech if it leads to (or could lead to) violence???

That would be "healthy" in your estimation? "Jawohl."

Again, who are you talking about when you refer to "liberals" ... you called me one, and I am patently not.

I think you're confused about what "liberals" are in the US.


No, nothing so extreme.
Some free speech is already banned. As I said, all healthy societies are authoritarian - to some degree.
Banning additional elements of free speech to those that already exist is simply a matter of where you draw the line, not some extreme of banning all free speech. For some reason, liberals always seem to want to use extremes as the basis for an argument. The world is not so black and white.

I do think that activity planned and designed to create violence should be banned though. I see a lot of protests these days that show protesters just getting in peoples faces and hurling insults at them, screaming like lunatics. I noted one at the California rally where some awful woman just stood right in front of another person and shouted 'bitch, bitch, bitch' in his face over and over again. This kind of behavior, in my view, should not be tolerated. When asked, these 'protesters' don't even have the right information to hand as to why they are protesting. This is not protesting, it is goading.

It's the same with the flag burning in the OP. Telling people they were Nazi's because they disagreed with it, shouting a whole load of lies about what the flag represented.

I think society is going to swing back and no longer tolerate this kind of behavior, which i would consider to be improving the health of society.



edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."

You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?

Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?

Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.

It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."

You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?

Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?

Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.

It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.


By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.

Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So because you don’t like it you want it banned?

That is a slippery slope my friend.

A slope you might have the high ground on but when it starts rolling down it can quickly escalate.

Better to let it be and don’t start the ban wars.

I mean who draws the line at what is appropriate free speech? The government and government is not only inherently corrupt but changes in a republic or democracy.

One decade you may have a Trump banning things you don’t like, next decade you might end up with a Democrat banning stuff you do or like. Better to not put the means in place for them to do it in the first place!


Im not comeing at this from a left or right positition here, just trying to stop the process of rolling down a slippery slope like the UK has.

edit on 1-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth

So because you don’t like it you want it banned?

That is a slippery slope my friend.

A slope you might have the high ground on but when it starts rolling down it can quickly escalate.

Better to let it be and don’t start the ban wars.

I mean who draws the line at what is appropriate free speech? The government and government is not only inherently corrupt but changes in a republic or democracy.

One decade you may have a Trump banning things you don’t like, next decade you might end up with a Democrat banning stuff you do or like. Better to not put the means in place for them to do it in the first place!


Im not comeing at this from a left or right positition here, just trying to stop the process of rolling down a slippery slope like the UK has.


You raise a fair point, but I want to point out again that there is already a line. Who decided where that line is currently drawn?
Laws have and will shift around on this subject.

Some argue that flag burning should be illegal, others not so. The debate, though, can't descend into extremes or risks of all free speech being illegal. I am not sure I could find a single person who would support either extreme of all free speech being legal or illegal.
edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."

You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?

Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?

Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.

It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.


By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.

Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.


I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."

You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?

Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?

Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.

It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.


By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.

Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.


I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.


"The most freedom for the greatest number" - i can't argue with that. This statement represents what I would call a healthy society. However, there will be still be laws and still restrictions imposed by others on what you can do individually. Even with perfect balance you will still be subject to the authority of law, which is precisely what I mean by "All healthy societies are authoritarian". I was not speaking to the extent of that authority.
edit on 1/5/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."

You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?

Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?

Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.

It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.


By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.

Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.


I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.


"The most freedom for the greatest number" - i can't argue with that. This statement represents what I would call a healthy society. However, there will be still be laws and still restrictions imposed by others on what you can do individually. Even with perfect balance you will still be subject to the authority of law, which is precisely what I mean by "All healthy societies are authoritarian". I was not speaking to the extent of that authority.


Can't disagree with any of that either. I guess we just like to argue, LOL.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."

You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?

Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?

Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.

It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.


By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.

Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.


I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.


"The most freedom for the greatest number" - i can't argue with that. This statement represents what I would call a healthy society. However, there will be still be laws and still restrictions imposed by others on what you can do individually. Even with perfect balance you will still be subject to the authority of law, which is precisely what I mean by "All healthy societies are authoritarian". I was not speaking to the extent of that authority.


Can't disagree with any of that either. I guess we just like to argue, LOL.


Haha - I guess we do.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
American flag made in China, hardly represents the land mass of the USA which politicians and corporations have no problem burning and polluting, so the water is no longer safe to drink, but yeah get back to a piece of material being burned



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
American flag made in China, hardly represents the land mass of the USA which politicians and corporations have no problem burning and polluting, so the water is no longer safe to drink, but yeah get back to a piece of material being burned


I don't think you'll find many sane people claiming politicians and corporations have a lot of love for country.
I also don't view a national flag as a piece of material. The evidence that it is not is really easy. Burn a rag in public and burn an American flag in public and see what different reactions you get. The fact there is a difference tells you something else is at play.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Other than the occasional environmental mishap that temporarily effects a small amount of people (which happens in every country), tap water is perfectly safe in the states.

What makes you think we don't have safe drinking water?




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join