kids sent home from school for wearing USA flag shirts..

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no idea what you're talking about..."equally."

I did say that the government and the private sector are not the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You'd be incorrect if you thought so. Take my advice: if you get in trouble with the law, make sure you have a smart lawyer because you might not actually be in trouble with the law. (Wait, you already know that: You're African American: some of the most shafted people, legally, in America.)

OK, if you're arguing that he wouldn't get convicted, I wouldn't be surprised if it went either way (I showed Supreme Court examples where people with no less legit claims got shut down). That's neither here nor there, but he definitely broke laws as they are written on paper.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You are essentially saying that, whenever someone sees a law violation, they have the right to take the law into their own hands and do whatever they want to stop the violation. That seems like a very dangerous idea to me.

Very non sequitor. That's qutie obvious.

So, correcting a flag's position on government property, in a district that you are part of, is equal to writing a citation for someone doing an illegal turn.

😐

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, first of all where did you get the notion i'm black? I'm not, just FYI.

I thought you told me you were.

😬

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, if you're arguing that he wouldn't get convicted, I wouldn't be surprised if it went either way (I showed Supreme Court examples where people with no less legit claims got shut down). That's neither here nor there, but he definitely broke laws as they are written on paper.

We are talking about adjusting flags on their flag poles, to the proper location, on government property.

Again:

Originally posted by dadudemon
We both agree that what the student in the story did was wrong and constitutes vandalism.

There's really need to be be confused over that and keep bringing it up again as though there's something new to add to it. There really isn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very non sequitor. That's qutie obvious.

So, correcting a flag's position on government property, in a district that you are part of, is equal to writing a citation for someone doing an illegal turn.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought you told me you were.

😬

Originally posted by dadudemon
We are talking about adjusting flags on their flag poles, to the proper location, on government property.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's really need to be be confused over that and keep bringing it up again as though there's something new to add to it. There really isn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In some ways, yes.

😐

are you a nazi? fear

do you advocate eugenics ?

Originally posted by King Kandy
In terms of constitutionality, unless you want to add an amendment saying "and BTW, this doesn't apply to flags", they are the same.

They are not the same: one is a municipal law, the other is a federal regulation.

😐

That was part of the point I was making. "Location" also has a lot to do with it, which was also my point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes. In fact, let me pare this down to the bare bone issue that's at stake here: if someone sees something illegal, but not harmful nor punishable, should they have the right to take any action to rectify it? I believe the answer is "no".

A blanket statement is not going to work for something as specific as flag protocol.

If someone sees that flags are disrespectfully flown, they can adjust them, as long as they are on government property. That doesn't fit into your blanket statement.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I only brought that up because you asked whether you thought the kid would win in court, which again made that particular situation an issue.

If the situation was different....meaning, all he did was adjust the flags to fly in their proper height, then we'd have something to talk about on his situation: he'd definitely be in the right and would be protected from any petty municipal laws that they elastically applied to him adjusting the flags.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
shockingshock

are you a nazi? fear

do you advocate eugenics ?

So every last think Hitler did was morally wrong?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So every last think Hitler did was morally wrong?

instilling a racialized sense of radical nationalism in otherwise unknowing youth in a system that gives said youth no choice?

we are going to argue that this was one of Hitler's positive qualities?

Originally posted by inimalist
instilling a racialized sense of radical nationalism in otherwise unknowing youth in a system that gives said youth no choice?

we are going to argue that this was one of Hitler's positive qualities?

"In some ways, yes" does not mean what you thought it meant, above.

It means the point I implied with this statement:

"So every last thing Hitler did was morally wrong?"

The implied meaning is: Not everything Hitler did was wrong. WS took my point, compared it to Hitler, and asked if we wanted to be like Hitler. In some ways, yes, we do. Not everything he did was "evil."

Edit - Also, instilling patriotism into you people is not a bad thing, especially during times of war. That's one of the best things you could possibly do, as a leader of your nation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They are not the same: one is a municipal law, the other is a federal regulation.

😐

That was part of the point I was making. "Location" also has a lot to do with it, which was also my point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A blanket statement is not going to work for something as specific as flag protocol.

If someone sees that flags are disrespectfully flown, they can adjust them, as long as they are on government property. That doesn't fit into your blanket statement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the situation was different....meaning, all he did was adjust the flags to fly in their proper height, then we'd have something to talk about on his situation: he'd definitely be in the right and would be protected from any petty municipal laws that they elastically applied to him adjusting the flags.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"In some ways, yes" does not mean what you thought it meant, above.

It means the point I implied with this statement:

"So every last thing Hitler did was morally wrong?"

The implied meaning is: Not everything Hitler did was wrong. WS took my point, compared it to Hitler, and asked if we wanted to be like Hitler. In some ways, yes, we do. Not everything he did was "evil."

no, after you encouraged all children be instilled with a sense of nationalism, WS said Hitler also did that, and you questioned if everything Hitler did was wrong.

The only logical way to interpret this, following the edit you made below as well, is that the specific action of creating the "Hitler Youth" was some you think was morally right.

We don't need to extend the arguement at all from there. The Hitler Youth was an immoral institution created for fairly evil reasons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Also, instilling patriotism into you people is not a bad thing, especially during times of war. That's one of the best things you could possibly do, as a leader of your nation.

pragmatism is not a moral argument, it is the fallacy of the end justifying the means

else, we would have no reason to critisize Hitler in the first place, as his desired end (ending the depression, German empire, etc) would justify all his evil

Originally posted by inimalist
it is the fallacy of the end justifying the means

Consequentialism is not a fallacy. There can be fallacies used in arguments defending it (same as in denetology,) but the idea itself is not a fallacy.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Consequentialism is not a fallacy. There can be fallacies used in arguments defending it (same as in denetology,) but the idea itself is not a fallacy.

fair enough

I used 'fallacy' as short hand for the fact that in moral arguments, appealing to pragmatism is irrelevant

Originally posted by inimalist
no, after you encouraged all children be instilled with a sense of nationalism, WS said Hitler also did that, and you questioned if everything Hitler did was wrong.

The only logical way to interpret this, following the edit you made below as well, is that the specific action of creating the "Hitler Youth" was some you think was morally right.

We don't need to extend the arguement at all from there. The Hitler Youth was an immoral institution created for fairly evil reasons.

No, it was quite clear what I meant especially when I said, "So every last thing Hitler did was morally wrong?"

Edit - After I clarified, that should have been the end of it.

Originally posted by inimalist
pragmatism is not a moral argument, it is the fallacy of the end justifying the means

else, we would have no reason to critisize Hitler in the first place, as his desired end (ending the depression, German empire, etc) would justify all his evil

EVERYTHING someone does can be boiled down to moral relativism...it's gets rather tiresome and it seems like all of these types of conversations end up going there.

But, as a leader, you certainly have an explicit responsability to help the nation succeed as best as he or she can. You can throw in morals after that fact...such as not comitting genocide, not conducting germ warefare tests on your neighbors, etc.

Double edit -

Originally posted by Autokrat
Consequentialism is not a fallacy. There can be fallacies used in arguments defending it (same as in denetology,) but the idea itself is not a fallacy.

Lulz. Kant to the rescue.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Forgive me, the "point" you're making seems to me to be changing every time I try and pin it down. So, if you see someone violating federal law, then private citizens can stop them?

Odd, considering I literally edited my post because I was acusing you of the same: jumping all over the place. I figured it was too rude and removed it. Dead serious. (See, I do care. teehee)

To answer you question: it depends on the situation (you should have seen that coming, based on my last response.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why does it not? Why is it that people don't have unlimited rights to correct illegal actions, but when it comes to FLAGS, then they can just do whatever they want? If you think people can just take the law into their own hands to correct government action in this one specific instance, why does this not set a precedent in your opinion?

You asked three questions.

1. Because of what I said, of course.
2. That's not what I said, at all. My posts have been very explicit in saying that they can only adjust the flags on government property if they have an interest in that property (i.e. Their child attends that school or they work on a federal campus that has the flags incorrectlu displayed. My previous posts have indicated that. No do you see why I'm having a hard time talking to you?)
3. Because bad stuff happens when you try to make blanket statements, like you did, earlier. That's rather obvious.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm sorry but there's no law on the books that says "if you see somethings wrong, then you just fix that, laws be damned."

I'm sorry, but there's no law on the books that says, "if you fix an illegally dispalyed American flag on government property, you'll be damned."

Edit - Sorry, man, you aren't going to convince me of anything and you factually will not get in trouble for fixing a flag on government property. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, man, you aren't going to convince me of anything and you factually will not get in trouble for fixing a flag on government property. Prove me wrong.

Wasn't this whole debate of yours started when a kid illegally fixed an improperly displayed flag on government property?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wasn't this whole debate of yours started when a kid illegally fixed an improperly displayed flag on government property?

No, he vandalized a flag, he did not fix anything. I've covered this already, with you. Did you forget?

Originally posted by dadudemon
We both agree that what the student in the story did was wrong and constitutes vandalism.

Found it. Yeah, we talked about this already.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Lulz. Kant to the rescue.

Categorical Imperative! 😱

...I like his epistomology though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it was quite clear what I meant especially when I said, "So every last thing Hitler did was morally wrong?"

Edit - After I clarified, that should have been the end of it.

EVERYTHING someone does can be boiled down to moral relativism...it's gets rather tiresome and it seems like all of these types of conversations end up going there.

But, as a leader, you certainly have an explicit responsability to help the nation succeed as best as he or she can. You can throw in morals after that fact...such as not comitting genocide, not conducting germ warefare tests on your neighbors, etc.

so, just so we have this straight:

you support instilling a strong and reactionary sense of national identity into the youth of the nation through mandatory devotion to symbols, not because it is the right thing to do, but in fact, because it makes other policies, themselves possibly not morally defensible (if deemed necessary), easier to orchestrate?

its how we got the whole boarder patrol/FBI and even military units operating inside the united states doing random stops and asking ppl for their nationality and citizenship..

Originally posted by inimalist
so, just so we have this straight:

you support instilling a strong and reactionary sense of national identity into the youth of the nation through mandatory devotion to symbols, not because it is the right thing to do, but in fact, because it makes other policies, themselves possibly not morally defensible (if deemed necessary), easier to orchestrate?

Only if the majority of the people want it. 😉

Edit - There's no possible way someone would be able to answer your question without it being twisted or manipulated to be negative, in very short order. You'd have to, very explicitly, define the extents of "reactionary", "mandatory" (such as why, to what extent, are there punishments for non-compliance, etc.), what "strong" implies, etc. It's much too loaded to answer.

I'd like to reword your question and answer that one:

"Do you support a happy Jesus type of leader that makes things happy and dandy with butterflies and perfection?" Yes.

its not that ppl want it it is that they feel powerless and the government has this tendency to believe that by quiet consent it is not wrong or illegal even when it is a clear violation of certain constitutional laws..

like taxes
random stops
pledging to country, flag and "God"