Which is more anti-American?

[OrphanSlug]

What the **** is wrong with burning the US Flag?

Oh yeah, nothing.

It is almost like we are leaning towards fascism as a means to ensure national pride, as if that has never gone wrong... historically speaking.

 

[TheGoverness]

It is almost like we are leaning towards fascism as a means to ensure national pride, as if that has never gone wrong... historically speaking.

Exactly! Why do so many Nationalistic Americans want everyone to sieg heil the flag?

Are we the like the USSR now?

 

[Moot]

Since the flag is symbolic then so is the act of desecrating it. Symbolic is much better than real. Although people seldom remember why the flag was desecrated...only that it was. The symbolic meaning gets lost by the act itself. It's like instead of looking in the direction a finger is pointing to, people only look at the finger.

 

[earthworm]

Either are "bad", and un-necessary ..Its OUR land and OUR flag !

 

[earthworm]

Exactly! Why do so many Nationalistic Americans want everyone to sieg heil the flag?

Are we the like the USSR now?

Is simple respect that difficult ?

 

[SDET]

This pretty well sums it up.

 

[TheGoverness]

Is simple respect that difficult ?

No one should have to respect the flag if they don't want to.

 

[Cephus]

Neither. Desecration is meaningless. If you own the land, you can do with it what you want, so long as it doesn't affect others. If you own the flag, you can do with it what you want, so long as it doesn't threaten to light other people's property on fire. It's free speech. Do whatever you want.

 

[The Mark]

Of these two, which do you think is more anti-American / unpatriotic?

1. Desecrating our flag.

2. Desecrating our land.

Depends what you mean by land desecration.


Although personally I don't give much of a damn about flag desecration. I don't like it, but it's not by any means the worst thing someone could do.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Of these two, which do you think is more anti-American / unpatriotic?

1. Desecrating our flag.

2. Desecrating our land.

Is the flag made in China?

 

[JC Callender]

It depends on the circumstances. But for all of those who believe that a flag means nothing, well...what does mean anything to you? Sure, the actual flag is just polyester or cotton, but it stands for something. If someone burned a picture of your mother, would you just sit back, complacent, and say "I don't care, it's only paper".

 

[Cardinal]

It depends on the circumstances. But for all of those who believe that a flag means nothing, well...what does mean anything to you? Sure, the actual flag is just polyester or cotton, but it stands for something. If someone burned a picture of your mother, would you just sit back, complacent, and say "I don't care, it's only paper".

If the alternative was that my mother's home was to be burned down, then yes. Relative to that, I would.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It depends on the circumstances. But for all of those who believe that a flag means nothing, well...what does mean anything to you? Sure, the actual flag is just polyester or cotton, but it stands for something. If someone burned a picture of your mother, would you just sit back, complacent, and say "I don't care, it's only paper".

The flag ultimately represents the land. Just like the picture represents your mother. Would you rather them burn your mother's picture, or your mother?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Why all this effort to determine "anti-american" like this? What are we really trying to prove?

The point is that the flag represents the land. So why would one get more upset over someone trashing the flag than they would the land?

 

[Gathomas88]

Of these two, which do you think is more anti-American / unpatriotic?

1. Desecrating our flag.

2. Desecrating our land.

Defined as???

 

[OrphanSlug]

The point is that the flag represents the land. So why would one get more upset over someone trashing the flag than they would the land?

Because it all becomes too argumentative on what and why one should be upset about this. The idea of what is "anti-american" when it comes to this makes it worse.

 

[Gathomas88]

Since the private ownership of land is how we do things here in America, what you do to your land is your business. The same goes for a flag--if its yours, do what you want with it. That said, intentionally desecrating an American flag is a sign of disrespect and hatred for the country. In that sense, to hate America is rather un-American

Exactly. Desecration of the flag is problematic because of the ideas the flag represents, more than anything else. The act is basically a giant "f*** you" to the very idea of "America" itself.

The OP is going to have define exactly what he means by "desecration of land."

Simple exploitation of natural resources in pursuit of industry, and the inevitable pollution it creates, wouldn't really seem to cut any definition of "desecration," IMO. They serve an actual, productive, purpose. Reckless, illegal, and dangerous forms of pollution (as happened in Flint, Michigan), meanwhile, aren't so much "anti-American" as they are simply breaking the law and being a crappy human being.

 

[Cephus]

It depends on the circumstances. But for all of those who believe that a flag means nothing, well...what does mean anything to you? Sure, the actual flag is just polyester or cotton, but it stands for something. If someone burned a picture of your mother, would you just sit back, complacent, and say "I don't care, it's only paper".

Yeah, actually, I would. It's just a thing. It means only what you want it to mean. Burn all the flags you want, it doesn't affect the nation a bit. Who cares?

 

[Cephus]

Exactly. Desecration of the flag is problematic because of the ideas the flag represents, more than anything else. The act is basically a giant "f*** you" to the very idea of "America" itself.

So what? Isn't that part of the freedom that we enjoy in this country, the right to do exactly that if we want to? If you take that away, then this country really doesn't mean a whole lot, does it?

 

[Gathomas88]

So what? Isn't that part of the freedom that we enjoy in this country, the right to do exactly that if we want to? If you take that away, then this country really doesn't mean a whole lot, does it?

Just because someone is theoretically "free" to do something, doesn't make them any less of an asshole for actually doing it. No one ever said that flag burning should necessarily be illegal, per se, just that it is often "anti-American."

 

[JC Callender]

The flag ultimately represents the land. Just like the picture represents your mother. Would you rather them burn your mother's picture, or your mother?

The flag represents way more than the land, imo. It represents our independence, Constitution, our history in general...our national character.

 

[Cardinal]

Exactly. Desecration of the flag is problematic because of the ideas the flag represents, more than anything else. The act is basically a giant "f*** you" to the very idea of "America" itself.

The OP is going to have define exactly what he means by "desecration of land."

Simple exploitation of natural resources in pursuit of industry, and the inevitable pollution it creates, wouldn't really seem to cut any definition of "desecration," IMO. They serve an actual, productive, purpose. Reckless, illegal, and dangerous forms of pollution (as happened in Flint, Michigan), meanwhile, aren't so much "anti-American" as they are simply breaking the law and being a crappy human being.

Why are Conservatives* suddenly acting confused about what pollution is? Don't act obtuse.

Anyway, it will take a die-hard patriot a good cry and a game of pool to recover from seeing an American flag burned. Meanwhile, the Gulf of Mexico still hasn't fully recovered from the BP oil spill. Mercury is in all our fish, Flint Michigan residents can't drink their own water and trees don't grow downwind of states with coal plants.

*Sorry, but I'm going to paint with that broad brush -- Conservatives have very specifically and deliberately made it a part of their political philosophy to stand against efforts protecting the environment.

 

[Gathomas88]

Why are Conservatives* suddenly acting confused about what pollution is? Don't act obtuse.

Anyway, it will take a die-hard patriot a good cry and a game of pool to recover from seeing an American flag burned. Meanwhile, the Gulf of Mexico still hasn't fully recovered from the BP oil spill. Mercury is in all our fish, Flint Michigan residents can't drink their own water and trees don't grow downwind of states with coal plants.

And whom, exactly, has defended any of that?

*Sorry, but I'm going to paint with that broad brush -- Conservatives have very specifically and deliberately made it a part of their political philosophy to stand against efforts protecting the environment.

No, but we certainly recognize that actually having a functional and prosperous economy capable of providing people with jobs and livelihoods is oftentimes more important than "natural beauty" for it's own sake. That is ultimately a matter of degree, however. As I said, a lot of this question depends on how one defines "desecration" in the first place.

No one here is defending the reckless dumping of pollutants. Somehow I suspect that the OP defines the term far more broadly than that.

 

[Cardinal]

And whom, exactly, has defended any of that?



No, but we certainly recognize that actually having a functional and prosperous economy capable of providing people with jobs and livelihoods is oftentimes more important than "natural beauty" for it's own sake. That is ultimately a matter of degree, however. As I said, a lot of this question depends on how one defines "desecration" in the first place.

No one here is defending the reckless dumping of pollutants.

The answer to your first question addresses the rest of your post. Who has defended any of that are those in every discussion whereby protection of the environment would appear to threaten some economic advantage for larger business. You clearly establish this in your own post. It's ridiculous because OF COURSE environmental considerations are going to be more expensive and a pain in the ass in the path toward making money. Just dumping pollutants in the ground without any thought toward larger health impacts saves a ton of time and even more money. And it's not just about huge businesses and manufacturers, they just have the largest profile. I'm talking about everybody. It's a depressingly common tactic among house painters to take the used mineral spirits, take it out back and dump it in the ground. You can guess what tens of thousands of painters in a city doing that every year will eventually have on the quality of the water and soil, and those are just the little guys.

Somehow I suspect that the OP defines the term far more broadly than that.

I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think he is.

But anyway, comparing flag burning to environmental destruction may sound asinine on the face of it, but there's no question that in discussions between conservatives and liberals, one side very much prioritizes the importance of one, the other side stresses the other. And conservatives are perfectly aware of which one is concretely more destructive, as demonstrated by their behavior in this thread. "Environmental desecration? What's that? I've never heard of such a thing. You'll have to provide an example or context of some kind. Is "The Environment" a new wage rock band? I'll have to wiki this and get back to you."

 

[Gathomas88]

The answer to your first question addresses the rest of your post. Who has defended any of that are those in every discussion whereby protection of the environment would appear to threaten some economic advantage for larger business. You clearly establish this in your own post. It's ridiculous because OF COURSE environmental considerations are going to be more expensive and a pain in the ass in the path toward making money. Just dumping pollutants in the ground without any thought toward larger health impacts saves a ton of time and even more money. And it's not just about huge businesses and manufacturers, they just have the largest profile. I'm talking about everybody. It's a depressingly common tactic among house painters to take the used mineral spirits, take it out back and dump it in the ground. You can guess what tens of thousands of painters in a city doing that every year will eventually have on the quality of the water and soil, and those are just the little guys.



I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think he is.

But anyway, comparing flag burning to environmental destruction may sound asinine on the face of it, but there's no question that in discussions between conservatives and liberals, one side very much prioritizes the importance of one, the other side stresses the other. And conservatives are perfectly aware of which one is concretely more destructive, as demonstrated by their behavior in this thread. "Environmental desecration? What's that? I've never heard of such a thing. You'll have to provide an example or context of some kind. Is "The Environment" a new wage rock band? I'll have to wiki this and get back to you."

Again, no one here is defending, or putting forward the idea, that companies should simply go around dumping pollutants wherever they feel like it, free of consequence. That is both illegal, and immoral, in that it very often compromises the health and welfare of people living nearby.

Some of us would, however, agree that some amount of pollution is the inevitable result of, and a fair price to pay for, simple material progress. That progress ultimately makes life better for everyone by creating more wealth and opportunity for the population in general to enjoy. The amount of the former we are willing to tolerate in pursuit of the latter simply happens to exist as a matter of degree, on a spectrum of sorts.

In other words, no, I don't think simply exploiting land and resources for industry counts as "desecration." I do, however, think that dangerous and irresponsible forms of dumping (and other, similar, practices) should be illegal. I also think burning a flag which represents the American people and the American way of life is a rather major "dick move," and that the people who do so, simply to "make a scene," are belligerent morons.