# Flag Burning post- 9/11? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2002, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812 "2002-04-10T11:22:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/101 "2002-04-12T02:30:19Z")
Rjung, your protest would be useless and counterproductive. It would be a meaningless form of communication, since what you THOUGHT you were communicating would be overshadowed by what the vast majority of the public would understand that communication to be. If I take out a picture of the Pope and rip it into shreds, what does that mean? It means that the Pope should be ripped to shreds. The flag is not the symbol of the government of America, it is the symbol of America. If you burn the flag in an attempt to protest the actions of the Government, you are burning the wrong symbol. People will despise you, because you are doing something hurtful. Would you wear a Nazi uniform, give a Nazi Salute, fly the Nazi flag and give readings of Mein Kampf to protest the actions of Israel? Why not? After all, you could give a speech explaining that just as the Nazis did such and such, these people did such and such, and therefore such and such. You could. Except you wouldn’t, because only a asshole would do such a thing. It wouldn’t matter what your motivations were, what you thought you were doing. At the end of the day, you are strutting around in a Nazi uniform, glorifying Nazism. Or maybe you want to make the political point that drugs are destroying America’s cities, so you dress up in a Klan outfit and burn a cross and then make a speech that drugdealers are destroying us, just like the Klan tried to destroy us. How many people do you think will listen, will respond positively to your little bit of political theater? The Flag is a symbol of America. You cannot burn a flag to make a political point without destroying that symbol of America. No matter what your intent, the end result is that you have told people that the America should be destroyed, just as the Flag was destroyed. If you are trying to make a political point, you will have failed, because at the end of the day you are just another flag-burning birkenstock-wearing evian-drinking, etc, burning the American Flag. No speech you give will change that, just like nobody is going to stop to listen to your critique of Israeli defense policy when you strut around in a Nazi uniform. Nobody is going to listen to your proposals for solving inner-city drug problems when you strut around in a Klan robe. Political theater can make a point. You could attend the Gore-Bush debates in an Abraham Lincoln costume to illustrate how degraded political “debates” have become since Lincoln-Douglas. You can dress up as a sea turtle to protest habitat degradation. But some forms of political theater are vicious and hateful and despicable. No one will listen to a man in a Nazi uniform, no one will listen to a man in a Klan hood, and no one will listen to a man burning the American flag. You have the right to do any of these things, but anyone who actual does them is an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/102 "2002-04-12T03:11:11Z")
So **rjung’s** flag burning is somehow more valid because he spelled out a ‘ceremony’ and I didn’t, which obviously means he has a message and I don’t. You found his description to agree with what your perception of a proper flag burning would be, but you disagree with the way I described it, so you’d have to insist I carry it out the way he describes before you’ll call it a valid form of protest? Do you always tell people that you insist they have to speak in a manner that makes you ‘want to join them’? And **Guin** , just because it seems trivial to you, doesn’t mean it is to me. That’s part of who I am that someone cast a wild generalization about. It’s hard to let go when being stereotyped. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/103 "2002-04-12T03:50:50Z")
All I’m saying is CHILL! You obviously read way more into his comment than was meant! Or, if you must-take it to another thread-PLEASE! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/104 "2002-04-12T07:22:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > Rjung, your protest would be useless and counterproductive. It would be a meaningless form of communication, since what you THOUGHT you were communicating would be overshadowed by what the vast majority of the public would understand that communication to be. I refuse to be blamed just because someone didn’t take the time to _listen_ to my message and _comprehend_ the meaning of the message. Especially if I went to great lengths to make sure my message was clear. Doing anything less would be against the spirit of this board – to fight ignorance (even if it does take longer than we thought). ---
**Author:** ![sirjamesp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@sirjamesp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirjamesp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/105 "2002-04-12T07:47:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > HOWEVER, if an amendment were passed, I would burn flags myself for then **as I have said before** , circumstances would have changed. Burning a flag is the ultimate act of protest. I would only do it under the most dire circumstances. So you get to decide where the line is drawn, past which flag-burning becomes acceptable? Nice. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/106 "2002-04-12T09:49:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > **I already said that if flagburning were outlawed I would change my mind on the matter, but you are so intent on pushing your agenda that you refuse to listen.** Wait, so burning flags is showing a hatred of america and is a completely inproper form of protesting, UNLESS it’s illegal, in which case it’s _not_ showing a hatred of america but instead is a proper form of protesting? Personally, it seems flag-burning is usually a fairly juvinile way of gaining a lot of attention to one self, but there are exceptions where the person actually has a decent reason… ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/107 "2002-04-12T13:31:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Wait, so burning flags is showing a hatred of america and is a completely inproper form of protesting, UNLESS it’s illegal, in which case it’s not showing a hatred of America but instead is a proper form of protesting? If the states rartify a manifestly idiotic law that would make a mockery of the First Amendment, then, yes, in my view burning the flag would be a proper form of demonstration. > [@](#): > > So you get to decide where the line is drawn, past which flag-burning becomes acceptable? Nice That’s right: I judge where the line goes, I decide, me, me, me. Here’s the beauty part: **You** get to decide, too! You draw your line, I’ll draw mine, and we’ll glare at each other and think the other one has no idea of what he’s talking about. That’t the trouble with so-called liberals. You guys only allow one point of view. I’m content to disgree with you until the sun goes white dwarf, but I would never censor you. I will try to argue you out of burning a flag, but I would never ban it. Leftists, on the other hand, try to shut down any point of view that they dislike. Just look at the accounts of campus leftists stealing newspapers because it carried an ad they don’t like. (_Uncivil Wars_ by David Horowitz) **Catsix** , think about it; I’m a gay man with a decided leather fetish–how can I be anti-piercing? I made one comment about some fatheaded people who were pierced, and you decided it was a blanket condemnation of piercing. Get over it! **Gadarene** , I don’t need to be right about DC, so I’ll retract my statements on the demonstrators and cede the argument to you. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/108 "2002-04-12T14:00:25Z")
Well **gobear** , you just sort of called a group of people I belong to ‘morons’. That was a bit irritating. I don’t care what kind of fetishes you have or what your sexual orientation is, it’s still going to bug me when someone looks disdainfully down at me for whatever reason and assumes me less intelligent than himself. You made a blatant condemnation about pierced people who do political protests you don’t agree with. Since I’m one of those people, although smarter than you’ve given me credit for, I think it’s pretty reasonable that I express distaste at being categorized in such a manner. IOW, your statements lumped me in the group you call ‘morons’. That’s what I objected to. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/109 "2002-04-12T14:29:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\* > That’t the trouble with so-called liberals. You guys only allow one point of view. \*\* This moderate seems to remember that it was the _conservatives_ who passed the flag burning laws in the first place. The laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as they violated the first ammendment, i.e. they only allowed certain points of view. Don’t generalize, **gobear**. I wouldn’t say that the liberals are the only ones who do this. Sure, they can be guilty of it at times (“politically correct” comes to mind), but so can conservatives (if you criticize the war effort you’re a communist!). All it takes is for someone to have overly partisan politics or to view the world only in terms of black and white. **catsix** , can we **please** drop the body piercing to grey matter ratio thing? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/110 "2002-04-12T14:37:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Don’t generalize, gobear. I wouldn’t say that the liberals are the only ones who do this. Sure, they can be guilty of it at times (“politically correct” comes to mind), but so can conservatives (if you criticize the war effort you’re a communist!). Oh, all right. You guys never let me have any fun! ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/111 "2002-04-12T14:56:35Z")
As long as there are no further generalizations of politically motivated folks such as myself as juvenile morons who are guilty only of imbicilic cries for attention. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/112 "2002-04-12T16:48:52Z")
> [@](#): > > **catsix** , can we **please** drop the body piercing to grey matter ratio thing? Now that **catsix** is dropping the point, let me pick it back up for one post, because I think it’s a point that needs to be driven home: _Provocative hyperbole_ is **NOT** throwaway rhetoric, as so many pundits and partisans (and SDMB GDers) seem to believe. On the contrary, rhetoric is not only the medium which delivers an argument, it is also part of the construction of the argument. When hyperbole is used, not to humorously emphasize the basic truths underlying a particular point, but to exalt questionable assumptions, it is a fair debating tactic to reply to the hyperbole as well as to the thesis. **gobear** ’s suggestion that the protestors he’s seen have more piercings than brains may be totally irrelevant to the question of _legality_, but it is integral to his supporting argument for the assertion that flag-burners are despicable people. If he was only contending that burning a flag is an ineffective form of protest since, for him, the message such an act communicates is one he finds repellant, then few of us, I think, would have issue with **gobear** ’s position beyond qualifiers regarding methods of presentation which might illuminate the protest. However, his argument was predicated not on the value of the act of protest, but that of the protestors themselves; he attempted to invalidate the act by denigrating in the broadest manner the intelligence and character of all who would choose that action. By picking apart the rhetoric he uses to paint such a caricature, we unravel the emotional facade which makes the argument appealing (to some) and expose the _ad hominem_ fallacy that underlies it. Further, if we as a society (talking about the SDMB specifically, but IMO this applies to popular discourse as well) fail to challenge such hyperbole then we are encouraging with our silence that mentality which embraces ignorance and incites hatred. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/113 "2002-04-12T18:02:25Z")
> [@](#): > > However, his argument was predicated not on the value of the act of protest, but that of the protestors themselves; he attempted to invalidate the act by denigrating in the broadest manner the intelligence and character of all who would choose that action. Not so, and I resent the accusation. I find the people who burn flags odious because they are performing an odious act, not the other way around. Action creates character. Flagburning is not a morally neutral act. Granted, this is merely my opinion. I didn’t say “flagburning is wicked because wicked people do it,” which would have been a true _ad hominem_ argument. I took people’s arguments here seriously, and didn’t discount their positions because of their politics. Hell, \*_Rjung_ made a very convincing argument, and he and I never agree! Let us take Rep. McKinney’s recent comment that the Bush Administration conspired to keep advance word of 9/11 secret. If one countered with , “She said that because she’s a liberal fool,” THAT would be an _ad hominem_ argument. If, however, one said, “If she said something that foolish, she is a liberal fool,” that is a sensible evaluation of her character judged by her remarks. While we might argue only over the merits of her argument, not to judge her charcter and her fitness for office by her remarks seems ingenuous to me. . ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/114 "2002-04-12T18:33:00Z")
It was a little closer to ‘flag burning is wicked and only stupid people do it.’ I have no problem with you saying the first half of that, because that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You believe flag burning is wicked, and you have every right to say so. The second part was what I had a problem with. The instant classification of anyone who does an act that _in your opinion_ is wicked has to be, by definition, a moron. If you could’ve stuck to your opinion of the act and not assumed your opinion (being the only correct one, in your mind) immediately indicated certian other ‘facts’ about the people who participated in the activity, you would’ve gotten no ranting from me. _shrug_ ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/115 "2002-04-12T18:44:31Z")
Let’s talk about Cynthia McKinney. Personally, I cannot recall any public statement she’s ever made with which I could agree. Not one (and I’m in the same local news market, so I hear and see her comments fairly regularly). I think her typical modus operandi is to stir up controversy and wait to be attacked so that she can play certain victimization games ‘on behalf of her constituents’. She is, IMO, the political equivalent of a message board troll. Now, having said that, what if I responded to hearing her latest diatribe by saying “the critics who question this President’s probity have no wish to improve the Administration’s politics; they operate only out of hatred for compassionate conservatism, and a self-serving need to spew liberal hogwash!” Have I addressed _this particular_ criticism of Bush, or have I instead demonized all critics of the administration and fostered the false belief that all liberals who criticize Bush are like Cynthia McKinney? By the way, I sincerely apologize for the careless implication I made in the last sentence of my previous post, that **you** were directly embracing ignorance or inciting violence. I did not mean to impugn you personally, merely the rhetorical technique you used. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/116 "2002-04-12T19:06:42Z")
There are more readers of this thread than writers of it, so even though I can’t point to where **catsix** is responding specifically to my post, I will not assume that no readers are taking her response below as being addressed to me. Therefore, to the extent that I perceive her post to have responded to mine, I will try to clarify my points. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > **So rjung’s flag burning is somehow more valid because he spelled out a ‘ceremony’ and I didn’t, which obviously means he has a message and I don’t.** I don’t believe **rjung’s** flag burning is more valid than yours, and I _certainly_ don’t think that you don’t have a message. I have a deep mistrust of the word “obviously”; I try to use it as little as possible, and I urge others to do the same, particularly in debate. > [@](#): > > **You found his description to agree with what your perception of a proper flag burning would be,** I did, yes. > [@](#): > > \*\* but you disagree with the way I described it,\*\* On the contrary, I don’t even recall reading your description of how you would carry it out. If you did post such a description, and I missed it, please feel free to direct me to the post. > [@](#): > > \*\* so you’d have to insist I carry it out the way he describes before you’ll call it a valid form of protest?\*\* Not before I’d call it a valid form of protest, before I’d feel comfortable participating in it. There is a difference between the two, and if you want to reduce my insistence on that difference to me lacking the courage of my convictions (not that anyone has done so), I won’t waste my breath trying to dispute the assertion. > [@](#): > > **Do you always tell people that you insist they have to speak in a manner that makes you ‘want to join them’?** No, of course not. But I do reserve the right to insist on defining the limits I set for my own actions (including the action of joining in a public protest). If I conveyed that my insisting was targeted at your actions, then I must apologize for my clumsy attempt at communication. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/117 "2002-04-12T19:21:04Z")
[quote] Now, having said that, what if I responded to hearing her latest diatribe by saying “the critics who question this President’s probity have no wish to improve the Administration’s politics; they operate only out of hatred for compassionate conservatism, and a self-serving need to spew liberal hogwash!” You are using a far broader brush than I did. I did not atack all critics of the Bush administration, merely the perpetrators of one particular act. Now if you had said, “Critics who accuse the President of complicity in the events of 9/11 operate only out of a self-serving need to spew liberal hogwash!”, that would be more analogous to my position on flagburning. Now is that an _ad hominem_ dismissal of her comments, or an astute assessment of her motivations? ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/118 "2002-04-12T19:43:51Z")
I have my own little rule which applies in this case- “How much power does the person commiting the act have?” This is why I don’t get too riled up at the person on the subway who spreads his legs wide enough to take up two seats- if that’s his idea of a victory- fine. I have a larger viewpoint. For instance: some guy pulls out his Zippo and burns his copy of the American flag. Whatever. That’s the most he can do in his powerlessness, even if he HATES AMERICA!!! On the other hand, back in December of 2000 Antonin Scalia and his cohort not only wiped their asses on another symbol of our country: the United States Constitution, but they also had the power to turn their hatred of democracy, of the Liberty of the People, of the very idea that the United States of America was founded upon- that the government should only govern with the consent of the governed- into the mockery that is the Bush “presidency.” Some skinny hippy’s torching of a piece of cloth vanishes next to that obscenity. JDM ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/119 "2002-04-12T19:54:46Z")
> [@](#): > > On the other hand, back in December of 2000 Antonin Scalia and his cohort not only wiped their asses on another symbol of our country: the United States Constitution, but they also had the power to turn their hatred of democracy, of the Liberty of the People, of the very idea that the United States of America was founded upon- that the government should only govern with the consent of the governed- into the mockery that is the Bush “presidency.” Some skinny hippy’s torching of a piece of cloth vanishes next to that obscenity. And **I’m** accused of using excessive hyperbole? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812/120 "2002-04-12T19:57:33Z")
> [@](#): > > You are using a far broader brush than I did. I did not atack all critics of the Bush administration, merely the perpetrators of one particular act. Wrong. You attacked all who have chosen or would choose a particular _form of protest_. Until others (notably **rjung** ) pointed out that the context in which the protest is performed determines the meaning, you tarred all practitioners with the same ludicrous brush, and damned them all equally. “Everybody who accuses Bush of complicity in the events of 9/11” is equivalent to “Everybody who burns a flag while shouting 'Fuck Amerikka!” Both categories are fairly specific, have relatively few representatives, and about which assumptions can be supported by context. “Everybody who questions Bush’ probity” is equivalent to “Everybody who burns a flag in protest.” Both of these categories are fairly broad, represent far more people, and do not provide sufficient context on which to base assumptions about character or motivation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flag-burning-post-9-11/102812.md?page=7)