Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (41915)	6/26/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: jpmac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Alot of people might consider a statement of some sort was being made by posting a book called "critical thinking" but I don't see how many would consider that the poster was affecting piousness.

To: greenspirit who wrote (41915)	6/26/1999 7:57:00 PM
From: melinda abplanalp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Michael.....drinking Merlot and BBQing but here is my .02 worth. I think flag burning is o.k. I don't like it but it makes a statement. I prefer a good flag burning to bombing a building. I would love to say cross burning is o.k. but this country has a lousy track record. Cross burning does not make a statement it is an appetizer before a lousy meal. Cheers Mel Is Merlot red because I capitalized it? SI is obviously not in Northern California.

To: greenspirit who wrote (41915)	6/26/1999 10:42:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Okay, Michael, here you go -- right between the eyes. <g> Yes. I believe that equating cross-burning and flag-burning is illogical. The fact that you are not the first to do so -- and that some "liberals" have done so as well -- does not make it any the less illogical. The subtext of the question you originally posed -- why is burning the flag ok but burning a cross illegal? -- was that they should either both be illegal, or both be legal. In my response <#reply-102585860>, I pointed out that I was not a lawyer, and so could not address the specific legal issues involved. At the same time, I noted that there were some common-sense distinctions between the two types of activities involved. Let's lay it out again this way: Distinction One: Flag=symbol of American state Burning flag=protest against American state Cross=symbol of Christianity Burning cross=not protest against Christianity Distinction Two Flag-burning: not associated with any threat of physical violence against individuals, groups of individuals. (Even by flag-burning amendment proponents, not considered a "hate crime.") Cross-burning: historically, associated with the threat of physical violence and the actual practice of physical violence against individuals and groups of individuals. (Considered a "hate crime.") You responded with a post in which you said: I bet many would suggest that burning the flag is designed to "threaten" Americans of deep patriotic belief's <sic>. To compare the "violence" done to the beliefs of patriotic Americans by flag-burners to the real physical violence threatened by cross-burners is, in my opinion, illogical, at the very least. That is why I suggested you read a book about the Ku Klux Klan, and that if you still felt that the two types of incendiarism were similar in nature, you should read a book on logic. Blunt, perhaps -- but not "sanctimonious." At some point along the way, you brought in a red herring: Alec Baldwin. I passed on Baldwin, because his case had no bearing on your original question, which was, why is flag-burning okay, but cross-burning illegal? (On reflection, I would suggest that his tirade was broadcast because it took place during a live show. It was an "impromptu," and could not have been anticipated. But, again, that is neither here nor there.) I repeat: my comment dealt only with the question of whether flag-burning and cross-burning were comparable, from the purely logical point of view. You, on the other hand, assumed -- and wrote -- that what I said had something to do with "political correctness," that I was defending some (liberal, of course) "assumptions," against some sort of "thought-provoking" and courageous "challenge." I could say that is much more insulting to me (I consider myself an independent thinker), than my suggesting you are being illogical. How do you know what I think about the advisability of banning/criminalizing flag-burning and/or cross-burning? I do have some ideas on the subject, and they might surprise you. But I did not express them. One other point: Why post? These boards do not require an immediate response. Michael, these boards do not require any response.