Originally posted by Thud
OK, I'll give it another try, somewhat more elaborate this time and it may have been somewhat provocative to shove your entire post's contents into a oneliner but I'll correct that one here. Let's disect your inital post:
(P1): "Flag-burning does not address the government but the people. Thus the people can legally be insulted / attacked."
(P2): "While actions led to reaction (possibly violent) in the past now it results in legal action". With some sidenotes.
(Loose sentences + P3): "Violence has been de facto removed from society, while if violence is perpetrated it should and will be answered in the same manner, contradicting the banning / marginalizing mentioned above."
(P4): "This 'unnatural' removal of violence from society puts us at a disadvantage against the rest of the world." (Unsupported by any practical considerations but instead...)
(Quotes): Underlining the points made in P4.
(P5 / Conclusion): "Violence cannot be negated in the way it is currently shut-out from society since it will seek one out regardless. Therefore one should accept its presence and both have and demonstrate the will to use it while therefore it may refrain from seeking one out and thus be negated after all."
Sorry, but taking all the contents of your post into account I still don't see anything more to it than I previously expressed. I interpret it as a claim against a society where many acts are unjustly not answered with appropriate measures (read violence under certain conditions).
The concept of legal action as reaction / measure / sanction seems to be often insufficient in your view (P2). Translated into tangible actions this seems compatible with my conclusion that you advocated violence as a means of reacting to violence within society, outside of the judcial system.
If so this will result in a society that I described in my initial conclusion and this is how I arrived there.
On your last paragraph, I view this as no more than an elaborate way to promote being violent at one point to underline your willingless to be violent so third parties will no longer be violent because of your willingnes to be violent hence no violence materializes at all.
Reminds me of the statement so ubiquitous after WWI: "This war has been so horrid that mankind will forever refrain from it."
Why this comment? The post before you added a post scriptum predicting that just one sentence would be highlighted. Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me.
BTW, I don't believe that I attacked you in any sense in my replies on your large post, just explained why I think that its angle has unwanted consequences, 'attack'?.
Originally posted by Thud
I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so...
America is not Africa nor an Arab country. IMHO you're comparing apples to oranges. Further history is refered to in the post. Here there was a time when it was acceptable to respond to violence with violence, even expected. It might even be said it is becoming so again in some areas of the U.S.
NOTE: Thud it is apparent to me that it is possible you do not understand the nature of my post and it is also possible, being in Europe, that you do not understand American History.
This part of your statement is what???? It is IMHO inaccurate regarding my post, ignores much of what was said in my post.
"I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario."
Where do I say such in my post? Please point out the location of such a statement.
Now to your response listed above.
Your P1 ..... the flag in this nation it one time represented the PEOPLE and not the government. Further it has a history and a reason for every portion that goes into making it a flag. It is not dipped in salute to anyone, or to any country. Do you know why?
Your P2 .... hmm well you sort of understand it there. This is changing though. The castle doctrine which was during the time I was a child, not written into law, was understood by all as being in effect. During the late 60s and 70 much changed, and did so IMHO rapidly. Much of what was then understood by most all but not necassarily written was brought into question or thrown out because it wasn't written. Now the Castle Doctrine which was understood by the courts, lawyers, etc. Is being written into LAW in some area of this country.
Your P3 .... hmmm..... to me what I see here is a ?rewording? of what I said into a different form? Not sure it even comes close to what I said. I tend to think it matches what YOU THINK I said? For me it just doesn't quite fit.
Your P4 .... You SIR have inserted words I did NOT use, in several places in your post, and IMHO changed the meaning of what I said and FURTHER, and IMHO of greater interest, you have placed quotes around them as if these words were takin from my post. I must ask here is this a deliberate misquote. Do you normally take such liberties with the words of others?
The quotes say quit well what I consider to be truth.
Your P5 ..... Part of this is sort of ?accurate???? HMMMM..... I'm thinking here that a concept I am speaking about is perhaps cultural? To me the wording you have chosen suggest that you understand only part of what I was trying to express. Perhaps the failing lies with me?
and this.............
"Sorry, but taking all the contents of your post into account I still don't see anything more to it than I previously expressed. I interpret it as a claim against a society where many acts are unjustly not answered with appropriate measures (read violence under certain conditions).
The concept of legal action as reaction / measure / sanction seems to be often insufficient in your view (P2). Translated into tangible actions this seems compatible with my conclusion that you advocated violence as a means of reacting to violence within society, outside of the judcial system.
If so this will result in a society that I described in my initial conclusion and this is how I arrived there."
meaning this........
"I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so..."
Has already been answered. I would like to add that I find the first part...
'I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario."
oversimplification and somewhat misdirecting and IMHO shows either a deliberate misunderstanding, or a ????????????
"if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement"
........ perhaps you will explain this? Where or what in my post suggest this to you? It's almost an insult? Was such intended?
" Just a little aside here .....I have often wonder if some actually read a post for it's content rather then for what they can use to attack others? It SEEMS most often that this is NOT the case.
Why this comment? "
And this statement made by me... "(Waiting for the classic grab one line and take it out of context approach, wonder if it will happen?)".... equates to this.....
"The post before you added a post scriptum predicting that just one sentence would be highlighted. Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me."
......... in your mind? So then you did not see this part? ...... "wonder if it will happen?" Predicting??????
HMMMMMM..............
"Just a little aside here .....I have often wonder if some actually read a post for it's content rather then for what they can use to attack others? It SEEMS most often that this is NOT the case."
........ does this perhaps fit now? Are you attempting to say something here SIR?
"Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me."
are you assuming the statement was aimmed at you? Are you qualified to even suggest to anyone reading my postings what my mental state or condition is? passive-aggressive????
