Flag Burning Amendment

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The problem isn't that 'Scissors' is unkown but rather that it is obviously an anonymous attack from somebody who at the very least reads this board semi-frequently. Had scissors stuck to the topic at hand and abused Jon I think he/she would have been applauded by some.

I'm by no means defending this poster, and agree he is probably on the short bus heading toward banned-land, but I still think it is funny how quickly people jumped on him.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wonderful. Welcome to the land of stupid FOFC hazing. Just so the none of the others make this mistake in the future, could someone tell me how many posts they need before they can start going after the ideology of an "established member".

The shout of "n00b" has to be the single stupidest rallying cry on the net. FFS, it's like HJS said: "Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!"

SI

I agree with you, but this is not a n00b situation. Check the language used by scissors. This is somebody who has obviously read many of JonGa's posts, and for whatever reason chose THIS thread to go off on him in his first ever fofc post. You have to admit, that's more than a little goofy.

[larrymcg421]

I really doubt it is an actual n00b. Even if it was, then yes I think someone who makes their 1st post an outright attack on someone will be seen as a possible troll, and rightly so. If you've spent some time here, without a reputation as a troll, then I think one single attack will be seen quite differently than if it is your very first post.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The shout of "n00b" has to be the single stupidest rallying cry on the net. FFS, it's like HJS said: "Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!"

SI, I believe you're missing the point here.

This isn't a "noob", it's pretty obvious that this is an alias for an existing member, since they pretty clearly are familiar with my postings.

They're certainly not being condemned for disagreeing with me, they're being condemned for not having the strength of character to stand up & do it under their own name.

Good Lord man, look at those who called him/her out, surely you don't believe that esteemed trio is going to rush to my aid just based on my longevity.
(Although that's a kinda tongue-in-cheek way to phrase that, I think the point is pretty valid).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If the collective trio who have called out this weasel (sorry LMcG, I'm gonna borrow that) don't shame them into a revelation, I doubt anything will.

Subby, St. Cronin, LarryMcG -- we'll fight like hell against each other, and I don't believe we have any illusions about how well we'd get along IRL most likely, but I'm genuinely gratified that at least you know that what I have to say, I'll say straight & stand by it.

I am not sure what you mean but I honestly think we would get along famously IRL.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

SI, I believe you're missing the point here.

This isn't a "noob", it's pretty obvious that this is an alias for an existing member, since they pretty clearly are familiar with my postings.

They're certainly not being condemned for disagreeing with me, they're being condemned for not having the strength of character to stand up & do it under their own name.

Good Lord man, look at those who called him/her out, surely you don't believe that esteemed trio is going to rush to my aid just based on my longevity.
(Although that's a kinda tongue-in-cheek way to phrase that, I think the point is pretty valid).

If it's an alias for an existing member, then they'll be in the box soon enough and it won't matter. I'm sure he's been reported multiple times by now.

I will take issue with the last statement, tho. To use a political example, if someone attacks a senator on something other senators think people could attack them on, blue and red will attack in glorious harmony, united in self interest. N00b on the 'net is the same thing- sure the good ol' boys disagree with each other but they'll look out for each other from an outsider.

SI

[Glengoyne]

I hope this gets bounced hard in the Senate. I'm still a bit shocked it passed the house.

I believe that the right of citizens to burn the flag of this nation is one of the primary reasons that this is a great country. The flag as important as it is, isn't physically more important than the freedoms it symbolically represents. A flag burning amendment does more harm to what the flag stands for than burning an actual flag.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I hope this gets bounced hard in the Senate. I'm still a bit shocked it passed the house.

I believe that the right of citizens to burn the flag of this nation is one of the primary reasons that this is a great country.

I'm sorry, but I think that is a silly argument. If the flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy, then burning it or defacing it is akin to renouncing freedom and democracy.

I am not in favor of this amendment, because it is silly and pointless, but if somebody does burn the flag in protest they are pretty much renouncing their citizenship.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

They better repeal the first amendment at the same time or they will have two conflicting amendments.

I don't know if you were just making a political point here, but I'll try to throw in some actual knowlege in case you were not. This thread has the potential to go down in infamy, so I want to preserve my place in it now.

An Amendment is just that--an amendment. It amends what is already there. This would not conflict with the First Amendment. By definition, it could not. What it will do is change the First Amendment to, in effect, create an exception to it.

Remember, constitutional amendments are where you can break/change all the rules. It is the basis on which we have a government. Nothing in our system is superior to the constitution.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm sorry, but I think that is a silly argument. If the flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy, then burning it or defacing it is akin to renouncing freedom and democracy.

I am not in favor of this amendment, because it is silly and pointless, but if somebody does burn the flag in protest they are pretty much renouncing their citizenship.

Let's extend this further then, shall we? The office of the Presidency of the United States is a symbol of freedom and democracy. Why shouldn't we then pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting criticism of the President? After all, by your argument criticizing the symbol is akin to renouncing you citizenship.

The flag symbolizes the freedom to allow itself to be burned in order to exemplify the freedoms it stands for. When we become more interested in the symbol than those freedoms, we have a problem.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm sorry, but I think that is a silly argument. If the flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy, then burning it or defacing it is akin to renouncing freedom and democracy.

I am not in favor of this amendment, because it is silly and pointless, but if somebody does burn the flag in protest they are pretty much renouncing their citizenship.

Yes it is a symbol, but, just a symbol. I always thought that the Constitution is much more important to our way of life and I've always wondered why we don't pledge allegience to the Constitution. Soldiers never say that they are defending the Constitution, even though that is more relevant than the flag to what makes our country what it is...

[Huckleberry]

albion -

It was a political point. It should be made loud and clear prior to the rest of the Amendment process if this thing gets through the Senate that they are directly modifying the power and scope of the First Amendment.

As for JIMG, two things. First, that anonymous attack was funny in its cowardice. Second, nothing he says surprises me, only when others refer to him as a conservative. He is a right-leaning totalitarian.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Let's extend this further then, shall we? The office of the Presidency of the United States is a symbol of freedom and democracy. Why shouldn't we then pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting criticism of the President? After all, by your argument criticizing the symbol is akin to renouncing you citizenship.

The flag symbolizes the freedom to allow itself to be burned in order to exemplify the freedoms it stands for. When we become more interested in the symbol than those freedoms, we have a problem.

I see your point but I would counter that the office of the presidency is only secondarily, if at all, a symbol. Primarily it is a job.

Secondly, criticizing the office of the president (or even the man in the office) is a long way from setting the presidential seal on fire, which act I would argue is also not protected under the first amendment (the burning, not the criticizing).

The first amendment is about protecting speech and ideas; the idea of freedom of speech is to create a free flow of thought, to make this nation a beacon of enlightenment. I think burning a flag as a gesture lowers the debate, and doesn't have a coherent message anyway.

I am not a lawyer, and barely understand the supreme court's various rulings on free speech, so this is all just my opinion of how it should work.

[Peregrine]

Though I think this is a silly and unnecessary amendment, my prediction is that this gets really close in the Senate, probably so close (or decided in favor) that Democrats have to jump the fence to get on record as supporting it in the final tally, it wins big.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Jon

Anti-big government people should be opposed to this amendment.

JonInMiddleGA is right-wing, so people think of him as being libertarian, but in fact his views are more totalitarian. It makes sense for him to support this.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I am not a lawyer, and barely understand the supreme court's various rulings on free speech, so this is all just my opinion of how it should work.

Fair enough.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Alas, it's my side that's winning, hopefully that realization will soon drive you either off a short pier or to the business end of a rope.

Which side is that, exactly, and what are they winning? Your brand of totalitarianism definitely isn't in the majority, and the ruling Republicans haven't been able to pass much of any conservative legislation, and what they do pass has to be named with a liberal-friendly name (Clear Skies that does nothing to make the skies clear, Healthy Forests which does not make the forests healthy, etc.). The side that is 'winning' right now is big business and the lobbying groups: nearly every bill is a handout to some of them.

[JW]

For the record, I find burning the American flag to be a repulsive act, but, for the record, I oppose the flag burning amendment.

However, in today's politically correct America, where we are increasingly putting restrictions on what people can say or do in the name of being sensitive and tolerant and diverse, and preventing various individuals and groups from being 'offended', I think a point could be made that since flag burning is an act that is extremely offensive to many people, then flag burning comes close to fitting within the boundaries of today's hate crime laws.

And, for the record, I opposed hate crime legislation. If hate crime legislation involves limiting freedom of expression, as some does, then I think it violates our fundamental rights. If such legislation involves violent acts committed against people, then I think such crimes can be handled within the existing legal structure. After all, killing someone because he is black is not a worse crime than killing someone because he cut you off in traffic, imho.

But it seems that in this case the same people who are often on the side of hate crime legislation, including restricting what people can say if it offends someone, are coming down on the side of an act -- flag burning -- that deeply offends some people.

So I think any discussion of the merits of a flag burning amendment -- and I oppose it -- must be done with the understanding that this act is terribly offensive to many people.

So I believe this is part of a broader question: Are we going to become a nation in which anything that offends anyone is to be banned or outlawed?

The other point, that this is in part an attempt to force Democrats on record on the issue, is a good point. But then that is how the game is played in DC. Everything -- everything -- has a political angle, and both sides play that game.

I might also add that none of our rights are absolute. While seeking my journalism degree back in the last century, I took an entire course called Communication Law. I was given a very thick textbook. The entire course was essentially about restrictions on freedom of the press. So no freedom is absolute. Some of you younger folks need to understand that. The question is where we draw the line in limiting our constitutional rights. And the flag burning amendment is about that.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Which side is that, exactly, and what are they winning? Your brand of totalitarianism definitely isn't in the majority, and the ruling Republicans haven't been able to pass much of any conservative legislation, and what they do pass has to be named with a liberal-friendly name (Clear Skies that does nothing to make the skies clear, Healthy Forests which does not make the forests healthy, etc.). The side that is 'winning' right now is big business and the lobbying groups: nearly every bill is a handout to some of them.

Wow! How spot-on can you get?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

JonInMiddleGA is right-wing, so people think of him as being libertarian, but in fact his views are more totalitarian. It makes sense for him to support this.

Spot on observation, although I generally use the word "authoritarian" instead.

But anyone who confuses me with a libertarian has definitely not being paying close enough attention. That's about as far from any political philosophy as I can get.

Edit to add: I must have been typing when HJS posted, how odd we both used "spot-on" at the same time. That's about the 4th quirky coincidence I've run into today between the 'net & IRL.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Which side is that, exactly, and what are they winning?

The side that opposes the leftist elements in the U.S. most effectively than any other alternative. And that is more important than anything they manage to bungle (remember, I live in Georgia right now, if anyone knows what bungling Republicans looks like, it's me).

I side with the GOP a large percentage of the time because they're the most effective deterrant to policies/rules/laws I find even more odorous, not because I'm in complete agreement with their own platforms.

One step at a time Biggles, one enemy at a time ultimately.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JW

For the record, I find burning the American flag to be a repulsive act, but, for the record, I oppose the flag burning amendment.

However, in today's politically correct America, where we are increasingly putting restrictions on what people can say or do in the name of being sensitive and tolerant and diverse, and preventing various individuals and groups from being 'offended', I think a point could be made that since flag burning is an act that is extremely offensive to many people, then flag burning comes close to fitting within the boundaries of today's hate crime laws.

And, for the record, I opposed hate crime legislation. If hate crime legislation involves limiting freedom of expression, as some does, then I think it violates our fundamental rights. If such legislation involves violent acts committed against people, then I think such crimes can be handled within the existing legal structure. After all, killing someone because he is black is not a worse crime than killing someone because he cut you off in traffic, imho.

But it seems that in this case the same people who are often on the side of hate crime legislation, including restricting what people can say if it offends someone, are coming down on the side of an act -- flag burning -- that deeply offends some people.

So I think any discussion of the merits of a flag burning amendment -- and I oppose it -- must be done with the understanding that this act is terribly offensive to many people.

So I believe this is part of a broader question: Are we going to become a nation in which anything that offends anyone is to be banned or outlawed?

The other point, that this is in part an attempt to force Democrats on record on the issue, is a good point. But then that is how the game is played in DC. Everything -- everything -- has a political angle, and both sides play that game.

I might also add that none of our rights are absolute. While seeking my journalism degree back in the last century, I took an entire course called Communication Law. I was given a very thick textbook. The entire course was essentially about restrictions on freedom of the press. So no freedom is absolute. Some of you younger folks need to understand that. The question is where we draw the line in limiting our constitutional rights. And the flag burning amendment is about that.

I don't know of any hate crime statute that would include flag burning (and its not even close that I know of). I think you are mistaking the way the statutes are reported (about protecting people from being offended) with the way they are actually written (adding punishment for crimes against religous, sexual, and racial minorities).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Spot on observation, although I generally use the word "authoritarian" instead.

But anyone who confuses me with a libertarian has definitely not being paying close enough attention. That's about as far from any political philosophy as I can get.

Edit to add: I must have been typing when HJS posted, how odd we both used "spot-on" at the same time. That's about the 4th quirky coincidence I've run into today between the 'net & IRL.

I was going to post the same thing - Jon is authoritarian in almost every sense of the word. He has much more in common with ideologues like Pol Pot than he does with members of the GOP like McCain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon & John In General Agreement -- World Comes To End Today
Film at 11 !

(I dunno about the whole Pol Pot thing, but I don't have much use for McCain, so I figured I'd just run with it)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The side that opposes the leftist elements in the U.S. most effectively than any other alternative.

Ok, but a lot of the GOP's policies of the past several years have been what was formerly known as 'leftist': nation building, medicare expansion (through prescription drug coverage), national education standards in NCLB, etc. Meanwhile, on the social front, not much has changed: No gay marriage amendment, abortion still legal, don't ask don't tell still in effect, etc. I would make the case that though the GOP is good at winning elections, they are not good at making conservative laws, and that the country's policy is still headed in a leftwardly direction (although now more focused on big business).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Ok, but a lot of the GOP's policies of the past several years have been what was formerly known as 'leftist': nation building, medicare expansion (through prescription drug coverage), national education standards in NCLB, etc. Meanwhile, on the social front, not much has changed: No gay marriage amendment, abortion still legal, don't ask don't tell still in effect, etc. I would make the case that though the GOP is good at winning elections, they are not good at making conservative laws, and that the country's policy is still headed in a leftwardly direction (although now more focused on big business).

Lemme see here, not for argument or debate, but just for the heck of it

"Nation building" ... A bit of p.r., sadly useful in today's weak-kneed environment, but more expensive than it ought to be.

"Medicare expansion" ... talk about muck & mire, trying to solve Medicare may be one of those tasks that is, ultimately, impossible. I'm not wild about the GOP plan, but haven't seen much I liked better either.

"NCLB" ... I'm about as big a proponent of this as you're likely to find I think. It's at least an attempt for accountability, more than I've seen in a long time & a beginning of the only remaining hope for the usefulness of public schools to be anything more than taxpayer-funded daycare.

"Abortion" ... I'm pretty roundly pro-choice, so their failure on that one isn't exactly a black mark in my book.

"Marriage amendment" ... it's coming. Count on it.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... a lower priority than the amendment right now, but an item to clean-up after the bigger battle is won.

[Solecismic]

If we are so weak that we consider a flag-burning "fighting words," then we have ceded far too much power to those who have very little to say.

Restricted speech of any kind is the foundation of a feeble society - one that's doomed to mediocrity.

Too many people are far too concerned with ensuring that no one does anything that could possibly bother them. In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools (their connection, by the way, not mine) has joined the far left that insists that no one ever be offended for any reason.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Restricted speech of any kind is the foundation of a feeble society - one that's doomed to mediocrity.

In this case, I see it more as one that's finally reached it's limit of patience with having to listen to fools.

In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools

Y'know, you just seem hellbent (pun only mildly intended) on making it impossible for me to have any interesting in buying your future products.
In fact, your recent tact of spouting off your displeasure regarding Christianity has pretty much made it impossible.

Don't like it? Fine, live your life.

But it's really getting to the point of being counter-productive and I've finally tired enough of thinking it just to say it to you point-blank -- you've reached the point of being shrill about it and I suspect you've lost more customers from it than you realize.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In this case, I see it more as one that's finally reached it's limit of patience with having to listen to fools.



Y'know, you just seem hellbent (pun only mildly intended) on making it impossible for me to have any interesting in buying your future products.
In fact, your recent tact of spouting off your displeasure regarding Christianity has pretty much made it impossible.

Don't like it? Fine, live your life.

But it's really getting to the point of being counter-productive and I've finally tired enough of thinking it just to say it to you point-blank -- you've reached the point of being shrill about it and I suspect you've lost more customers from it than you realize.

I guess I'm old enough to understand the difference between considering someone "shrill" for expressing an opinion and disagreeing with them. The percentage of my 1,000-or-so posts that deal with this issue is very, very small.

Of course I care if I lose customers because I'm not a Christian and am unhappy when Christians tell us this is a Christian nation and anyone who disagrees should shut up.

It's something I thought about in the past before I posted what I thought. But, then again, FOFC is a place where people from many different backgrounds post an awful lot without much consequence.

But, I decided that if I were going to be a member here, I wouldn't censor myself. That's an important part of my cultural heritage. Kristallnacht was the ultimate economic cost when people didn't speak up in the past.

Now, I'm never going to insert any of that in my games. It would be more than unprofessional to cross that line. If you're too narrow-minded to see that, I have to accept the economic loss. I just hope you're the only one here.

If not, and I see that opinion coming from more people, I will be forced to stay out of items like this on FOFC.

[MrBigglesworth]

Solecismic: I think a free society means people should be able to speak their minds.
JonInMiddleGA: Shut up! I will not buy your products now because of your shrillness!

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I just hope you're the only one here.

If not, and I see that opinion coming from more people, I will be forced to stay out of items like this on FOFC.

Jim, I think it's safe to assume that Jon definitely represents a minority viewpoint around here.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If we are so weak that we consider a flag-burning "fighting words," then we have ceded far too much power to those who have very little to say.

Restricted speech of any kind is the foundation of a feeble society - one that's doomed to mediocrity.

Too many people are far too concerned with ensuring that no one does anything that could possibly bother them. In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools (their connection, by the way, not mine) has joined the far left that insists that no one ever be offended for any reason.

I agree, but the point remains that many people who would defend flag burning consider things much less than flag burning to be 'fighting words'. Those on both the left and right are often hypocritical in what they support or oppose and are often without firm principles.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If not, and I see that opinion coming from more people, I will be forced to stay out of items like this on FOFC.

I doubt you'll see much of it Jim, most people don't say anything, they just stop buying (and you know that as well as I do).

It isn't your opinion that turns me off as a customer nearly so much as the amount of animosity you display when you go off on the subject. Simply put, it's reached the point that it's more than I care to deal with, and more than I'm willing to contribute funds to.

Let's be serious here though -- you'll get along fine without my occasional purchases & I'll likely muddle through without the next whatever, neither of us are going to be miserable without the other.

But I believe you'd be better off to avoid pissing off customers on the whole, you lose more than you gain by doing so.

[Huckleberry]

Jon, I must say that your discussion with Jim goes against your stated personal beliefs. You appear to be trying to use free market concepts to convince him to stop saying the things he does. Shouldn't you be petitioning your government to outlaw his words?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

You appear to be trying to use free market concepts to convince him to stop saying the things he does. Shouldn't you be petitioning your government to outlaw his words?

I'm actually in favor of whatever means works to an end in the most efficient & effective way possible.

Think out of the box Huck, don't limit your options when you don't have to.

[Klinglerware]

Why can't people seem to be able to debate each other in this country without anybody getting pissed off? Is it a cultural thing? I'm not that familiar with Europeans in general, but they sure seem to be able to engage in spirited debate without remaining angry afterwards...

I've vehemently disagreed with both Jim and Arlie on this board, but our disagreements on the Irgun, the Middle East, or even steroids won't have any impact on whether I purchase their products. Product quality that meets my needs and a fair price point is all I care about. I would figure that that marketplace dynamic overrides politics for most people as well, so I don't think Jim and Arlie should really care about self-censorship...

Than being said, Jon (and the people threatening not to buy Arlie's games) have every right not to buy for whatever reason. Once again, it is a free country...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Jon, I must say that your discussion with Jim goes against your stated personal beliefs. You appear to be trying to use free market concepts to convince him to stop saying the things he does. Shouldn't you be petitioning your government to outlaw his words?

I'm not sure why some people seem to believe Jon is committed to any values like "capitalism," "freedom," "democracy," or "federalism." He is an authoritarian, plain and simple. Might makes right. Everything else is secondary. He would gladly have all the liberals rounded up and put in camps (probably not even re-education camps like the communists). As I have said before, his politics are beyond the basic political spectrum and would eventually result in the oppression of most members of this board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Product quality that meets my needs and a fair price point is all I care about. I would figure that that marketplace dynamic overrides politics for most people...

Than being said, Jon (and the people threatening not to buy Arlie's games) have every right not to buy for whatever reason. Once again, it is a free country...

I'd say it has something to do with personal priorities, as well as need/desire for product/goods, and probably a half dozen other things that aren't what I'd call "cultural" in nature.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I doubt you'll see much of it Jim, most people don't say anything, they just stop buying (and you know that as well as I do).

It isn't your opinion that turns me off as a customer nearly so much as the amount of animosity you display when you go off on the subject. Simply put, it's reached the point that it's more than I care to deal with, and more than I'm willing to contribute funds to.

Let's be serious here though -- you'll get along fine without my occasional purchases & I'll likely muddle through without the next whatever, neither of us are going to be miserable without the other.

But I believe you'd be better off to avoid pissing off customers on the whole, you lose more than you gain by doing so.

We disagree on issues that happen to be very important to you. What you're perceiving as animosity is just part of natural debate.

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

Unfortunately, there's a cost when people stand up to bullies. I have to decide whether you have enough friends standing with you to make resistence a poor decision.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I He is an authoritarian, plain and simple. Might makes right. Everything else is secondary. He would gladly have all the liberals rounded up and put in camps (probably not even re-education camps like the communists). As I have said before, his politics are beyond the basic political spectrum and would eventually result in the oppression of most members of this board.

Twice in one day we've been in basic agreement, pretty good batting average I'd say.

[BrianD]

I still say that the flag represents this country in all of its glory and all of its grime. We have a lot of room for improvement around here, but all in all, this is still a pretty good country. I can understand fighting to change laws or policy, but I don't think anyone wants to scrap the whole country. Burning the flag seems like a desire to eliminate a whole country rather than just some parts that need fixing.

My feelings aren't limited to just our flag. I would call it disrespectful to burn any country's flag.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We disagree on issues that happen to be very important to you. What you're perceiving as animosity is just part of natural debate.

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

Unfortunately, there's a cost when people stand up to bullies. I have to decide whether you have enough friends standing with you to make resistence a poor decision.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

Jim, I think Jon is a VERY unique case. As much as I've pissed you off and as much as I disagree with you, I don't think that changes my opinion of your product. However, you are right that Jon is a bully (read his above post - might makes right) and he believes in doing everything possible to defeat those who disagree with him. His politics is such that you are one of many enemies to him.

Of course, I think it is kind of weak of Jon to hinge his buying decisions on whether Jim is openly anti-Jon in his views (meaning that he would otherwise by the goods if Jim was quieter about his disagreement). I'm not sure I understand that part at all.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We disagree on issues that happen to be very important to you. What you're perceiving as animosity is just part of natural debate.

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

Unfortunately, there's a cost when people stand up to bullies. I have to decide whether you have enough friends standing with you to make resistence a poor decision.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

It's a line, certainly, but I think that you are comfortably on the "just fine" side of it. Indeed, I personally wish that you posted more. I don't always agree with you, but you have a polished writing style, good insights, and a sense of humor more subtle than most on this board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Of course, I think it is kind of weak of Jon to hinge his buying decisions on whether Jim is openly anti-Jon in his views (meaning that he would otherwise by the goods if Jim was quieter about his disagreement). I'm not sure I understand that part at all.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were gonna hit the trifecta.
This time though, I think you've missed the mark enough to fail to score.

I always prefer a known enemy to an unknown one, so that's certainly an advantage overall. But you overstepped on making the leap that "volume" was an overriding factor. I won't argue that it doesn't play a role, just as I said it did. The role volume plays/played is more of an "elimination of doubt" sort of thing -- anybody can come across wrong, be having a bad day & post off-key, etc -- but with Jim of late there's really not much room for any doubts.

And that sort of certainty is more influential on a buying decision (or whatever decision you have to make) than one that is more obscured.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Jim, I think Jon is a VERY unique case. As much as I've pissed you off and as much as I disagree with you, I don't think that changes my opinion of your product. However, you are right that Jon is a bully (read his above post - might makes right) and he believes in doing everything possible to defeat those who disagree with him. His politics is such that you are one of many enemies to him.

John, we disagree on many, many issues, but I don't think you've ever pissed me off. For that matter, until now, Jon hasn't, either.

Maybe that's my mistake - I don't get pissed off during debates, and in turn, that gives me a very high tolerance for controversial subjects.

Really, the only people who piss me off are the ones who try and destroy FOFC or my own work - the druezes and Stallingses of the world. That I take personally.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

John, we disagree on many, many issues, but I don't think you've ever pissed me off. For that matter, until now, Jon hasn't, either.

Maybe that's my mistake - I don't get pissed off during debates, and in turn, that gives me a very high tolerance for controversial subjects.

Really, the only people who piss me off are the ones who try and destroy FOFC or my own work - the druezes and Stallingses of the world. That I take personally.

Well, I guess that is good to hear, but I do remember you recently wondering if you would have to "ignore" me.

And strangely, Jon has rarely pissed me off - if anything I get a little grumpy at those who don't see Jon for what he is. I've always found it easier to deal with Jon because he is generally intellectually honest with himself. The one exception was a period where he kept making veiled attacks on me and I still don't understand what he was trying to accomplish. Otherwise, I think Jon is a total nut-case, but at least he is honest about it. And that counts for a lot with me in terms of having discussion.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Spot on observation, although I generally use the word "authoritarian" instead.

But anyone who confuses me with a libertarian has definitely not being paying close enough attention. That's about as far from any political philosophy as I can get.

Edit to add: I must have been typing when HJS posted, how odd we both used "spot-on" at the same time. That's about the 4th quirky coincidence I've run into today between the 'net & IRL.

Jon:
Although my initial response was to you, I wasn't specifically referring to you as a Libertarian. I just wanted to add that to my comment so I wouldn't make a dola post (which is one of the reasons why my post count is so low). I have been a member for a while, but primarily lurk. I apologize if it looked like I was mischaracterizing you.

In any event, I also think that flag burning is repulsive, and not the most efficient way of getting one's viewpoint across. In many instances, I think it undermines the point the burner is trying to make. But they do have the right to make whatever point they are trying to make, and the Constitution agrees with that. An amendment banning flag burning undremines those rights, and would fundamentally alter the First Amendment.

And, looking at the amendment that is being suggested, it doesn't necessarily leave the courts out of it. Congress would have to narrowly define desecration or the courts would be right back to interpreting what constitutes desecration and what doesn't.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

I'm going to vote no on this one. The only way you as an individual can hurt you as a business is to let it be known that you frequently eat babies. Short of that, it really doesn't matter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

I'm not sure why a factual statement comes as "very disappointing" to you.
That wasn't some sort of vague threat or anything, it was a general statement that applies to you, me, or any other business -- Pissing off customers is bad for business.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

I'd say your work & the ubying decision are rightfully separated if anyone chooses to do so. I'm not critical of your work, it's simply a value decision not to lend financial support that might be used toward purposes beyond game design. To use an intentionally oversized example for illustrative purposes, I don't care if Hillary Clinton is the most gifted house painter in the world, I'm not going to pay that bitch paint my house -- that's doing nothing but funding the enemy.

Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

Umm, in all seriousness, completely aside from anything else in this whole thread -- I'm having a hard time believing that you're naive enough to think that your posts don't "stand out" nor that you are considered "just another individual". That's totally aside from whether that's good, bad, or indifferent for you personally or professionally. I just figured you had decided it was worth the risk, surely you weren't harboring any illusion that a game developer posting on (ostensibly) a gaming site was just going to blend into the crowd.

[ISiddiqui]

Damn, it's legislation like this why I'm not a Republican anymore. I'm a big free speech guy, huge. Enough that I've joined the ACLU.

And yes, I agree with the poster, the RIGHT to burn the flag is what makes this country GREAT! We tolerate people with horrid political views. We don't need to ban them or say you can't say that (ie, banning Nazi memorabilia in Germany and France). We allow them to say whatever they wish. Get it out in the open and attack their arguments.

Flag burning should always be allowed.