Kaepernick

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: What, exactly, are you saying?
That by exercising their own 1st amendment rights, they were, in reality, demonstrating that they don't like the 1st amendment?

Sort of. Again, it was the implication that Kaepernick shouldn't or couldn't exercise his rights, or that exercising such rights is somehow an insult to those actually defending them that's the issue. Conservatives seem to love the Constitution only when it applies to their rights but have a hard time applying them to all.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: What, exactly, are you saying?
That by exercising their own 1st amendment rights, they were, in reality, demonstrating that they don't like the 1st amendment?

Sort of. Again, it was the implication that Kaepernick shouldn't or couldn't exercise his rights, or that exercising such rights is somehow an insult to those actually defending them that's the issue. Conservatives seem to love the Constitution only when it applies to their rights but have a hard time applying them to all.

I see now.
Exercising one’s right to free speech that Heretic likes = Okey Dokey.
Exercising one’s right to free speech that Heretic doesn’t like = not so Okey-Dokey.
Kinda reminds me of Scorpion’s insistence that it is OK for him to violate someone’s right to free speech by preventing them from burning the American flag. You know, because he doesn’t like it.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: What, exactly, are you saying?
That by exercising their own 1st amendment rights, they were, in reality, demonstrating that they don't like the 1st amendment?

Sort of. Again, it was the implication that Kaepernick shouldn't or couldn't exercise his rights, or that exercising such rights is somehow an insult to those actually defending them that's the issue. Conservatives seem to love the Constitution only when it applies to their rights but have a hard time applying them to all.

I see now.
Exercising one’s right to free speech that Heretic likes = Okey Dokey.
Exercising one’s right to free speech that Heretic doesn’t like = not so Okey-Dokey.
Kinda reminds me of Scorpion’s insistence that it is OK for him to violate someone’s right to free speech by preventing them from burning the American flag. You know, because he doesn’t like it.

Yeah. Well you may think that you "see," but it's clear that you don't understand Heretic's point, even on a basic level...

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: What, exactly, are you saying?
That by exercising their own 1st amendment rights, they were, in reality, demonstrating that they don't like the 1st amendment?

Sort of. Again, it was the implication that Kaepernick shouldn't or couldn't exercise his rights, or that exercising such rights is somehow an insult to those actually defending them that's the issue. Conservatives seem to love the Constitution only when it applies to their rights but have a hard time applying them to all.

I see now.
Exercising one’s right to free speech that Heretic likes = Okey Dokey.
Exercising one’s right to free speech that Heretic doesn’t like = not so Okey-Dokey.
Kinda reminds me of Scorpion’s insistence that it is OK for him to violate someone’s right to free speech by preventing them from burning the American flag. You know, because he doesn’t like it.

Yeah. Well you may think that you "see," but it's clear that you don't understand Heretic's point, even on a basic level...

Actually, I do "see", and I understand his point, and yours, quite clearly, and on all levels: free speech is a great thing, but only if you two agree with it.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Actually, I do "see", and I understand his point, and yours, quite clearly, and on all levels: free speech is a great thing, but only if you two agree with it.

The quote above is a classic example of a straw man argument. I really don't understand why you continue to use this type of bullshit "argument" again, and again, and again.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Actually, I do "see", and I understand his point, and yours, quite clearly, and on all levels: free speech is a great thing, but only if you two agree with it.

The quote above is a classic example of a straw man argument. I really don't understand why you continue to use this type of bullshit "argument" again, and again, and again.

I fail to see anything even close to a straw man argument. Could you please elaborate or, at the very least, explain to me what the fuck you think you are talking about?
Thanks in advance!

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Actually, I do "see", and I understand his point, and yours, quite clearly, and on all levels: free speech is a great thing, but only if you two agree with it.

The quote above is a classic example of a straw man argument. I really don't understand why you continue to use this type of bullshit "argument" again, and again, and again.

I fail to see anything even close to a straw man argument. Could you please elaborate or, at the very least, explain to me what the fuck you think you are talking about?
Thanks in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote :: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Actually, I do "see", and I understand his point, and yours, quite clearly, and on all levels: free speech is a great thing, but only if you two agree with it.

The quote above is a classic example of a straw man argument. I really don't understand why you continue to use this type of bullshit "argument" again, and again, and again.

I fail to see anything even close to a straw man argument. Could you please elaborate or, at the very least, explain to me what the fuck you think you are talking about?
Thanks in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote :: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

That's a load of bullshit, and you know it.
You are a proponent of Kaepernick saying or doing whatever he wants to say or do without repercussion or consequence, yet you also believe that you have the right to deprive someone else of their right to free speech by preventing them from burning an American flag.
How do you resolve both stances?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: You are a proponent of Kaepernick saying or doing whatever he wants to say or do without repercussion or consequence, yet you also believe that you have the right to deprive someone else of their right to free speech by preventing them from burning an American flag.
How do you resolve both stances?

Just for the record, I have never indicated that Kaepernick should not face any "repercussions or consequences" for "saying or doing whatever he wants."

And as far as the flag stuff goes, it's clear that you misunderstood my point.

Here... perhaps a hypothetical example from the past might help...

Let's say that I am involved in an a protest against the War in Iraq. All of us are exercising our free speech rights, with signs, slogans, whatever. The point of the protest is to shine a light on the futility of the war. We are looking for positive press coverage.

Then somebody in our ranks decides it would be cool to burn the flag as part of the protest. I object strongly to that strategy, arguing that I feel that would detract from the overall message that the protest is trying to convey, and I let it be known that I find the idea of burning the flag personally offensive as well.

Now, the potential flag burner has a choice to make. He can go ahead and try to burn the flag, knowing that this act could potentially disrupt the protest and divide the protesters. If he goes ahead anyway, then he is interfering with my rights and the rights of others who may agree with me that this action is not "good for the cause."

So, yeah, I would try to stop it if I could. Do you honestly think that one protester's desire to burn the flag trumps the rights of one's fellow protesters, who are also exercising their free speech rights?

Of course, if you've never been personally involved in a protest or demonstration, then it may be difficult for you to understand the behavioral dynamics involved. In peaceful demonstrations, at least, there is generally a group consensus on what type of behaviors are acceptable.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Let's say that I am involved in an a protest against the War in Iraq. All of us are exercising our free speech rights, with signs, slogans, whatever. The point of the protest is to shine a light on the futility of the war. We are looking for positive press coverage.

Then somebody in our ranks decides it would be cool to burn the flag as part of the protest. I object strongly to that strategy, arguing that I feel that would detract from the overall message that the protest is trying to convey, and I let it be known that I find the idea of burning the flag personally offensive as well.

Now, the potential flag burner has a choice to make. He can go ahead and try to burn the flag, knowing that this act could potentially disrupt the protest and divide the protesters. If he goes ahead anyway, then he is interfering with my rights and the rights of others who may agree with me that this action is not "good for the cause."
So, yeah, I would try to stop it if I could.

I don’t see how he is interfering with your rights by burning the flag. All you need to do is to disassociate yourself from him.
On the other hand, you would very actively be interfering with his rights by preventing him from burning the flag.

Scorpion wrote:: Do you honestly think that one protester's desire to burn the flag trumps the rights of one's fellow protesters, who are also exercising their free speech rights?

I don’t see how his burning of the flag “trumps” anyone else’s rights. The fellow protesters are quite free to go on with whatever they were doing before someone decided to burn the flag. And also, I don’t think that the right to do something should be based upon whether one is in the majority or the minority. A right is a right, and it should stand alone, not be decided by consensus.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Let's say that I am involved in an a protest against the War in Iraq. All of us are exercising our free speech rights, with signs, slogans, whatever. The point of the protest is to shine a light on the futility of the war. We are looking for positive press coverage.

Then somebody in our ranks decides it would be cool to burn the flag as part of the protest. I object strongly to that strategy, arguing that I feel that would detract from the overall message that the protest is trying to convey, and I let it be known that I find the idea of burning the flag personally offensive as well.

Now, the potential flag burner has a choice to make. He can go ahead and try to burn the flag, knowing that this act could potentially disrupt the protest and divide the protesters. If he goes ahead anyway, then he is interfering with my rights and the rights of others who may agree with me that this action is not "good for the cause."
So, yeah, I would try to stop it if I could.

I don’t see how he is interfering with your rights by burning the flag. All you need to do is to disassociate yourself from him.

Oh, I can assure you that I would "disassociate myself from him." He'd be thrown out of the protest altogether.

happy jack wrote:: On the other hand, you would very actively be interfering with his rights by preventing him from burning the flag.

It's "our" protest, not his. We don't have to allow any behavior that we find objectionable, period.

happy jack wrote:: A right is a right, and it should stand alone, not be decided by consensus.

Yeah, well like I said, "if you've never been personally involved in a protest or demonstration, then it may be difficult for you to understand the behavioral dynamics involved."

An organized protest is almost by definition based upon consensus. People are invited to participate, and those participants have expectations based upon that consensus. In most peaceful protests, nobody expects to be arrested (unless that is part of the strategy) or subjected to other behaviors that they find objectionable, or that they didn't "sign on for."

That's just the way it is, jack... Flag burning isn't some "special right" that supersedes all others.

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Look - I agree that he's no Jackie Robinson. But he is standing up for what he believes in, whether you like him or not... I don't see how you can maintain that "only a liberal" can appreciate what he is doing...

This douche has hit the liberal trifecta - the hatred of whites, cops, and country.

"Liberals" don't hate any of those things. If you truly believe that they do, then you're delusional.

It's a perfect example of his distorted "all or nothing" thinking that usually leads to false allegations.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Oh, I can assure you that I would "disassociate myself from him." He'd be thrown out of the protest altogether.

Well, my, my, my.
That is certainly the epitome of free speech.

Scorpion wrote:: It's "our" protest, not his. We don't have to allow any behavior that we find objectionable, period.

Sez who?
You?
The self-proclaimed champion of free speech?

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah, well like I said, "if you've never been personally involved in a protest or demonstration, then it may be difficult for you to understand the behavioral dynamics involved." An organized protest is almost by definition based upon consensus. People are invited to participate, and those participants have expectations based upon that consensus. In most peaceful protests, nobody expects to be arrested (unless that is part of the strategy) or subjected to other behaviors that they find objectionable, or that they didn't "sign on for."

I wouldn’t know too much about that, inasmuch that I’m not a member of the ovine family.
Wool allergy, you see.

Scorpion wrote:: That's just the way it is, jack... Flag burning isn't some "special right" that supersedes all others.

Which right, if any, does supersede all others?
Are you privy to some sort of formula in which rights are prioritized?
Or do you simply make things up as you go along, based upon the rights that you feel are important?

Posts : 2141

Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so? Yeah, I can just imagine the scoutmaster yelling at the other scouts to "stand back and let the lad express himself."

Give me a fucking break!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so?

Yes.
The fact that someone is a Boy Scout does not mean that he is stripped of rights that anyone else may enjoy.

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah, I can just imagine the scoutmaster yelling at the other scouts to "stand back and let the lad express himself."

I suppose that you have the right to “imagine” anything you choose, but imagining something doesn’t make it so.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so?

Yes.
The fact that someone is a Boy Scout does not mean that he is stripped of rights that anyone else may enjoy.

The Scouts observe the US Flag Code (US Code Title 36 Chapter 10), and revere the flag. When somebody joins the Scouts, he is agreeing to abide by the rules... and burning the US flag in protest is a blatant violation of those rules and would not be tolerated. I don't have to "imagine" anything... Such an act of disrespect for the flag is strictly forbidden.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so?

Yes.
The fact that someone is a Boy Scout does not mean that he is stripped of rights that anyone else may enjoy.

The Scouts observe the US Flag Code (US Code Title 36 Chapter 10), and revere the flag. When somebody joins the Scouts, he is agreeing to abide by the rules... and burning the US flag in protest is a blatant violation of those rules and would not be tolerated. I don't have to "imagine" anything... Such an act of disrespect for the flag is strictly forbidden.

In your scenario, the only thing that may be “forbidden” is his membership in the Boy Scouts, due to his refusal to abide by the rules of the organization.
Whether you like it or not, he still has the right to burn the flag. The organization may oust him for doing so, but they have no right to prevent him from doing so. They merely have the right to prevent him from doing so as a representative of their organization.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so?

Yes.
The fact that someone is a Boy Scout does not mean that he is stripped of rights that anyone else may enjoy.

The Scouts observe the US Flag Code (US Code Title 36 Chapter 10), and revere the flag. When somebody joins the Scouts, he is agreeing to abide by the rules... and burning the US flag in protest is a blatant violation of those rules and would not be tolerated. I don't have to "imagine" anything... Such an act of disrespect for the flag is strictly forbidden.

They merely have the right to prevent him from doing so as a representative of their organization.

Correct. That's the essence of my argument. When an organized group is involved in a protest, the same principle is applicable. During the protest, participants are representatives of the organization sponsoring the protest.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so?

Yes.
The fact that someone is a Boy Scout does not mean that he is stripped of rights that anyone else may enjoy.

The Scouts observe the US Flag Code (US Code Title 36 Chapter 10), and revere the flag. When somebody joins the Scouts, he is agreeing to abide by the rules... and burning the US flag in protest is a blatant violation of those rules and would not be tolerated. I don't have to "imagine" anything... Such an act of disrespect for the flag is strictly forbidden.

They merely have the right to prevent him from doing so as a representative of their organization.

Correct. That's the essence of my argument. When an organized group is involved in a protest, the same principle is applicable. During the protest, participants are representatives of the organization sponsoring the protest.

I understand, but earlier you said:

Scorpion wrote:: Now, the potential flag burner has a choice to make. He can go ahead and try to burn the flag, knowing that this act could potentially disrupt the protest and divide the protesters. If he goes ahead anyway, then he is interfering with my rights and the rights of others who may agree with me that this action is not "good for the cause."

So, yeah, I would try to stop it if I could.

I still can’t see how his expression of free speech, i.e., burning the flag, violates your rights. His act, in and of itself, does not in any way prevent you, or the other protesters, from speaking your minds. You are quite free to do or say anything (within legal limits, of course), regardless of his actions, up to and including public denunciation of his actions. At most, all that he can be accused of doing is pissing you off.
But I do see how you stopping him from burning the flag quite blatantly violates his free speech rights. I can’t believe you don’t see that as well.
His act is passive, as far as others are concerned. Your act, on the other hand, is quite active in preventing him from performing an action that is perfectly legal.

Scorpion wrote:: Do you honestly think that one protester's desire to burn the flag trumps the rights of one's fellow protesters, who are also exercising their free speech rights?

I don’t consider his act of burning the flag to be ‘trumping’ anything. I see his act as an expression of free speech that should be allowed to co-exist, side by side, with your own expression of free speech.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well let me ask you this... If a boy scout tried to burn the the flag (on public property) do you think that he'd be allowed to do so?

Yes.
The fact that someone is a Boy Scout does not mean that he is stripped of rights that anyone else may enjoy.

The Scouts observe the US Flag Code (US Code Title 36 Chapter 10), and revere the flag. When somebody joins the Scouts, he is agreeing to abide by the rules... and burning the US flag in protest is a blatant violation of those rules and would not be tolerated. I don't have to "imagine" anything... Such an act of disrespect for the flag is strictly forbidden.

They merely have the right to prevent him from doing so as a representative of their organization.

Correct. That's the essence of my argument. When an organized group is involved in a protest, the same principle is applicable. During the protest, participants are representatives of the organization sponsoring the protest.

I understand, but earlier you said:

Scorpion wrote:: Now, the potential flag burner has a choice to make. He can go ahead and try to burn the flag, knowing that this act could potentially disrupt the protest and divide the protesters. If he goes ahead anyway, then he is interfering with my rights and the rights of others who may agree with me that this action is not "good for the cause."

So, yeah, I would try to stop it if I could.

I still can’t see how his expression of free speech, i.e., burning the flag, violates your rights. His act, in and of itself, does not in any way prevent you, or the other protesters, from speaking your minds. You are quite free to do or say anything (within legal limits, of course), regardless of his actions, up to and including public denunciation of his actions. At most, all that he can be accused of doing is pissing you off.
But I do see how you stopping him from burning the flag quite blatantly violates his free speech rights. I can’t believe you don’t see that as well.
His act is passive, as far as others are concerned. Your act, on the other hand, is quite active in preventing him from performing an action that is perfectly legal.

Scorpion wrote:: Do you honestly think that one protester's desire to burn the flag trumps the rights of one's fellow protesters, who are also exercising their free speech rights?

I don’t consider his act of burning the flag to be ‘trumping’ anything. I see his act as an expression of free speech that should be allowed to co-exist, side by side, with your own expression of free speech.

Yeah. Well now I can see where you are coming from. and I hope that you finally get where I am coming from... I was speaking from my own experience in various demonstrations, vigils, etc. The vast majority of experiences that I have had personally involve environmental issues. Flag burning at an environmental rally isn't the message that environmentalists would want to send. As I said, participants in a protest are representatives of the organization sponsoring the event.

But it's not personal. Yes, I do find burning the flag objectionable. But there is no doubt that an individual has a right to do it. From the beginning, I made my remarks in the context outlined above. I did a piss poor job of communicating what I really meant, and I apologize for any confusion that I have caused as a result.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: The vast majority of experiences that I have had personally involve environmental issues. Flag burning at an environmental rally isn't the message that environmentalists would want to send.

Yeah, way too many random hydrocarbon emissions.

Scorpion wrote:: From the beginning, I made my remarks in the context outlined above. I did a piss poor job of communicating what I really meant, and I apologize for any confusion that I have caused as a result.

No apologies necessary.

Posts : 6988

https://www.com/abuajridefree/videos/311968939136020/

Posts : 2141

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: https://www.com/abuajridefree/videos/311968939136020/

Why did you "brick" the link?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: https://www.com/abuajridefree/videos/311968939136020/

Why did you "brick" the link?

I was trying to post the actual video rather than just the link, but something wasn't working.
Anyway, here it is.