Offended By Confederate Flag

[Sammie13]

So, since we know Cher wants to secede (and no, we're not talking about the divorce from Sonny ) then I thought we better bring out our confederate arsenal now perhaps to deter this rash, naive state from making such an ill-informed decision on Illinois' future. This could be the Battle of Ft Sumter (S.C) all over again. Just know the South is bigger, wealthier, and stronger than in 1860 (P.S: things really have changed in Dixie).

 

[Giovanni]

It's just a piece of cloth that doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

[MystikWizard]

It's just a piece of cloth that doesn't mean anything anymore.

With all his talk of wanting to separate the South from the North, he must think Slavery is still going on in this day and age.

Some people really need to move on and quit letting inanimate objects get to them.

 

[Jaime]

Indeed, ICO7, I noted in his last south-bashing thread that clearly Dixie has moved ahead of the North (at least, Illinois) where education is concerned. Perhaps, the OP needs to take another trip to Arkansas and enroll in a history class.

i've also noticed that, rather than acknowledging the gaping holes in his logic, cher has a tendency to ignore all criticism, and instead of definding his views, he just goes and starts new south-bashing threads.

it also amuses me that he seems to think that all of the people arguing against him are uneducated white rednecks. maybe someone should inform him that at least one of his opponents is a latino teacher with a master's degree.

 

[opinterph]

Understood, sir. I don't feel right apologizing for having said it, though, since I constantly tell people they should never be ashamed of speaking the truth. I'll try not to be so negative towards him anymore, but...well, I'll be nice. ^_^

radical matt, my notice was not directly solely to you. But yes, please always try to find a way to “be nice.”​

EDIT: But him saying Redneck Confederates? Further, if Redneck is used for anyone in the South, then I find that a bit insulting as well. My neck is entirely too white.

In modern usage, redneck predominantly refers to a particular stereotype of whites from the Southern United States. The word can be used either as a pejorative or as a matter of pride, depending on context.
[Link]

 

[Kulindahr]

Please don't make me VOMIT.

The spirit embodied by the gay pride rainbow flag does not seek to take away anyone's rights, unlike the Confederate flag, which represents a way of life that was based on depriving many people of their basic human and civil rights.

Among other meanings, the varied colors of the rainbow flag show our respect for diversity -- the antithesis of the meaning of the Confederate flag.

Cheering for free speech makes you vomit?
Sounds like a McCain supporter -- he's not fond of free speech, either.

The meaning of the flags being flown is irrelevant; what matters is that they have as much right to fly a flag of their choosing as we have to fly one of ours. And who are you to tell them that they can't fly a symbol of fighting to keep one's home free, of standing up for one's state, while you fly an insult to God's own artwork, making something beautiful from the sky stand for deviance and perversion?

 

[Kulindahr]

I dunno, maybe to some people, that's a good thing; numerical majority imposing their will on the numerical minority. But that's not what the Constitutional Republic of the United States with its representative democracy was founded for.

Excellent phrase describing the U.S. as it was intended to be!

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll give McSame credit for at least enlisting.Among republicans he is an oddity..

You're historically exceedingly inaccurate. Democrats back then tended to cross their fingers in hopes of not being drafted, or move out of the country; Republicans tended to either enlist or happily report in when their draft number popped up.

Now, if you;d said "among the rich and privileged...."

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes you're correct, and far before the civil war began, slavery was banned but the south didn't listen. So they didn't WANT to be part of the USA. The USA that flew that flag is what did NOT want slavery apart of the nation and saw it as inhumane! So the southerners didn't want the US flag anymore but a new CONFEDERATE FLAG which was a slap in the face to the north.. inconsiderate bastards.

The US flag flew longer... but that nation flying that US flag wanted slavery to be STOPPED and tried hard to end it without violence. The south that held the slavery DID NOT WANT THE US FLAG. We as a US nation did not want slavery.. just the redneck confederates

cher, where the fuck did you learn american history?

I'm not sure where you're getting your history or your views, dude, but...your history is in error.

QFT. lol, Illinois needs to better fund its educational system.

You guys were nicer than I was thinking.

Though I think more to the point, our Cher ought to write a letter of apology to the Illinois educational system.

 

[construct]

Cheering for free speech makes you vomit?
Sounds like a McCain supporter -- he's not fond of free speech, either.

The meaning of the flags being flown is irrelevant; what matters is that they have as much right to fly a flag of their choosing as we have to fly one of ours. And who are you to tell them that they can't fly a symbol of fighting to keep one's home free, of standing up for one's state, while you fly an insult to God's own artwork, making something beautiful from the sky stand for deviance and perversion?

Kuli, are you being intentionally obtuse? Unclean has introduced a moral dimension here, and it's not yours. I believe that my views are not that far from his. You are content with states having the freedom to restrict fundamental liberties more easily than the federal government can. We are not. You believe that same-sex desire is deviance and perversion. We do not.

Would you like the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding that you may have raised?

 

[construct]

The dimension is that Kulindahr is playing with moral relativism, while you and Unclean are moral absolutists... which puts Kulindahr on the right side of this debate.

LOL. I've fairly often described myself as a moral relativist but a cultural imperialist. (I'm only half joking in that description.)

I have never gotten the impression that Kuli is a moral relativist. If he describes himself that way, I'd love for him to surprise me.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

And Many people probably do view the confederate flag as a symbol of southern pride.. but they don't feel bothered by it, because growing up they were innocent and weren't educated about its original meaning. Possibly the parents of those replying in this thread were bigots of racist people due to environmental lack of education. Racism has always been higher in the south then the north.. im not denying that its here too. If a parent is waving some cloth and they are proud to wave it..and honestly deep down have a resentment towards people of color, you won't see that! You grow up and see it as a memory of sedimental value.. and when you get older and you know the truth, you wont wanna accept that and just blow it off. But it IS what it IS! You can leave a rock in the grass and 100 years go by.. ITS STILL A DAMN ROCK!

 

[screwnutty]

Well being Canadian,

When i see this.....

I think of this....

It was an awesome TV show.

Symbols and Flags are nothing. They can't hurt you. They can't stop you. It's the idiots behind the flag or symbol that are the real danger. A symbol means nothing unless you give it power. Sure the confederate flag has a negative power attached to it, but I ignore that and instead give it positive power! Like my old favourite tv show or as a rebellion to something. Flags and symbols are all in the eyes of the beholder. What some people see as bad...others see as a symbol of good and light.

For example lets take our favourite hated image of all time. The swastika. The mirror site of it promotes hate and sadness and evil that man is capable of doing!

Lot of evil and death was committed under that symbol. Sad fact is that even today alot of evil and death is committed under it still.

But lets look into the past. Before the Nazi's adopted it as there mark....back to the early days of man when the symbol looked like this....

Here's some history on this version of the swastika....

"Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period. An ancient symbol, it occurs mainly in the cultures that are in modern day India and the surrounding area, sometimes as a geometrical motif (as in the Roman Republic and Empire) and sometimes as a religious symbol. It was long widely used in major world religions such as shamanism

Though once commonly used all over much of the world without stigma, because of its iconic usage in Nazi Germany, the symbol has become controversial in the Western world." - wikipedia


A holy symbol that became a symbol of evil and hate. That's what happens when you take something a use it for evil.

I don't know if this makes sense to any of you but I just felt like saying that of all the things that are wrong with this world....why bother with a symbol. There's better things to fight for out there.

Thank you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, are you being intentionally obtuse? Unclean has introduced a moral dimension here, and it's not yours. I believe that my views are not that far from his. You are content with states having the freedom to restrict fundamental liberties more easily than the federal government can. We are not. You believe that same-sex desire is deviance and perversion. We do not.

Would you like the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding that you may have raised?

How about explaining where you came up with the lies you wrote about me?

The dimension is that Kulindahr is playing with moral relativism, while you and Unclean are moral absolutists... which puts Kulindahr on the right side of this debate.

Actually, I'm being very much a moral absolutist, and the absolute is individual liberty: free speech is free speech, and I don't give a rip what its content is. What I'm seeing is moral relativism, a viewpoint that says I value free speech when the speech says things I like, but I don't approve of it when it says things I don't approve of.
I'm approaching this from the perspective that would raise a glass to skinheads maintaining gays should be put to death, for their courage in voicing their views -- and raise my .357 to their heads should they attempt to take that into their own hands.

That's why I told Cher I would enthusiastically fly a Confederate battle flag where he could see it every day, if I lived near him: if speech can offend, then revel in being offended, because it tells you you live where freedom is valued.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have never gotten the impression that Kuli is a moral relativist. If he describes himself that way, I'd love for him to surprise me.

I have some relatives who think they have a corner on morals....

 

[kallipolis]

if speech can offend, then revel in being offended, because it tells you you live where freedom is valued.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

.... Thomas Paine

 

[Kulindahr]

Heh, nice try, but you are arguing a relativist position, they the absolutist. Tyranny is absolutism.

Relativist means your position changes with respect to the subject or circumstances. My position is that such changing is wrong: these guys want to change what is moral depending on whether or not it's something they like. I'm arguing that free speech is an absolute that is independent of the content; they're agreeing with McCain that free speech can/should be stifled depending on content.

So how am I relativist?

 

[Kulindahr]

if speech can offend, then revel in being offended, because it tells you you live where freedom is valued.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

.... Thomas Paine

Wow -- nice match-up with my statement!

Every member of Congress should have to recite those every day.

Of course if it were up to me, they'd have to recite the text of any bill they were going to vote on....

Hey! A new one:


With respect to the actions of the people, there should be utmost liberty; with respect to the carrying out of the duties of officials, utmost tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

Woah...that's some polemic partner! No doubt you're a patriot. But are you also a public nuisance?

Engaging in constitutionally protected behavior cannot, by definition, constitute a public nuisance.

The true public nuisances are those who sit on their asses and never complain about the wrongs they see, "because you can't fight city hall". "because it won't do any good", "because no one will pay attention to me". When this country finishes becoming the police state the last several presidents have enthusiastically turning it into, they will be the ones who did it, because by their silence they cooperated, and sold the rest of us out.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Any theory holding that truth or moral value is not universal or absolute but may differ between individuals or cultures." The freedom of speech position allows for relativity of 'truth or moral value... between individuals', or in this case 'groups'.

No, my free speech position doesn't give a rip about truth or moral value between groups; it allows only that they have the right to whatever opinions they wish. That's an absolute, and I'm not allowing for any difference between individuals or cultures: every individual has the same right of free speech, and every culture has to face the right of free speech.

What the free speech position allows for is free speech. You may look at some of that speech and say there's a relativity of value or truth between individuals or groups, but all I see is whether it's speech. So what you're doing is projecting your view of the content of some of the speech under discussion onto the matter of free speech itself.