Offended By Confederate Flag

[kallipolis]

A civilised society that depends upon laws and mutual respect to regulate the life of the human person, is not bondage.

Where the pendulum swings towards a police state, such as Nazi Germany, North Korea or Soviet Russia, then we may question the wisdom of such over control of people.

Likewise a society that functions on anarchistic lines is always prone to being hijacked by a dictator, or dictatorial form of government.

We agree that balance in all things enables society to be able to function, with respect for the rights of the individual human person.

Achieving this balance also depends on the behaviour of the individual person, as well as those who govern us.

 

[radical matt]

Kul:

What I meant about perception is how you conduct yourself. I know you don't feel a need to hide it, but if I actually DID carry a gun, I would make it as inconspicuous as possible. To me, weapons are only tools of defense, nothing more. They aren't something to show off, not even for the sake of deterrence or a demonstration of freedom.

"The wise eagle hides his claws," is an example of my viewpoint. First, because I don't like overt shows of strength (some of which cause people discomfort.) and second because an ancient truth of war and battles is that you NEVER let a potential enemy see all your "cards".

I'm not going to say that you should be ashamed of carrying them or being seen with them, but at the same time, you kinda come across here as that one guy that carries a shotgun over his shoulder everywhere he goes. While I hope that's not the case, that sort of thing tends to lend towards pride and showing of strength rather than the position of a humble defender, which is my preference myself.


...I'm not saying it's BAD to show off; indeed, sometimes people need to see others exercising their freedom. I'm just saying some of the animosity against you is because of that. Boldness tends to turn people away from anything, humility, on the other hand, rarely does. With boldness, people either love you or they hate you. With humility, people realize that you aren't out for your own ends, and so at worst they regard you neutrally, and at best with respect and hope. At least, that's what I think...though I, personally, would do what I do because that's what I think I should, regardless of what other people might take from it...



As far as fighting; you're right. I've been told before that if someone ever tries to mug me and they're armed with a gun, I should just give them my money. And that's a position that I agree with.

...however...if someone with a gun ever threatens someone's life (my own, or someone else's), then I would fight them, but I wouldn't simply run at them, punching like crazy. Any wise tactician understands that a battle must be fought with more subtlety than that, unless you just SO overpower your opponent (in which case you have no need to fight to begin with.) In all honesty, the first thing I'd probably do is fish my cell phone out of my pocket and throw it as hard as I could at their head (once I'd gotten in a position that I could quickly move to them once they were stunned...after all, when waving a gun, most people don't expect to be hit in the face with a thrown cell phone. ^_^)

But, as my instructor said, even with knives; if you're going to fight someone, make sure that your reason is sound and you're fighting for something truly important (life). Once you're sure of that, and you've deiced there's no option but to fight, then don't hesitate, and once you get a hand around the wrist that they're holding their weapon in, you do NOT let go as long as they still hold that weapon in that hand. In addition, the first rule of knife defense is that you're going to get cut (and of gun defense, that you're going to get shot.)

...so, to sum it you, you must be sure that what you're saving is worth fighting for, with the knowledge that you could easily lose your life if you fight. But once you've decided that you must, you give it everything...just remember to use your brain and not just your fists (if you get shot before you can take two steps, you won't get any punches in, after all. ^_^)



Never played D&D myself. As far as character archetypes go, though; priest/paladin then thief/mage (in that rough order.) The power to heal is the one I think would be most wonderful to have in life. To heal and protect would be nice too, though. After that, agility, and after that, knowledge.

...oddly enough, it seems that I end up being exactly the opposite of that in THIS world.

...eh well, least I'm chaotic good. I happen to like that. ^_^


...or is it neutral good, supernerd...? ^_^

 

[radical matt]

A civilised society that depends upon laws and mutual respect to regulate the life of the human person, is not bondage.

Where the pendulum swings towards a police state, such as Nazi Germany, North Korea or Soviet Russia, then we may question the wisdom of such over control of people.

Likewise a society that functions on anarchistic lines is always prone to being hijacked by a dictator, or dictatorial form of government.

We agree that balance in all things enables society to be able to function, with respect for the rights of the individual human person.

Achieving this balance also depends on the behaviour of the individual person, as well as those who govern us.

Yeah, but too much control is dangerous. One might suggest that Humanity is not ready for "too much freedom", either. And one might be correct to suggest that.

However, at the same time, if we want to be enlightened, then we have to treat others as if they can be as well. If a kid asks me a physics question, I'm going to simply things somewhat, but I'm still going to answer their question. If asked what a star is, I won't divulge all of what makes it up, how this makeup combined with the total matter determines its size, and how its volume and makeup give rise to a certain temperature, and how that temperature dictates the color along a black-body curve, and how that light travels thousands or millions of years to get to us, how it then goes through our atmosphere and is effected by quantum mechanical/nuclear physics absorption, emission, and dissipation effects, and that this results in the star that they see. However, I'm also not going to tell them that they're lightning bugs trapped in the atmosphere. ^_^

If you want people to be able to reach the level you know you're capable of, then you have to open the path for them, giving them the same freedoms and privileges that you know you can handle, and, after explaining to them the responsibilities of these powers, hoping for the best. Some will rise to this level that they are capable of, others will fall and become corrupt...

...but we're going to have corrupt people ether way. May as well hope for the best and empower people to become more than they thought they could be.


As for tyranny...that's what guns are for. ^_^

 

[kallipolis]

The idea of freedom plays a key role in Plato's moral and political thought. In Plato's Republic justice is shown to be beneficial because the just man alone is truly free. There are parallels here with modern discussions of freedom.

The Laws argues that to be free a city/state must avoid the extremes of liberty and of authoritarianism. The legislator should rely on persuasion, not force, so that people willingly obey his laws. The underlying idea is that we are free if we willingly follow the demands of reason rather than being coerced by external forces or by unruly desires.

 

[radical matt]

The idea of freedom plays a key role in Plato's moral and political thought. In Plato's Republic justice is shown to be beneficial because the just man alone is truly free. There are parallels here with modern discussions of freedom.

The Laws argues that to be free a city/state must avoid the extremes of liberty and of authoritarianism. The legislator should rely on persuasion, not force, so that people willingly obey his laws. The underlying idea is that we are free if we willingly follow the demands of reason rather than being coerced by external forces or by unruly desires.

Be careful. That assumes all laws are laws of reason and not of oppression or tyranny. And who is to decide what is "unruly"?




(If there is a law that suggests, for example, that all men must marry a woman and have a child...would homosexual men find that this is what they "should" do; that this is what is just, and in being just men themselves, they must follow? That this is right and good, and that being righteous and good men, they must follow? After all, only the unjust, unrighteous, and evil man would refuse such a law.

I know that's an argument to the absurd, but it is a key point.)

 

[kallipolis]

The ideal state is always sought through the implementation of laws that represent the aspirations of society.

That some laws may be considered oppressive by some, and liberating by others reveals the complexity of the human person.

The absurdities of life are always an indication that the individual human person is still attempting to create Utopia, through patience and understanding for the frailties of our fellow man.

Who would be so perfect, as to believe our values are superior to another?

 

[Kulindahr]

The idea of freedom plays a key role in Plato's moral and political thought. In Plato's Republic justice is shown to be beneficial because the just man alone is truly free. There are parallels here with modern discussions of freedom.

The Laws argues that to be free a city/state must avoid the extremes of liberty and of authoritarianism. The legislator should rely on persuasion, not force, so that people willingly obey his laws. The underlying idea is that we are free if we willingly follow the demands of reason rather than being coerced by external forces or by unruly desires.

Plato was a deceitful hypocrite, with his so-called "Republic". In our philosophy final the term we covered that (in the original language, btw), I got the first A+ the professor had ever awarded for butchering Plato with his own words.
By those words, his "Republic" is a farce, the sort of political piece put out to hoodwink others with wily words. The whole foundation of the political entity rests on "certain noble lies" told by the "philosopher-kings" -- but Plato argues quite soundly elsewhere that one who tells lies at all is no philosopher, and will be unable to see truth.
Beyond that, the is no such thing as freedom in Plato's "Republic", there are only people assigned from birth to roles determined by those above them, and lied to to keep them happy. Freedom depends on people deciding what they want to be; the Republic is all about telling people what they want to be.

The flaw in Laws is that he assumes the same thing that the monarchs of Europe did: some divine right for the State. The State has no such thing; it has no rights whatsoever because it is an artificial entity. We are free by nature, because we own ourselves -- that's inherent. The only reason we are bound to follow is our own; while that means we have the option to muck up our freedom, it is not an excuse for limiting it.

Plato didn't truly believe in reason, or he'd have shown that if all followed reason, we wouldn't need government at all. But he skips straight to an imposition of absolute authority based on lies. His philosophy would have served as a great foundation for the Confederacy: the great landowners as philosopher-kings telling everyone else what his or her place in life is to be, and that they should enjoy it -- slave, or otherwise.

 

[Kulindahr]

Who would be so perfect, as to believe our values are superior to another?

There's a good argument for having as close to zero laws as possible!

Let's implement it, and do away with everything in the federal government except what is explicitly and plainly enumerated as its duties.

 

[shea]

It is a long standing reminder of our
colorful past and that is all.

Get over it.
shea

 

[radical matt]

The ideal state is always sought through the implementation of laws that represent the aspirations of society.

That some laws may be considered oppressive by some, and liberating by others reveals the complexity of the human person.

The absurdities of life are always an indication that the individual human person is still attempting to create Utopia, through patience and understanding for the frailties of our fellow man.

Who would be so perfect, as to believe our values are superior to another?

Kallipolis, do you realize what you're saying?


I proposed an ideal Human society where people are free and do what they should out of their own conscience and feelings of personal responsibility.

You shot that down, saying that it's an ideal system and that Humans aren't perfect, so we can't institute an ideal system...

...then you say, yourself: "The ideal state is always sought through the implementation of laws that represent the aspirations of society."

The IDEAL state.


This requires another idealistic assumption; that the state will always be run by good, noble people; philosopher-kings, as it were.

Tell me, while you say to me that Humans are not ideal, and that if left to ourselves we will find only destruction in anarchy, how can you then believe that the people running governments WILL be ideal and not pass any laws for the sake of their own power and greed?



The rest of your post Kul took apart pretty well (and yes, Plato DOES propose lying to people, which again goes back to the "Can a kingdom of conscious be founded upon lies?" consideration), so I'll leave it to you to rebut what he said if you can.

 

[radical matt]

Plato was a deceitful hypocrite, with his so-called "Republic". In our philosophy final the term we covered that (in the original language, btw), I got the first A+ the professor had ever awarded for butchering Plato with his own words.
By those words, his "Republic" is a farce, the sort of political piece put out to hoodwink others with wily words. The whole foundation of the political entity rests on "certain noble lies" told by the "philosopher-kings" -- but Plato argues quite soundly elsewhere that one who tells lies at all is no philosopher, and will be unable to see truth.
Beyond that, the is no such thing as freedom in Plato's "Republic", there are only people assigned from birth to roles determined by those above them, and lied to to keep them happy. Freedom depends on people deciding what they want to be; the Republic is all about telling people what they want to be.

The flaw in Laws is that he assumes the same thing that the monarchs of Europe did: some divine right for the State. The State has no such thing; it has no rights whatsoever because it is an artificial entity. We are free by nature, because we own ourselves -- that's inherent. The only reason we are bound to follow is our own; while that means we have the option to muck up our freedom, it is not an excuse for limiting it.

Plato didn't truly believe in reason, or he'd have shown that if all followed reason, we wouldn't need government at all. But he skips straight to an imposition of absolute authority based on lies. His philosophy would have served as a great foundation for the Confederacy: the great landowners as philosopher-kings telling everyone else what his or her place in life is to be, and that they should enjoy it -- slave, or otherwise.

Well, I'm not going to say that Plato was deceitful, but he was a hypocrite (I'm sure it wasn't driven out of pure malice, though, which your tone indicates.)

I think Plato believed a lot like the Founding Fathers of the United States; that the "common man" just isn't capable of ruling himself well and needs someone to "look out for him". (The early US Senate seats were voted for by the State Congressional houses, the aristocrats/politicians, because their positions were considered too important for the "masses", many uneducated and unable to read and write, to vote in. This is also partly responsible for the Electoral College system we still use today and why Presidential elections are determined by the EC and not the popular vote.)

However, his premise is essentially that greed is bad for any leader (a true premise), but his way of dealing with it was to essentially take the healthiest and smartest children at birth from their parents, put them in institutionalized (read: public) schools, and tell them they were the children of the gods/made of precious materials/metals. In this way, they would be brought to believe they ought not seek gold or riches because they were more valuable than gold themselves, and that, now freed from greed, they could lead their people as the guardian ruling/military class, and they were to be trained in military and martial skills and tactics as well as philosophy. From among this class would be found the greatest, best physique, smartest, and most powerful, and this person would be made their philosopher-king. The lineage of the ruler would then be that when this person died, then instead of kingship being by blood, the next philosopher-king would be selected from the class just as the last had been.


...of course, if you didn't make the cut to get into this class, you would be relegated to a field worker and farmer, though you could become an artisan if you showed significant desire and proficiency. Plato also saw the merchant class (which is what eventually allowed a middle class to develop so it wasn't all the rich/poor dichotomy of the ancient world) as corrupt and evil, seeking to actually make money on things.



The thing is, Plato was right about a number of things. Greedy leaders are bad and a runaway capitalistic system can be destructive. However, his resolution to these problems was to lie to people and establish a class/caste system; not one based on whose family you were born to, but rather your abilities. That means, if you were born today with the ability to be a painter, but really wanted to be a doctor...well, too bad, society demands you be a painter. (Though maybe I'm mixing neo-socialist ideals into that, but I think that's the logical conclusion of Plato's Republic if said Republic were to exist in the modern age.)


In all honesty, I found Utopia to be far more interesting (though, in the end, equally in error.) At least it amused me more. ^_^

 

[Kulindahr]

I pretty much agree with all of this.

What laws would remain?

Um...
those governing the military?

Certainly not any about drugs, education, energy, housing, or any other of a myriad of bits in vast tomes that are a burden on us all.

Transportation... maybe. But most of what has been smuggled in under the inverted interpretation of the commerce clause goes.

Rules about marriage? Gone.
Rules about speed limits? Gone.
Rules about "decency"? Gone.

The states would certainly have to step up and start doing the job they were meant to!

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, I'm not going to say that Plato was deceitful, but he was a hypocrite (I'm sure it wasn't driven out of pure malice, though, which your tone indicates.)

I thought my tone just indicated disgust with someone who had to darned well know he was lying through his teeth all the way through one of his major works.

I think Plato believed a lot like the Founding Fathers of the United States; that the "common man" just isn't capable of ruling himself well and needs someone to "look out for him". (The early US Senate seats were voted for by the State Congressional houses, the aristocrats/politicians, because their positions were considered too important for the "masses", many uneducated and unable to read and write, to vote in. This is also partly responsible for the Electoral College system we still use today and why Presidential elections are determined by the EC and not the popular vote.)
^_^

That "too important for the 'masses' business was one take, but it was also a matter of looking at the House of Lords, a group of people able to take the long view of things because they didn't have to worry about winning votes every time they turned around. That's really why only landowners were given the vote initially; they believed that decisions made by those who had a vested interest in the land itself would be more reasoned and less likely to be influenced by passions.

I wouldn't even mind if only landowners got to vote for senators, though with an eye on Rome I'd make it people who actually lived on their land. As it is, by making senators directly elected, we've kicked put one of the checks & balances they put in.


Now I'm going to have to ponder the fact that the South was run very much by the great landowners while the North was run by industrialists, and what that meant -- short term and long -- for freedom.

 

[radical matt]

Kul: I don't own any land at the moment. My parents do, but I live in an on-campus apartment.

You think I shouldn't be voting for Senators? My vested interest is in my freedom and the safety and security of the nation and people I love. Just because I don't have land doesn't mean I don't have a vested interest in the results of Senatorial elections.

I would like to see every state have 3 Senators, though. That way one is being replaced during every 2 year election (just in cycle rather than all at once like the House.)

 

[radical matt]

Ico; Procedural laws would be useful (like traffic laws...who goes first after a stop sign is useful to the flow of everyone's traffic.)

Many laws are neither useful or necessary. I'm sure you can think of at least a few on your own easily enough.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Forget my feelings toward what I said toward he south. Never did i ONCE say the whole south was bad. Not everyone is bad. Never said that.

ANYONE embracing a confederate flag on a pole in their front lawn has inner issues with people of color. It's that simple. It does not represent southern pride. If someone feels so little about their home... shame on them.

There are alot of nice people i know who now live in the south. I have some friends who live there too. I should have been careful with the wording.

It's not a piece of southern pride.. it came to represent the Confederate states which seperated from the union based on the slavery issue. It wasn't over control...they didn't wanna be controlled on giving up their slaves because they were too lazy to work.

Any organization or cult who proudly uses that flag as their symbol is never for a good purpose.

It's a shield from being called racist and a damn good one. If black students embrace that flag as said earlier here in this post.. they weren't educated enough to know the history. Had they known the seriousness they'd think different.

If kept in use after the civil war it was for rebels who were pissed they had lost.. and that slavery was abolished! That's what they had lost over. And it was carried on to today.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kul: I don't own any land at the moment. My parents do, but I live in an on-campus apartment.

You think I shouldn't be voting for Senators? My vested interest is in my freedom and the safety and security of the nation and people I love. Just because I don't have land doesn't mean I don't have a vested interest in the results of Senatorial elections.

I would like to see every state have 3 Senators, though. That way one is being replaced during every 2 year election (just in cycle rather than all at once like the House.)

I think that having only landowners who live on the land vote for senators would make for a more stable and even-keeled government, long term. If that leaves you and me out, well, we're out. But if it would reduce the shenanigans and stunts engaged in solely with a view to the next election, I'd be for it.
I do like the three senators idea, though -- don't forget to add that other one to the Electoral College, as well.

Hm? This has nothing to do with procedural or useful or necessary, it has to do with the quote from Kallipolis: "Who would be so perfect, as to believe our values are superior to another?" Going by that, I don't see how (m)any laws would remain.

Mm... yeah. I was going by what the Constitution specifies, but by that standard -- well, if you get right down to it, even voting would have to be considered immoral, if you were voting on the basis of your values.
Though a quick trip to Friedman-land for free-market law could help out here.

 

[Kulindahr]

ANYONE embracing a confederate flag on a pole in their front lawn has inner issues with people of color. It's that simple. It does not represent southern pride. If someone feels so little about their home... shame on them.

To use a technical term: excrementum tauri.

Fact: blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy, even before Jefferson Davis got it so if they did so they would get their freedom.
Fact: many of them died.
Fact: many of their ancestors still honor their service, and make use of the flag they fought under in so doing.

So, by your "it's that simple" pronouncement, many blacks who honor their ancestors have "inner issues with people of color".

BTW....
What would you say about a black university student with a four-foot Confederate battle flag streaming from a heavy-duty CB antenna on his truck?

Any organization or cult who proudly uses that flag as their symbol is never for a good purpose.

Technical term time again: excrementum tauri.

It's a shield from being called racist and a damn good one. If black students embrace that flag as said earlier here in this post.. they weren't educated enough to know the history. Had they known the seriousness they'd think different.

If kept in use after the civil war it was for rebels who were pissed they had lost.. and that slavery was abolished! That's what they had lost over. And it was carried on to today.

See the facts above.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Excuse me blacks fought on the side of the confederacy.. because society did not want them educated! They did not fully understand what was going on and were told alot of lies.. some knew maybe.. but it was out of fear.

As for the black university student.. I don't think he understands just how serious that symbol is. And being at a university doesn't mean anything. Alot of people have academic smarts and know facts.. does it make them WISE? It's the racism of today that makes them think so low of themselves! How is it a good symbol. When did it become a good thing?

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Cher, you can't even sustain the argument, 'it's a symbol used by bad group a, thus all groups are bad if they (proudly or not) use it'. As I said before, the KKK uses the Christian cross. Hell, they can't even get their symbol right, from a picture dated 1999 in NYC:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/23/klan.03/index.html

I'm not sure why you dismiss as ignorance blacks who have any relation to the flag, that they don't 'get it', when your answer to the problem is a watered-down, overly simplistic view on history.

And I don't even know what all groups have anything to do with the flag, other than the KKK and Civil War re-enactors, so unless you just hate Civil War re-enactment, why not just focus your offense on the hate, and not your misperception of symbols?

Re-enactments are for educational purposes which ARE a good thing. I agree with you on that entirely! We need to know what symbols mean because actions and signs can speak so much louder then what words can say.

Sticking the middle finger at an authority figure is a symbol.. never said a word to the officer.. but he feels offended and arrests me. Its symbolism, why should he care? Symbolism has a major impact on the world today, the past, and the future.