RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed?

RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:07:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Thanks for your research opinion on the law. I was asking a question about anthroplogy though. I do not know what you are asking really, you stated something about norming, as if that excuses you, it doesn't. Your culture and country has laws against certain norming rituals... such as it is not ok to kill a rapist as a vigillante, even though it may have a normative impact. Unless you can show me how that code is anything more than a code in how the anthem and the flag should be treated, then I suppose will prove there is no penalty for not standing and saluting the flag or putting one's hand over one's heart and singing the anthem... Here is some relevant case law for you about religious freedom and the flag and anthem.. http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm quote: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943) In 1940, the West Virginia Board of Education issued regulations requiring every schoolchild to participate daily in a salute to the flag of the United States. The Barnette children, all members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to participate in the flag salute, consistent with the tenets of their religious beliefs, and were expelled from school. The Supreme Court struck down the regulation on the grounds that the First Amendment barred any rule compelling an individual to salute the flag or participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In strong language, the Court affirmed the right to dissent: "But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13890 3rd Circuit throws out Pennsylvania's Pledge law By The Associad Press 08.20.04 PHILADELPHIA — A federal appeals court yesterday threw out a state law that required schoolchildren to either recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the national anthem daily. A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the law violated the free-speech rights of students and the right of private schools to "free expressive association."

juliaoceania -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Apparently y'all haven't spent much time in a crowded theater lately.[:D] There is a difference between accidently spilling something on someone and intentionally doing so.... and the key is in the first part of my post... intention-ally.....the intent is everything. Accident has nothing to do with it. People like to recite 'You can't yell fire in a crowded theater', when in fact it is perfectly legal to do so... if the theater is in fact, on fire. Likewise, if someone was on fire and you intentionally poured your drink on them, do you think it would be a criminal offense? Look up mens rea. There is often a narrow exception to such blanket statements. I suppose someone's intention if they threw soda on a burning person would not be to assault them., my comment stands.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:11:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen NG - you seem to have a dual opinion on the military; where the military are defending, they are good - and where they are attacking, they are evil? Not at all. When someone is camped inside your country attempting to convert you to their values, then the only option is to defend. The burden of proof is satisfied by virtue of overt tyranny. When you invade their country, however, the burden of proof for organised violence has not been satisfied. 1) In theory, some soldiers join up to defend the homeland - point taken. 2) In practice, however, the soldiers invade countries and cause widespread misery. 3) Surely the act is not a noble one, regardless of intention. 4) I wonder how many US soldiers simply want "to kick some ass" anywhere. I appreciate your attempt at providing logical bases here - but sadly, this is human behaviour we're talking about, and logic is difficult to apply. If we had invaded nazi Germany in 1936 and imposed our values on them, as we were entitled to do after the reoccupation of the Rhineland, would that make us evil aggressors in the conflict which ensued? Similar applies in the case of Iraq - or at least could be applied were the invasion not for other motives - Saddam was evil and oppressive by any standard of relative judgement and had breached agreements - and by all accounts was threatening us. A valid defence of a nation does not have to reactive - indeed in the case where there is clear evidence of threat (notwithstanding the failure of the evidence in Iraq), it is equally valid to attack as a form of defence. The problem you have is that war is shit. Whether it takes place here with us being attacked, or elsewhere with us attacking somewhere else - millions will suffer. And I'm afraid I'd rather it were our enemies suffering than us if there's any suffering to be done and its unavoidable because all other avenues have been exhausted. Your final point about US soldiers wanting merely to kick ass - a ridiculous statement in two ways. Firstly in singling out US soldiers, as soldiers the world over are trained to do such and indeed wouldnt be much value were they not. Secondly in that the military especially values those who are predisposed to such motivations and forms from them its paratroopers and other special units for exactly that quality. Again, your accusation that soldiers are to blame is quite misplaced. They are used and abused by our masters just as much as the rest of us are. E

farglebargle -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:16:53 AM)
quote: Saddam was evil and oppressive by any standard of relative judgement and had breached agreements - and by all accounts was threatening us. Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. They were fictional accounts, however, and that's why the authority to change regimes isn't delegated to the Federal Government. It's too hard to UN-FUCK-UP the situation once it's FUCKED-UP.

NorthernGent -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:17:41 AM)
I'm excising my opinion; they're exercising organised violence against a nation that has never been anywhere near the United States, and they're oppressing a foreign people through occupation and imposing their will. In my mind, that is not exercising a liberty. I've read a few of your posts regarding Nietzsche, Orion, and you appear to hold him in high esteem: I doubt he'd view supressing self-dermination as akin to exercising a liberty. From personal experience, my liberty is not under threat. No one is protecting me, but I've had the good fortune to be born in a country where, by and large, we're left to our own devices; moreover, we don't value group conformity, e.g. flag, national anthem, fatherland, in the same way some other nations do. Plus, we have nothing more to offer an invading force than tea and chips; ask the Germans, they got as far as the French coast, looked across the English Channel, and settled on a spot of sun bathing instead: Goering was interested because he'd heard that cross dressing is de rigeur in England, but that's your lot. quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf In a military function? Absolutely. Militaries cannot operate by committee. Combat is too fluid for that. The Generals can make whatever plans they wish, but once battle is engaged, quick decisions by those ranking members in combat is what will determine what happens. I've no issue to take with that, but the context of the chat with Seeks is a government/committee decision and civilians volunteering, rather than military engagement.

TheHeretic -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Your culture and country has laws against certain norming rituals... I find it fascinating that you can simultaneously take for granted the freedoms we have in this country, while declaring it isn't yours. I'll also point out that none of your snips had squat to do with the US Flag Code, but are merely more attempts to strawman the discussion onto the pledge.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Saddam was evil and oppressive by any standard of relative judgement and had breached agreements - and by all accounts was threatening us. Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. They were fictional accounts, however, and that's why the authority to change regimes isn't delegated to the Federal Government. It's too hard to UN-FUCK-UP the situation once it's FUCKED-UP. Agreed FB - as I believe I expressed, the whole debacle was ill conceived and ill based (even fraudulently based). My point is that had the evidence presented been valid then our invasion would have constituted a valid pro active defence. Again it is the governments we elect with a deficient system which is to blame, not the soldiers who were sent. E

juliaoceania -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:28:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Your culture and country has laws against certain norming rituals... I find it fascinating that you can simultaneously take for granted the freedoms we have in this country, while declaring it isn't yours. I'll also point out that none of your snips had squat to do with the US Flag Code, but are merely more attempts to strawman the discussion onto the pledge. Since you were the one that brought up my anthropologist stuff, I took myself out of the picture... that is how I write when talking about anthropological stuf, and now I think you are grasping to salvage yourself here... good luck with that. And if you read the second link, it say the anthem and the pledge...but you would have to read the link, which is something you accused me of not doing... if you want to play some more... feel free to respond

LadyEllen -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent From personal experience, my liberty is not under threat. No one is protecting me, but I've had the good fortune to be born in a country where, by and large, we're left to our own devices; No, you've had the good fortune to be born in a country where we have a tradition of law, order, tolerance and reason - all of which were not indigenous qualities but bought at the expense of huge violence, suffering and death, by those "ignoble savages" who thought that some things were worth fighting for. The inheritors of such mindsets are those who choose to maintain law, order, tolerance and reason in our society at personal risk - the police for instance, in whose absence we'd all be spitting teeth within a week. E

NorthernGent -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:31:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen If we had invaded nazi Germany in 1936 and imposed our values on them, as we were entitled to do after the reoccupation of the Rhineland, would that make us evil aggressors in the conflict which ensued? Yes, it would have made us the aggressors, and we had no business in the Rhineland. It wasn't our place. Evil? Surely we've progressed beyond the dichotomy of good and evil? We're not a Christian nation, these days. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Saddam was.......by all accounts was threatening us. This is built on very shakey foundations, indeed, and the proof was nowhere near sufficient to warrant an invasion; I'm sure there's no need to refute the so-called documents and evidence of WMDs. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Firstly in singling out US soldiers, as soldiers the world over are trained to do such and indeed wouldnt be much value were they not. US soldiers were singled out in the context of the US army and the fact this board is populated with Americans. I know, relevant to the discussion, and some may not like relevance, but there you go. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Secondly in that the military especially values those who are predisposed to such motivations and forms from them its paratroopers and other special units for exactly that quality. Again, consider the context: 1) Poster A: US soldiers enlist to protect the homeland. 2) Poster B: do they really? are you sure some of them aren't satisfying a bloodlust and simply want to go to foreign countries to "kick some ass"? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Again, your accusation that soldiers are to blame is quite misplaced. So you keep saying E, but we're nowhere near a resolution in this conversation, so the jury is still out on the matter.

farglebargle -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:34:24 AM)
quote: Yes, it would have made us the aggressors, and we had no business in the Rhineland. It wasn't our place. Refresh my memory: Germany was disarmed at the conclusion of the Great War. Who was charged with enforcing those terms?

LadyEllen -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:37:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Yes, it would have made us the aggressors, and we had no business in the Rhineland. It wasn't our place. Refresh my memory: Germany was disarmed at the conclusion of the Great War. Who was charged with enforcing those terms? Well, the German high command were very clear on the matter - and had plans to make a very rapid withdrawal had the rest of us decided to enforce the terms of the Armistice. E

NorthernGent -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:43:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Yes, it would have made us the aggressors, and we had no business in the Rhineland. It wasn't our place. Refresh my memory: Germany was disarmed at the conclusion of the Great War. Who was charged with enforcing those terms? Blame was attributed to the Germans, when, in actual fact, there were a whole host of causes underpinning WW1. The British, Germans and Russians were equally to blame, as were some smaller nations. The Treaty of Versailles was a total farce and there should not have been an occupation of German soil. The French and Belgians wanted it in order to a) humiliate the Germans and b) steal resources from the Ruhr Valley. The whole episode was about preventing the German economy from competing and humiliating them: we should have had no part in that. To then march into the Rhineland on the back of an unfair dictat, would have been perpetuating the oppression. Edited to substitute the word dictat for agreement.

TheHeretic -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:44:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Your culture and country has laws against certain norming rituals... I find it fascinating that you can simultaneously take for granted the freedoms we have in this country, while declaring it isn't yours. I'll also point out that none of your snips had squat to do with the US Flag Code, but are merely more attempts to strawman the discussion onto the pledge. Since you were the one that brought up my anthropologist stuff, I took myself out of the picture... that is how I write when talking about anthropological stuf, and now I think you are grasping to salvage yourself here... good luck with that. And if you read the second link, it say the anthem and the pledge...but you would have to read the link, which is something you accused me of not doing... if you want to play some more... feel free to respond LOL. If there is one thing I have learned in our many discussions, Julia, it is that you NEVER take yourself, or your feelings, out of the picture. I'd love to keeping driving trucks through the holes in your arguments, but I have responsibilities to attend to today. And it wasn't an accusation, Julia. You admitted doing it, so I was merely bringing up facts already in evidence.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:45:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent So you keep saying E, but we're nowhere near a resolution in this conversation, so the jury is still out on the matter. Well, please tell me - If an individual soldier decides to go and kick some ass in another country, will he be in trouble, or not? If the colonel of a regiment decides to order his troops to go and kick some ass in another country, will he be in trouble, or not? Clue; In each case, the soldier and the colonel will be in deep trouble. If an individual soldier decides he doesnt feel like going to some country to kick ass after being ordered to go, will he be in trouble, or not? If the colonel of a regiment decides to disobey an order to go abroad and kick some ass, will he be in trouble or not? Clue; In each case, the solder and the colonel will be in deep trouble. What distinguishes the matter is that the soldier, the colonel and indeed the army in general is under the authority of the government. Therefore the government is responsible for questionable uses of the military, not the military itself, not the regimental colonels and not the individual soldiers. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:48:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. Except His internal legitimate political opponents whom he executed. The Kurds . He gassed a few thousand of them Iran Israel Which of the last two upsets you most FB? It seems to me that Obama was either very naive in not adopting the "right" posture during the National Anthem or he made a calculated gesture for reasons that evade me. NG in the real world armed forces are used to protect the homeland or overseas interests. Both of those roles may result in abuse Unless the Army ,in particular in the US, is the policy maker you are firing your blunderbus in the wrong direction. for example General McArthur was removed for trying to override policy A lawyer representing the Army was involved in halting Senator Macarthy in his tracks..

NorthernGent -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:49:00 AM)
E, based on your last post, I can only assume you're not understanding the crux of my argument, it's there for you a few posts back.

farglebargle -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:49:26 AM)
By "The Government" you mean "George W. Bush".

LilMinxy1 -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:50:38 AM)
There has never been an attack on our soil? It has never happened in the past? No evidence to suggest it may happen in the future? Have you been in a coma? I guess so. I do live my life with the KNOWLEDGE that there could be an attack at any time.... and I am thankful that we have TRAINED soldiers here in case it were to happen, on a larger scale while I have a child on this earth, in this country. Selfish to think of my child first? Perhaps, but that's what makes me a Mother. TRAINED soldiers, you may volunteer in the case that it happens here.... but I'll tell you this, I'd rather have my weapon, and TRAINED soldiers next to me than you, who has probably never held a firearm and if you have wouldnt have the balls to point and shoot if you saw someone coming at you, or worse a woman or child. Thankfully there are SOLDIERS who would, and thankfully I have the balls to empty a clip into anyone who comes after my child or any other within my reach. It WILL come here one day. It WILL. If you doubt that then you are living under a cloud, supplied by our soldiers who hide from you the terror they see while they do their job to defend freedom. You complain that were over there...I complain that were over there. I dont want them there either, but I praise them for the balls to enlist knowing they may be sent somewhere they DONT want to go because it will also give them the skills they need to protect the place they DO want to be. These soldiers, and the ones before them, are the ones that ensure your freedoms. You ask when was the last time an Iraqi attempted to close down my discussion? They didn't, because THEY CAN'T. Maybe it's because I live to close to the base... or maybe its because I live in the US. Or maybe its because, I enjoy my freedoms here...so I stay here. Those who dont, can go. Try Iraq. I hear its nice this time of year. Better not voice your opinion though, I hear they cut off heads over there.

juliaoceania -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/1/2007 10:51:34 AM)
quote: LOL. If there is one thing I have learned in our many discussions, Julia, it is that you NEVER take yourself, or your feelings, out of the picture. Now with more personal attacks that are truly amusing... feel free to demonstrate your lack of debate skills further... quote: I'd love to keeping driving trucks through the holes in your arguments, but I have responsibilities to attend to today. That made me chuckle... thanks quote: And it wasn't an accusation, Julia. You admitted doing it, so I was merely bringing up facts already in evidence. I read the original from snoops... I did not hit the link to the code that existed off the main story... no where was anyone saying that Obama broke any law on the snoops page... that was a figment of your imagination, because no such law exists... only a code of how people should engage in singing the anthem respectfully. I am sorry you are unfamiliar with the difference. Again... thanks for playing and have a nice day[;)]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875