Burning the American Flag

As someone who supports the 1st amendment I don't think it should be illegal to burn an American flag that you own. However as someone who supports private property rights I would be fully fine with laws that state if you burn another persons cherished symbol (their American flag, their Pride flag, religious book etc) mandatory 10 year prison term. I'm sure Fuzzy/Loki would probably wail at the idea but does anyone rational actually have a problem with this? If you don't take other people's stuff and violate it than there really shouldn't be an issue, right?

I am more rational than you are and I deem your proposal to be dumb as shit. You will see why if you are able to remove your head from your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I am more rational than you are and I deem your proposal to be dumb as shit. You will see why if you are able to remove your head from your ass.

---

Why would you not want to make it clear that burning other people's stuff isn't acceptable in a civilized society?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Why would you not want to make it clear that burning other people's stuff isn't acceptable in a civilized society?

---

I'm not a moron who had all sense spanked out of me as a child, so I don't think it's a just or even bright idea to impose a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for destroying a colourful mass-produced bit of cloth that gives some hillbilly a boner. The fact that you apparently do only serves to show what a ludicrous fucking cretin you are. Do you never tire of inadvertently showing your ass like this, in thread after thread? What an utterly degrading existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I'm not a moron who had all sense spanked out of me as a child, so I don't think it's a just or even bright idea to impose a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for destroying a colourful mass-produced bit of cloth that gives some hillbilly a boner. The fact that you apparently do only serves to show what a ludicrous fucking cretin you are. Do you never tire of inadvertently showing your ass like this, in thread after thread? What an utterly degrading existence.

---

As is typical, a liberal will eagerly defend criminal actions at every turn. "Yes we shouldn't penalize people who steal and destroy property of others!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

As is typical, a liberal will eagerly defend criminal actions at every turn. "Yes we shouldn't penalize people who steal and destroy property of others!"

---

No you fucking halfwit, what I specifically said was that I don't think it's a just or even bright idea to impose a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for destroying a colourful mass-produced bit of cloth that gives some hillbilly a boner. See, if you're a functionally illiterate dullard, that might translate to "Yes we shouldn't penalize people who steal and destroy property of others!" but if you can read and—your brain has survived the abuse it's been put through over the course of your silly-ass life—you'll find that what I said does not translate to what you said. Use your fucking brain. If you don't have a usable brain, find someone who can help you with the very basic task of reading something written in your own fucking language. Seriously, how are you this dumb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

As someone who supports the 1st amendment I don't think it should be illegal to burn an American flag that you own. However as someone who supports private property rights I would be fully fine with laws that state if you burn another persons cherished symbol (their American flag, their Pride flag, religious book etc) mandatory 10 year prison term. I'm sure Fuzzy/Loki would probably wail at the idea but does anyone rational actually have a problem with this? If you don't take other people's stuff and violate it than there really shouldn't be an issue, right?

---

It's petty theft/destruction of property and should be treated the same way. Criminally it's a misdemeanor. If you want to argue special personal value for an everyday object, there's always pursuing civil action. What you have done is present the kind of case litigation is for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It's petty theft/destruction of property and should be treated the same way. Criminally it's a misdemeanor. If you want to argue special personal value for an everyday object, there's always pursuing civil action. What you have done is present the kind of case litigation is for.

---

The 1st amendment doesn't protect people from using racial slurs when they assault someone, that turns it to a potential hate crime with additional penalties. So we already have established that you can have additional penalties without violating someone's 1A rights even if had there been no crime involved the form of expression would have been protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The 1st amendment doesn't protect people from using racial slurs when they assault someone, that turns it to a potential hate crime with additional penalties. So we already have established that you can have additional penalties without violating someone's 1A rights even if had there been no crime involved the form of expression would have been protected.

---

The racial slurs aren't what gets someone punished. The racial slurs speak to the act being carried out specifically against someone due to their protected class. Which protected class are flag owners a part of, Lewk?

Lewk, you already have a thread about setting fire to other peoples' stuff.

http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=7610

Stop "crime" trolling. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The racial slurs aren't what gets someone punished. The racial slurs speak to the act being carried out specifically against someone due to their protected class. Which protected class are flag owners a part of, Lewk?

---

You do realize that it is the law that creates protected classes, yes? I'm advocating for a new law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You do realize that it is the law that creates protected classes, yes? I'm advocating for a new law.

---

So you think flags deserve the same protection as African Americans and women?

If it was only that bad. He has long hid behind the libertarian ideal of property over people. It's the main excuse he has for not considering himself a standard racist Republican

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The 1st amendment doesn't protect people from using racial slurs when they assault someone, that turns it to a potential hate crime with additional penalties. So we already have established that you can have additional penalties without violating someone's 1A rights even if had there been no crime involved the form of expression would have been protected.

---

You can. Show me the legislation that can pass SCOTUS scrutiny which will let you add this as a hate crime aggravating condition. You're not going to be able to. Protecting political protest and freedom of expression are literally the raison d'etre of the free speech clause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So you think flags deserve the same protection as African Americans and women?

---

He doesn't know what he's saying. This is just a really dumb, hilariously garbled restatement of his view that any form of property damage should be criminal and lead to an entirely absurd prison sentence. Because my man is a dumb mfer. The rest of his nonsense is just Trumpian word-salad. He thinks that he can bolster his dumbfuck argument by tying this up with 1A issues, but hasn't considered the implications. The argument he's clumsily trying to present here is not that flags—or thin-skinned flag-owning pussies—should be a "protected class", but, rather, than destroying a flag or equivalent symbolically important (lol) object belonging to someone else should be considered such an aggravating factor that the commission of such an act should be a felony with an idiotically severe mandatory sentence. The reason for this is simply that weak fucklings like Lewk spend much of their time fapping to really sad fantasies about unleashing disproportionate punishment on their enemies. So what this thread is, is basically Lewk fapping like the sad sack he is, and us humoring him as an expression of our deep and abiding love for this singularly dysfunctional twit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

If it was only that bad. He has long hid behind the libertarian ideal of property over people. It's the main excuse he has for not considering himself a standard racist Republican

---

There is a libertarian ideal of property over people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You can. Show me the legislation that can pass SCOTUS scrutiny which will let you add this as a hate crime aggravating condition. You're not going to be able to. Protecting political protest and freedom of expression are literally the raison d'etre of the free speech clause.

---

Political protest never allows you to do things that are already illegal otherwise. You can't say "Its a protest" and claim that as a defense to illegal action. That's about as logical as saying "Oh no its just a prank" when you assault someone. That doesn't cut it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Political protest never allows you to do things that are already illegal otherwise. You can't say "Its a protest" and claim that as a defense to illegal action. That's about as logical as saying "Oh no its just a prank" when you assault someone. That doesn't cut it.

---

It doesn't protect misdemeanor. Political protest is not a hate crime or an aggravating condition, however, and trying to make it one would run afoul of the 1st amendment's reason for existence. And since you're all about Original Intent, you might choose to recall that the Founders were a bunch of revolutionaries who celebrated things like mass acts of vandalism and destruction of property in defiance of a distant and unresponsive government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It doesn't protect misdemeanor. Political protest is not a hate crime or an aggravating condition, however, and trying to make it one would run afoul of the 1st amendment's reason for existence. And since you're all about Original Intent, you might choose to recall that the Founders were a bunch of revolutionaries who celebrated things like mass acts of vandalism and destruction of property in defiance of a distant and unresponsive government.

---

You are either in a state of revolution, in which case legal niceties of the government you are revolting from don't matter at all or you try to resolve the situation within the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You are either in a state of revolution, in which case legal niceties of the government you are revolting from don't matter at all or you try to resolve the situation within the system.

---

Boston Tea Party
December 16, 1773

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

If it was only that bad. He has long hid behind the libertarian ideal of property over people. It's the main excuse he has for not considering himself a standard racist Republican

---

Lewk is an authoritarian not a libertarian.

There is nothing libertarian about property over people.

ITT we learn that Lewk regularly fantasizes about people he hates doing dumb crimes that make no sense so that he can, within his fantasy, justify massive and disproportionate state violence against them.

It's like those guys who fantasize about someone breaking into their home so they have an excuse to kill them, except those guys actually do the violence themselves, within their fantasy.

So what I'm saying is, Lewk, even in your fantasy life you're a coward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Boston Tea Party
December 16, 1773

---

You are either in a state of revolution or you aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Lewk is an authoritarian not a libertarian.

There is nothing libertarian about property over people.

---

It is absolutely libertarian to have the right of self defense over your person and your property. To think otherwise is just wild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You are either in a state of revolution or you aren't.

---

When did the US Revolution start?

I may be British not American but I thought the date 4 July 1776, or as you put it July 4 1776 was a significant one in your history. It is also after rather than before December 16 1773

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

It is absolutely libertarian to have the right of self defense over your person and your property. To think otherwise is just wild.

---

Not sure what "mandatory 10 year jail terms" for petty theft has to do with self-defense.

Especially when you're opposed to jailing people who kill others quite frequently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

It is absolutely libertarian to have the right of self defense over your person and your property. To think otherwise is just wild.

---

I wonder if you will ever reach a point in your life where you don't constantly self own via your own stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Lewk is an authoritarian not a libertarian.

There is nothing libertarian about property over people.

---

Not saying I believe it, but the reality is that you can be authoritarian and libertarian, just as you can be libertarian and value property over people (some people, under some circumstances); libertarianism is not a monolithic ideology. Moreover, most people—of any ideology—are not 100% principled. You can have a cargo-cult approach to libertarianism. You can have an unprincipled, self-serving and hypocritical approach. This is similar to how white Evangelicals can be regarded—by themselves and by others—as Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

When did the US Revolution start?

I may be British not American but I thought the date 4 July 1776, or as you put it July 4 1776 was a significant one in your history. It is also after rather than before December 16 1773

---

Lewk's position on this issue has always been that it was justified by the eventual revolution. In more general terms, this is an extreme expression of the belief that the ends justify the means. Moral rightness is conferred—backwards in time—by something that happens long afterwards. It is an unprincipled, self-serving and usually hypocritical approach. Had he lived back then, and been who he is today, he would not have supported those protesters either; he would've called for them to be arrested and/or executed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not sure what "mandatory 10 year jail terms" for petty theft has to do with self-defense.

Especially when you're opposed to jailing people who kill others quite frequently.

---

It's pre-emptive self-defense—through deterrence—and a compromise (10 years in prison in lieu of the aggrieved flag-owner killing the violent criminal on the spot). Lewk is opposed to jailing people who kill people he thinks should be killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

ITT we learn that Lewk regularly fantasizes about people he hates doing dumb crimes that make no sense so that he can, within his fantasy, justify massive and disproportionate state violence against them.

It's like those guys who fantasize about someone breaking into their home so they have an excuse to kill them, except those guys actually do the violence themselves, within their fantasy.

So what I'm saying is, Lewk, even in your fantasy life you're a coward.

---

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