Actually, what I said was: "I don't care so long as the flag is on private property. If the flag is on public property, then the state and city officials who allow it should be arrested and tried for treason."

Until we have the trial, I guess we won't know what the ruling will be.



That doesn't make it right.



Maybe so, but in my past experience, reporting crimes to the authorities is often a waste of effort.



I see no evidence of that being a certainty.



Oh, is that one of the reasons behind some of the things you post?



Meaning depends on context. For example, if I were to say, "Bob took a plane," that phrase would mean something different depending on whether the context was a description of a vacation as opposed to a description of a tool shed robbery.

again, avoiding the question! If it is so wrong for a State to display the Confederate flag, on the basis that according to you, it is a treasonous offense to display it on State property, why is not equally wrong to incorporate that flag into an official flag representing the State?

Seriously, you don't think that the FBI would be interested in a State or local government conspiracy? According to you, State and local officials displaying the Confederate flag on State property is treason...Could it be perhaps, that it isn't treason, you know its not treason, and simply are refusing to back down from your earlier comment?

You say meaning depends on context...yet, refuse to explain how, contextually, it is any different. If you can't answer my question, just say so. If you want me to accept that contextually, it is different, explain WHY it is different. All you are saying is that its different...I am asking why it is different. You refuse to answer that, because you know fundamentally, it isn't different. If the Confederate flag is wrong, then any State flag that incorporates the Confederate flag should also be wrong...If you were to stay consistent. If the Confederate flag is treasonous because it was the flag of an enemy, then Hawaii's State flag is also treasonous, because it too has within it, the flag of a once enemy nation.

Your comment about the Confederate flag:


Your justification for it being treason:


In reference to flying the Soviet flag:


So, flying the Soviet flag is just an expression of Free Speech...but flying the Confederate flag is treason? ElZorro, try to remember what your previous posts say, so you avoid the obvious contradictions.

I missed the contradiction. What exactly did you feel was a contradiction?

I also noticed that you seem to still be very fuzzy on the distinction between the behavior of a citizen as opposed to the behavior of the state. Consider, for example, that a citizen can be an avowed Baptist or a Catholic, but that the government is required to not favor one religion over another. Likewise, if you want to personally hang a confederate flag up in your home, go right ahead. However, it would be wrong for a state to do so.

As to the issue of why context matters, consider that the federal flag has 50 white stars. There is one star for every state in the union. However, China has stars on its flag and it does not have one star for every province. Germany is a federal republic and it has no stars at all on its flag. Therefore, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between a decorative element on a flag and a specific meaning.

Few states have an exact replica of the confederate flag incorporated into their state flag. For example, some states simply have a red cross on their flag (see Florida for an example). South Carolina, the state you keep dredging up as an example, has a palmetto tree and a crescent moon, but no elements from the confederate flag at all in its state flag.

So only flag that probably needs a good reviewing is the Mississippi flag. I have no objection to subjecting that flag to a legal review. Therefore there is no hypocrisy on my part.

You don't see the contradiction in claiming that a State official flying the Confederate flag is treasonous, but flying the Soviet flag would just be freedom of speech?

You missed the South Carolina reference entirely...look closer at the picture Amish_Nick posted on page 14 of the thread...that is the Confederate flag, being displayed, on State property, namely the Courthouse...Its not even part of their flag, its flown, as is, on State owned land. All they did was move it from the flagpole on top of the capitol to a different spot on the grounds. Yet, your Soviet example specifically mentioned being flown over the Capitol...NOT by individuals, but by the State government...to which you said it was merely free speech. So, why do you consider it free speech when referencing flying the Soviet flag over a State Capitol building, but, treasonous when its a Confederate flag? If that isn't an outright contradiction, explain.

As long as we are going back to older posts, this position seems quite different from what Davious has been arguing lately.

If I understand correctly what you said here, your only objection is that there is no law against flying confederate flags now, but you have no objection to the passing of laws banning confederate flags.

Correct. I do not see the contradiction in private citizens having the right to fly flags that states should not fly. Citizens and governments are distinct legal and moral categories.

Not in what you quoted.

I guess you'll need to dig a little deeper to uncover that contradiction.

You'll also do better if you stop engaging in strawman fallacies.

See! Governments and individuals are different kettles of fish.

Out of curiosity, are you a native speaker of English? Did the idiom confuse you?

Ummmm, you claimed the State flying a Confederate flag is treason, and then just a little later claimed that the State flying a Soviet flag over the Capitol is just free speech. State and State, not State and Individual.

As to my post, You are correct, if they were to pass a law that specifically banned use of the Confederate flag, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But, since it is not illegal to fly a Confederate flag, these guys flying the flag, the source of the entire thread, are certainly within their rights. I have never claimed that the Government couldn't make it illegal, nor have I claimed that flying the Confederate flag was a Constitutionally protected right. It isn't, which is why I said that it doesn't share the same legal protections that the US Flag does...that should be obvious. However, it isn't illegal, so as long as it remains legal to do so, they have a right to fly the Confederate flag. They are able to fly the flag because there isn't anything legally that says they can't. As long as it is legal for them to do it, I will defend their right to do it. I have never stated that I agreed with the message of the Confederate flag, never stated that it was a great idea to display the flag, but, as long as it is legal, even if I personally disagree with it, I will defend someone's right to do it. I wouldn't lose sleep if they banned it. However, since it is currently legal, I will defend their right to fly it. Legal rights apply to everyone, not just people who agree with my own beliefs. That means that until such a time when the Confederate flag is made illegal, I will defend the rights of those who choose to fly it. They aren't violating the law. As long as it is legal, while I can tell someone they shouldn't do something, meaning I think it is a bad idea, I cannot tell them that they can't do it. Because they can.

As far as the Soviet reference goes, I will save you some time...
This is post #339, on page 13 of the thread.

PS. See the edit button? Its useful. Means you don't have to double post. Or, in your case, quadruple post.

This is no longer a debate. You are simply being contrarian.

If you feel it is no longer a debate, you are more than welcome to stop participating.

Sure, if you have no other valid points we might as well stop. Better luck next time.