PDA

View Full Version : Disrespecting the Flag of the United States


SPG
Jul 25, 2003, 10:00 PM
"Respecting the Flag"

From the US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (g):

The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

zimv20
Jul 25, 2003, 10:17 PM
oops. is that pic for real?

SPG
Jul 25, 2003, 11:03 PM
As far as I know. I guess I should have given the link and a credit.
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003535.html#003535

MrMacMan
Jul 25, 2003, 11:28 PM
wow that pretty bad.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 12:48 AM
LOL. Pretty bad! That is funny.


A small child hands the President a flag and asks him to sign it, or a single parent. If that is all they have for him to sign, and they ask him to sign it, then so what?


I have a huge flag on my wall that I would love to have him sign.

Or wait, are these the same people that say you have the right to burn the flag, but not to sign it for someone.:D

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
are these the same people that say you have the right to burn the flag, but not to sign it for someone.:D

though i do not advocate burning the flag, i would (and have) opposed any attempt to illegalize it because it's a first amendment issue. i also would not support any effort to make signing it illegal.

burning the flag is to make a statement. signing the flag, imo, is something different.

any alteration to the flag is in bad taste. in this case, it seems bush is simply ignorant of what he's doing, whereas someone burning a flag would be doing so with full knowledge of what s/he's doing.

in the end, i don't think this is a big deal. unless bush becomes an advocate of yet-another anti-flag-burning amendment. then i shall reserve the right to be indignant :-)

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
though i do not advocate burning the flag, i would (and have) opposed any attempt to illegalize it because it's a first amendment issue. i also would not support any effort to make signing it illegal.

burning the flag is to make a statement. signing the flag, imo, is something different.

any alteration to the flag is in bad taste. in this case, it seems bush is simply ignorant of what he's doing, whereas someone burning a flag would be doing so with full knowledge of what s/he's doing.

in the end, i don't think this is a big deal. unless bush becomes an advocate of yet-another anti-flag-burning amendment. then i shall reserve the right to be indignant :-)

Personally, I think we should have an amendment to outlaw flag buring. The 1st ammendment gives people the freedom of speech to talk out against the government. That doesn't mean that it can be bastardized into what it has become. That is what is wrong with this country. The extreme that the 1`st Amendment has been taken too.

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Personally, I think we should have an amendment to outlaw flag buring. The 1st ammendment gives people the freedom of speech to talk out against the government. That doesn't mean that it can be bastardized into what it has become. That is what is wrong with this country. The extreme that the 1`st Amendment has been taken too.

Extreme would be making a worthless piece of cloth sewn together in China more important than my freedom.

I wonder if we could arrest all those dolts who drove around with tattered flags hanging off/falling off their cars after 9/11?

What about the people who left theirs out in bad weather or overnight without illumination?

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Extreme would be making a worthless piece of cloth sewn together in China more important than my freedom.

I wonder if we could arrest all those dolts who drove around with tattered flags hanging off/falling off their cars after 9/11?

What about the people who left theirs out in bad weather or overnight without illumination?

I understand, but some of the left coast stuff is getting out of control. Freedom of speech doesnt' give you to right to actions. Speech should be literal.

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

I wonder if we could arrest all those dolts who drove around with tattered flags hanging off/falling off their cars after 9/11?

What about the people who left theirs out in bad weather or overnight without illumination?

i understand the sentiment of such an amendment, though i disagree with it.

and those are good points above. writing/enforcing any laws would be a nightmare. what is a flag? that must be defined. could i burn something w/ 14 stripes? if someone w/ a flag t-shirt throws it in the laundry, is that a federal offense? what about kids on the 4th of july having a flag painted on their face? do we arrest them when they wash it off, or the face painter? the chicago tribune has a flag on the front page. does federal law now dictate how i can dispose of my newspaper? what if the city burns it?

it would get _very_ complicated, and for what? isn't the actual freedom more important than the symbol that represents it?

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i understand the sentiment of such an amendment, though i disagree with it.

and those are good points above. writing/enforcing any laws would be a nightmare. what is a flag? that must be defined. could i burn something w/ 14 stripes? if someone w/ a flag t-shirt throws it in the laundry, is that a federal offense? what about kids on the 4th of july having a flag painted on their face? do we arrest them when they wash it off, or the face painter? the chicago tribune has a flag on the front page. does federal law now dictate how i can dispose of my newspaper? what if the city burns it?

it would get _very_ complicated, and for what? isn't the actual freedom more important than the symbol that represents it?

No, I would make it a common sense law. I think we need more of that. Basically, if you are protesting any branch of this government, the military, or any organization legal or non in the US, and you burn a flag, you go to jail.

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, I would make it a common sense law. I think we need more of that. Basically, if you are protesting any branch of this government, the military, or any organization legal or non in the US, and you burn a flag, you go to jail.

but what is a flag? can i burn the chicago tribune? what about a "flag" w/ 14 stripes?

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I understand, but some of the left coast stuff is getting out of control. Freedom of speech doesnt' give you to right to actions. Speech should be literal.

That runs contrary to macfan and Rush's argument that speech = money. Do you think campaign contribution reform is unconstitutional because of the first amendment?

And what is speech but an action of words? Is holding a sign an action or is it speech if it has words on it? Is assembling (also protected), lighting and holding candles for a silent vigil an action or speech?

The Supreme Court has spoken: actions are speech as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights.

How does burning the flag hurt anyone? No pollution jokes, please.

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

How does burning the flag hurt anyone?

that's the crux, right there. if offends people.

there are a lot of people who want to control others actions, simply because it offends them.

e.g.
- homosexual or other "deviant" sexual activity
- censorship
- gay marriage
- flag burning

the observer is offended. in an effort to obfuscate the real issue (being offended), those seeking to enforce control of behavior will often couch it in other terms. e.g. god is against gays, you're burning my symbol of freedom, the sanctity of marriage is being defiled, etc.

my personal views don't try to enforce others to change, so long as their actions affect no one but themselves.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 01:11 PM
The real intent of banning flag burning is to elevate the flag above a notation of the country to a near religious symbol with power in it's own right. Our government was never meant to be greater than the sum of the people. We are supposed to be able to question it, even rebel against it if it does not represent us.
Do you have blind faith in your religion? I do, and that's fine. (although I do not blindly follow the church and it's leaders)
Do you have blind faith in your government? **** no! The government must be open and accountable.
If we raise the flag as a sacred symbol then we begin the descent down the slippery slope of blind faith in the government where we lose the accountability and the few in charge can then act in their own interest ignoring the needs of the people.
Some argue that we are already there.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:15 PM
Awe, but wait. Some of the organizations that sponsor rallies that burn the flag recieve federal funds. Now, if I can't have a prayer at my high school football game, because it may offend someone, then why must I be allowed to be offended.

The law must be applied equally. Others cannot be offended by my actions, so why must I, someone who has fought for this country and this flag, be forced to put up with someone insulting my country by burning the flag.

I would love to see a group of protesters do a flag burning at a Nascar race.

That would be the funniest thing that has ever happened.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 01:18 PM
Back to the topic...
I posted it since I thought it was funny that the same guy playing the role of the patriot doesn't realize what it means to respect the flag. It's in very bad taste, and he should know better.
As far as who's getting their flag signed, it looks like everyone is wearing work shirts with name tags and none of the hands reaching out look like a little kid's or a single moms.

BTTM: What do you mean by your "left coast" comment? The recall in California? Yeah I'm offended by that too.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Back to the topic...
I posted it since I thought it was funny that the same guy playing the role of the patriot doesn't realize what it means to respect the flag. It's in very bad taste, and he should know better.
As far as who's getting their flag signed, it looks like everyone is wearing work shirts with name tags and none of the hands reaching out look like a little kid's or a single moms.

BTTM: What do you mean by your "left coast" comment? The recall in California? Yeah I'm offended by that too.

Back to off the topic ;)

No, I think the recall is a good thing. 80% of the people in California disaprove of the job the man is doing. That is why a recall is legal.

As for the left cost, it is for the policies that exist there. No score in games, outlawing dodge ball, those types of things.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Awe, but wait. Some of the organizations that sponsor rallies that burn the flag recieve federal funds. Now, if I can't have a prayer at my high school football game, because it may offend someone, then why must I be allowed to be offended.
Wha wha what?!?!?!?!? What groups that recieve federal funds burn flags? Please back this one up.
The prayer at the school thing is question of the seperation of church and state. One of the fundamentals of our government being eroded by your boy bush.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
The law must be applied equally. Others cannot be offended by my actions, so why must I, someone who has fought for this country and this flag, be forced to put up with someone insulting my country by burning the flag.

I would love to see a group of protesters do a flag burning at a Nascar race.

That would be the funniest thing that has ever happened.

There is no law against simply offending someone since it is totally subjective. If I find NASCAR offensive, should we ban it in favor of CART and Formula 1?
I think it would be funnier to bring your NASCAR fans to meet the families of all the victims of US foreign policy of the last 50 years. Actually that would just be sad. Maybe those NASCAR fans wouldn't feel so offended by a flag burning after that.

BTTM, I'm about to start walking on eggshells here, and I don't mean to offend you. I truly appreciate the people who've served this country in the armed forces, especially those who were called to combat. But when you were fighting, were you fighting for the flag? or were you fighting for what this country stands for? Would you risk your life to save a flag? I wouldn't. Would you risk your life to save what this country really stands for? I would.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Wha wha what?!?!?!?!? What groups that recieve federal funds burn flags? Please back this one up.
The prayer at the school thing is question of the seperation of church and state. One of the fundamentals of our government being eroded by your boy bush.



There is no law against simply offending someone since it is totally subjective. If I find NASCAR offensive, should we ban it in favor of CART and Formula 1?
I think it would be funnier to bring your NASCAR fans to meet the families of all the victims of US foreign policy of the last 50 years. Actually that would just be sad. Maybe those NASCAR fans wouldn't feel so offended by a flag burning after that.

BTTM, I'm about to start walking on eggshells here, and I don't mean to offend you. I truly appreciate the people who've served this country in the armed forces, especially those who were called to combat. But when you were fighting, were you fighting for the flag? or were you fighting for what this country stands for? Would you risk your life to save a flag? I wouldn't. Would you risk your life to save what this country really stands for? I would.

As for the organizations, I have heard that in numerous circles, but will have to do some digging to find out exaclty the names of them. As for the Nascar stuff, don't take it so literal. Most nascar fans have the Bart Simpson mentality of "you burn my flag, and I will whip your ass". THey still say a prayer before every race invoking the name of Jesus.

As for offending me. Not at all man. I respect questions like that. No, I fought for the coutnry. But people who make comments about wishing that our troops would die, and stopping supplies from reaching them, and as someone said here recently, wishing that China would invade the US. Those are when I have a problem. As for agreeing with what you have to say, I may not agree with it, but I will die to defend your right to say what you think. However, buring the flag to me is a direct insult to those that have died to defend the country and the flag that represents it.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Back to off the topic ;)

No, I think the recall is a good thing. 80% of the people in California disaprove of the job the man is doing. That is why a recall is legal.
Gray Davis was elected 9 months ago by a real majority, unlike oh I dunno, ahem cough cough.
So now Issa comes in says hey my party lost, things are messed up (because of Enron and the bush economic policy as much as anythign else) so I'll dump my own money in to pay signature gatherers to oust the fairly elected governor with my disgruntled minority.
The recall is absolutely legal, it's just in very very bad taste, and goes against what the laws were intended for.
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for the left cost, it is for the policies that exist there. No score in games, outlawing dodge ball, those types of things.
Puhleasee! Those are isolated anecdotal incidents in some liberal communities and they don't bother anyone. Slashing all kinds of programs that people depend on for a good quality of life to give heaps of cash to the already very wealthy does hurt people. A LOT of people.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Gray Davis was elected 9 months ago by a real majority, unlike oh I dunno, ahem cough cough.
So now Issa comes in says hey my party lost, things are messed up (because of Enron and the bush economic policy as much as anythign else) so I'll dump my own money in to pay signature gatherers to oust the fairly elected governor with my disgruntled minority.
The recall is absolutely legal, it's just in very very bad taste, and goes against what the laws were intended for.

Puhleasee! Those are isolated anecdotal incidents in some liberal communities and they don't bother anyone. Slashing all kinds of programs that people depend on for a good quality of life to give heaps of cash to the already very wealthy does hurt people. A LOT of people.

Ah, but were the energy problem in California not present long before Bush was in Office, and if it is Bush's fault, then why isn't energy going through the roof everywhere else? Also, California's debt is the largest of any state, and is out of control. Thus the recal may be in bad taste, but again, 80% of the people there are against Davis.

As for the anecdotal incidents, those are the problem. The state of California will pay for sex change operations. I don't care is someone wants one, but that is not spending money on a program for improved quality of life. And, again, why is it the responsiblity of the government to give money to programs that do. All the government should do, is have a strong defense, enforce laws, and give people the opportunity to better themselves through education.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for the organizations, I have heard that in numerous circles, but will have to do some digging to find out exaclty the names of them.
Please do, since I have a strong suspicion that they don't exist.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for the Nascar stuff, don't take it so literal. Most nascar fans have the Bart Simpson mentality of "you burn my flag, and I will whip your ass". THey still say a prayer before every race invoking the name of Jesus.
Okay not taking it litterally, since it is unfair to categorize someone over motorsports preference. But do you think that someone knowing, and I mean really knowing what the impacts of US foreign policy have been would be as gung ho on the flag after witnessing it?
A friend of mine was telling me that to some Buddhists, there is no evil, only ignorance. That anyone knowing the real impact of their deeds would choose the right path. Evil is only the manifestation of choices made in an absence of knowledge.
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for offending me. Not at all man. I respect questions like that. No, I fought for the coutnry. But people who make comments about wishing that our troops would die, and stopping supplies from reaching them, and as someone said here recently, wishing that China would invade the US. Those are when I have a problem. As for agreeing with what you have to say, I may not agree with it, but I will die to defend your right to say what you think. However, buring the flag to me is a direct insult to those that have died to defend the country and the flag that represents it.
A lot of those things you mention like wiching ill on our troops, or an invasion of the US, are being made in total frustration at witnessing what the US is doing to other countries.
Maybe I'm less offended (don't worry I'm still offended) by flag burning is that I don't see it as an insult to those who've died defending our country and way of life, but as a statement to our government that it should not forget those sacrifices made, that the government is ****ing up and needs to be put on notice that the people are watching and aren't happy about it.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Please do, since I have a strong suspicion that they don't exist.


Okay not taking it litterally, since it is unfair to categorize someone over motorsports preference. But do you think that someone knowing, and I mean really knowing what the impacts of US foreign policy have been would be as gung ho on the flag after witnessing it?
A friend of mine was telling me that to some Buddhists, there is no evil, only ignorance. That anyone knowing the real impact of their deeds would choose the right path. Evil is only the manifestation of choices made in an absence of knowledge.

A lot of those things you mention like wiching ill on our troops, or an invasion of the US, are being made in total frustration at witnessing what the US is doing to other countries.
Maybe I'm less offended (don't worry I'm still offended) by flag burning is that I don't see it as an insult to those who've died defending our country and way of life, but as a statement to our government that it should not forget those sacrifices made, that the government is ****ing up and needs to be put on notice that the people are watching and aren't happy about it.

What things have we done to other countries that they, in their foreign policy have not done to us? I understand that is 1st grade mentality, but we cannot continue to blame the government of today for the flaws of the last 50 years. Bush actually has the Palistenians and Israelies talking, and peace looks like it may happen. No foriegn policy is perfect. As for the flag, I can understand the logic of what you are saying, but again, having served it is different. When you are in Basic, the flag, and the meaning of the flag is drilled into your head. It becomes part of you. It is what you defend. You defend your flag. To see a foriegn person burn the flag is enough. To see our own countrymen do it because they don't agree with the goverment, says to me that they don't respect the sacrifices of those who have died to keep that flag and this country safe.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ah, but were the energy problem in California not present long before Bush was in Office, and if it is Bush's fault, then why isn't energy going through the roof everywhere else?
California got a deregulation plan pushed through in the mid 90's, a plan similar to what the WTO and IMF have been pushing disastrously on many countries. Enron took advantage of this to mess with the supply that they controlled so that they could profit trading energy on the market. I lived in California during all this and witnessed it firsthand. The power plant I could see from my street shut down, the wind generators outside SF were taken offline along with a bunch of others so that the supply would drop and the price skyrocket. Enron even had cute little names like "Operation Death Star" for this. Enron was a heavy republican contributor and sought favors from bush/cheney when the plan was discovered.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
The state of California will pay for sex change operations.
No they don't. I don't know where you get this crap from. Just because one guy sues the state for this and LOSES doesn't mean that you can line up and get your junk cut off at taxpayer expense.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
And, again, why is it the responsiblity of the government to give money to programs that do. All the government should do, is have a strong defense, enforce laws, and give people the opportunity to better themselves through education.
It takes more than education to better people (and even that's being cut to the bone). Roads, police, libraries, health care, unemployment insurance, social security, welfare, FDA, FAA, OSHA, and on and on. This is what makes the US a good place to live. If you want low taxes, fewer sevices and a strong defense, I have just the place for you...Liberia.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 02:11 PM
Actually, I remember reading on CNN, and ABC news over a year ago, that the State would pay for sex changes of people that a psychiatrist said needed the operation through medicare funds.

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Awe, but wait. Some of the organizations that sponsor rallies that burn the flag recieve federal funds. Now, if I can't have a prayer at my high school football game, because it may offend someone, then why must I be allowed to be offended.

But there's a difference between gov't funded speech (I assume you're thinking of a case where the NEA was involved in funding an individual; if not I'd like to hear about this "organisation") and government sanctioned religion, which is expressly forbidden in the first amendment.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 02:12 PM
As for enron. Yea, they are republican contributors, but they give massive amounts of to the democrats too.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What things have we done to other countries that they, in their foreign policy have not done to us?
Don't be so naiive. The power struggle of the cold war had just about every single counttry int he middle paying the price. You'd be hard pressed to find any country that wasn't affected. Remember Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos? Most of South America has been messed with, in particular Chile, Argentina, Venezuela (which is still having coups assisted by the bush gov't).
Here's a start:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/
http://www.renaissancealliance.org/issact/intro.htm


Originally posted by Backtothemac
When you are in Basic, the flag, and the meaning of the flag is drilled into your head. It becomes part of you. It is what you defend. You defend your flag.
Don't you think that's neccesary for maintaining discipline and motivation for the troops? What is neccessary to motivate the troops to fight is not always what's neccessary to keep a good government or a good society.
I think elevating the flag to a religious symbol is dangerous. Questioning the actions and motives of the people holding office is healthy. How often do you hear people in the church questioning God?

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for enron. Yea, they are republican contributors, but they give massive amounts of to the democrats too.
Those massive amounts were 1/1000th what the republicans got, just in case the democrat got elected.

SPG
Jul 26, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Actually, I remember reading on CNN, and ABC news over a year ago, that the State would pay for sex changes of people that a psychiatrist said needed the operation through medicare funds.

Once again a single isolated incident and you jump all over it to make it sound like everyone is doing that every day and the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing compared to what damage is being done to the everyday way of life of the majority of the citizens of this country as we speak.

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
says to me that they don't respect the sacrifices of those who have died to keep that flag and this country safe.

that's your interpretation of an event, and it offends you. you are advocating illegalizing an action which in actuality hurts nothing save your reaction to it.

it deconstructs to: if something is offensive but not dangerous, who has the power to shut down the action? i say "no one," you seem to say "some one."

regarding holding the flag in reverence: does it stop there? the slippery slope might provide for protection of photographs of the president. would you support legislation making defacing such photos illegal? (or while we're at it, what about defacing the photo of a flag?)

vniow
Jul 26, 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I don't care is someone wants one, but that is not spending money on a program for improved quality of life.


I prefer to refer to SRS as fixing a birth defect, not to improve the quality of life to to speak, I have a few trandgendered friends so I've looked into this more tham most people, its not about raising your quality of life so to speak, its about trying to right a wrong.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by vniow
I prefer to refer to SRS as fixing a birth defect, not to improve the quality of life to to speak, I have a few trandgendered friends so I've looked into this more tham most people, its not about raising your quality of life so to speak, its about trying to right a wrong.

Yea, but why should the state pay for that? Being born with normal anatomy is not a birth defect, it is a choice to change that.

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, but why should the state pay for that? Being born with normal anatomy is not a birth defect, it is a choice to change that.

That's her point; it's not a choice, it's a mistake made by nature -- just like a birth defect. It's a man in a woman's body or a woman in a man's body.

The only difference is that this is not something visible.

Your rebuttal reminds me of the people who see a drunk, homeless man and say, "get a job!" because he's obviously a normal surburban family guy if he wants to be, but chooses to be an alcoholic bum.

vniow
Jul 26, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, but why should the state pay for that? Being born with normal anatomy is not a birth defect, it is a choice to change that.

Its easy to think of them as normal when you don't feel that they're not supposed to be there, I really don't want to get into this, but a lot of my TG friends would kill to have their insurance pay for surgury, its not exactly cheap ya know, would you have any problem with insurance paying to fix any other type of birth defect?

Edit: Damn! pseudo beat me!

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 10:38 PM
Ok, here is my opinion, and I am not trying to offend anyone here. EVERYONE here knows that I am pro gay rights. I have made that perfectly clear.

Now, that being said. How can being born a healthy human being be a birth defect? Nature doesn't make "Mistakes" in a healthy person. The brain may make a person feel that they should have been a woman or man, but the fact is they are not. It is a slippery slope if there has ever been one. Someone with small brests will want large ones, large ones want small ones. People with no butt, will want implants, it is physical. Not a defect. Now, someone that is born with both sexual organs, that is a different story, and I think that the government should aid in that situation, but not for people that "feel" like they should be something other than what they were born.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
That's her point; it's not a choice, it's a mistake made by nature -- just like a birth defect. It's a man in a woman's body or a woman in a man's body.

The only difference is that this is not something visible.

Your rebuttal reminds me of the people who see a drunk, homeless man and say, "get a job!" because he's obviously a normal surburban family guy if he wants to be, but chooses to be an alcoholic bum.

There is no comparison between the two. None. Who knows how the guy got there, and BTW, I would never look at someone and say that. I volunteered more than a year of my life in New Orleans working in outreach shelters, working with people with addictions, and who needed help. I am not as shallow as you make me sound.

vniow
Jul 26, 2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How can being born a healthy human being be a birth defect? Nature doesn't make "Mistakes" in a healthy person.

Depends on how you define mistake and healthy, I know quite a few people who feel like they are in the wrong body, that they weren't supposed to be born as a male or female but the feeling is so strong that they're willing to go great lenghths to fix this mistake, try to imagine waking up every day and living a lie because you were born into the wrong gender, doesn't exasctly sound conforting does it?

The brain may make a person feel that they should have been a woman or man, but the fact is they are not.

Wow, what a narrow definition of gender you have, I guess I'll go tell my friend Kevin that he's not a man because he doesn't have a pe**is, that'll go over real well with him.

Someone with small brests will want large ones, large ones want small ones. People with no butt, will want implants, it is physical. Not a defect.

Making your boobs a couple cups larger is a bit different than changing your entire gender don't you think?

Now, someone that is born with both sexual organs, that is a different story, and I think that the government should aid in that situation, but not for people that "feel" like they should be something other than what they were born.

I love how you put "feel" in quotes here, it makes it seem that its somehow less real than any other "feeling"...well coming from personal experience it most definately isn't, women who were born with small boobs or without an ass can usually live with that without wanting to go through a lot of physical and emotional changes to fix what they feel is a mistake, women with pe**ses however....

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

The brain may make a person feel that they should have been a woman or man, but the fact is they are not.

what about something that's less extreme, like mental health. should, say, depression be covered by health insurance?

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now, that being said. How can being born a healthy human being be a birth defect?

Schizophrenia.

Nature doesn't make "Mistakes" in a healthy person.

Autism.

Sayhey
Jul 27, 2003, 12:48 AM
On the topic of the thread. Or at least close to it. I've been to many, many demonstrations in my life and every so often there is some fool who decides to burn a flag. I have never ever been to a demonstration which had as its purpose to burn a flag or know of a organization that planned such an action. This is my own anecdotal experiences of going to rallies and demonstrations starting from the anti-Vietnam war days through literally hundreds of Union actions and the rallies last spring against the war in Iraq, so take it for what it is worth. I think such things as flag burnings are counter productive, offensive and down right stupid. It makes people who you want to have a serious discussion with like you, BTTM, react to the act of lighting a symbol on fire and pay no attention to what should be topic or topics of the discussion. Having said that I would agree with others that to pass an admendment banning even this foolish type of speech would be a horrible limitation on political speech that should have the widest protections possible. That ability to say what you believe is truly something to fight for.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Schizophrenia.



Autism.

Zim, yes, mental health and care should be covered. However, I don't think that wanting a sex change is a mental issue, I think it is an emotional issue for whatever reason.

Again, pseudobrit, these examples are neruological conditions. Not one that is driven by a feeling. V, I do not mean to say that those feelings are less important than others, my point is to say that they are feelings. There is no medical fact that they should have been born with different sexual organs that what they have. Other than those born with both. As for gender. If you are born with female genitalia, then you are a women, same with men.

Sayhey
Jul 27, 2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Zim, yes, mental health and care should be covered. However, I don't think that wanting a sex change is a mental issue, I think it is an emotional issue for whatever reason.

Again, pseudobrit, these examples are neruological conditions. Not one that is driven by a feeling. V, I do not mean to say that those feelings are less important than others, my point is to say that they are feelings. There is no medical fact that they should have been born with different sexual organs that what they have. Other than those born with both. As for gender. If you are born with female genitalia, then you are a women, same with men.

Actually, the genitalia you are born with determines your sex not your gender. Sex is a biological term that is not as clear cut as many think; gender is a culturally defined role. In some cultures there are more than two genders (ie some parts of India and in some Native American cultures.) If you identify strongly with a gender that does not fit with what society expects, then that is a serious medical condition. I'm not sure what your problem is with people who want to have surgery to correct this condition. Surely we all have a right to pursue a life that we can be happy in? If it is purely tax payer money going to this that bothers you, then remember first this is very rare and though the surgery cost a lot for an individual it is not a large cost to the taxpayers overall. Second, in the few places that this kind of surgery is covered, I'm sure it is so by collective bargained aggrements - unions representing the needs of their members, won this in negotiations. What is wrong with that?

from a "left coast" kind of guy;)

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Zim, yes, mental health and care should be covered.


i think so, too.


However, I don't think that wanting a sex change is a mental issue, I think it is an emotional issue for whatever reason.


i'm not sure how to classify it. i remain undecided and open-minded on this topic. (where "this topic" means "how it's funded." i am supportive of anyone who needs to do gender reassignment)

billyboy
Jul 27, 2003, 06:18 AM
Talking about burning flags, this probably will not sound too good to patriots, but I believe that according to the oldest Eastern philosophy, Tao ti Ching, patriotism is one of the first signs of breakdown in society. Take the time to work that one out.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Actually, the genitalia you are born with determines your sex not your gender. Sex is a biological term that is not as clear cut as many think; gender is a culturally defined role. In some cultures there are more than two genders (ie some parts of India and in some Native American cultures.) If you identify strongly with a gender that does not fit with what society expects, then that is a serious medical condition. I'm not sure what your problem is with people who want to have surgery to correct this condition. Surely we all have a right to pursue a life that we can be happy in? If it is purely tax payer money going to this that bothers you, then remember first this is very rare and though the surgery cost a lot for an individual it is not a large cost to the taxpayers overall. Second, in the few places that this kind of surgery is covered, I'm sure it is so by collective bargained aggrements - unions representing the needs of their members, won this in negotiations. What is wrong with that?

from a "left coast" kind of guy;)

Ah, but that is the crux. If it is against someones religion, (homosexuality), or transgender operations, if their tax dollars support that, then you are forcing those people to violate their religion.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by billyboy
Talking about burning flags, this probably will not sound too good to patriots, but I believe that according to the oldest Eastern philosophy, Tao ti Ching, patriotism is one of the first signs of breakdown in society. Take the time to work that one out.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
--Samuel Johnson

Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.
--Bertrand Russell

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
--George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism ruins history.
--Goethe

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
--Henry Steele Commager

During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism.
--Howard Thurman

The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
--Mark Twain

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
--H.L. Mencken

mcrain
Jul 27, 2003, 11:01 AM
I've been a judge on several student legal debate contests, and so far, I have yet to be convinced by any arguments that burning the flag should be illegal. In addition, the ramifications of such a law are a lot broader than you would think. It isn't just about flags or freedom of speech. There are a lot of doors that open for government control of daily life if laws banning flag burning are constitutional.

Why is it so hard for people who respect the flag to respect it, and just let other people do what they will. I mean, if you have the right to treat it like something amazing and wonderful, why can't someone else have the right to treat it like a drop cloth/toiletpaper/junk?

What gives one person the right to say that their morals, their values, the things they find important are the things that everyone must abide by? I mean, in a democracy, shouldn't we be free to be different, have different values, morals and things we find important? Isn't that what has made the US such a powerful force?

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ah, but that is the crux. If it is against someones religion, (homosexuality), or transgender operations, if their tax dollars support that, then you are forcing those people to violate their religion.

at some point, we equated insurance paying for something w/ support via tax dollars. is that strictly correct?

mcrain
Jul 27, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ah, but that is the crux. If it is against someones religion, (homosexuality), or transgender operations, if their tax dollars support that, then you are forcing those people to violate their religion.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. Taxes are your obligation. Once you pay them, what the government does with that money is not up to you, and therefore, the use of that money for promoting satanism isn't forcing anyone to do anything, much less violate their religion.

(edit) One more thing. They aren't "your tax dollars." You owe a tax, they take it, it is their money. That money that you pay in taxes, is not for you, it isn't earmarked for you or your city or your state or your causes. It is the goverment's money, to be used for the benefit of ALL of its citizens, even those who are not "middle of the road, average, heterosexual, caucasions."

macfan
Jul 27, 2003, 11:10 AM
Burning the flag = free speech. I would oppose any amendment to ban it.

Government sponsored sex change surgery = a dumbass use of public funds. You want to get a sex change operation? Pay for it yourself.

Someone earlier said that these situations where gender and sex don't match are a "mistake" by nature. Frankly, the same type of argument could be made to say that homosexual orientation is also a mistake by nature, or a biological error. Now, I seem to recall a certain talk show host who made that statement and had to apologize for it!

It is patriotism that protects the right to despise patriotism. --macfan

Sayhey
Jul 27, 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
at some point, we equated insurance paying for something w/ support via tax dollars. is that strictly correct?

If BTTM's assertion that medicare pays for such operations is true then it is correct. I don't know if that claim is valid or not. I think not. In the case of government employees it is only indirectly so. This is the case in SF were I know this operation is covered at least to some degree because of a case involving a lawsuit of the fired head of Dept. of Elections.

But all this misses the point. Because someone objects, for religious or other reasons doesn't give them a veto on public policy. Many religions have objected to any wars, but their tax payments can not be legally withheld because of their beliefs.

Edit - I see mcrain beat me to the point!

jelloshotsrule
Jul 27, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
that's the crux, right there. if offends people.


i'm offended when people get drunk off their ass and makes asses of themselves in public, or in my house.

i'm offended when people smoke and blow their smoke near me.

i'm offended by people driving gas guzzling vehicles when they don't have a true need to do so, and therefore, are killing my/our environment needlessly.

etc etc.

:)

jelloshotsrule
Jul 27, 2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
It is the goverment's money, to be used for the benefit of ALL of its citizens, even those who are not "middle of the road, average, heterosexual, caucasions."

ummm.... NON-middle of the road, average, heterosexual caucasians exist???? where?!?! we must oust them!

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i'm offended when people get drunk off their ass and makes asses of themselves in public, or in my house.

i'm offended when people smoke and blow their smoke near me.

i'm offended by people driving gas guzzling vehicles when they don't have a true need to do so, and therefore, are killing my/our environment needlessly.

etc etc.

:)

all those things annoy me, too. in the case of the second-hand smoke and SUVs, there _is_ harm to others. methinks that draws a line between those examples and my original ones.

jelloshotsrule
Jul 27, 2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
all those things annoy me, too. in the case of the second-hand smoke and SUVs, there _is_ harm to others. methinks that draws a line between those examples and my original ones.

indeed. wasn't meaning to compare to your annoyances, just used your quote as a launching point. :)

Sayhey
Jul 27, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Government sponsored sex change surgery = a dumbass use of public funds. You want to get a sex change operation? Pay for it yourself.

Someone earlier said that these situations where gender and sex don't match are a "mistake" by nature. Frankly, the same type of argument could be made to say that homosexual orientation is also a mistake by nature, or a biological error.

I think the mistake is in society's view of what it means to be male/female or a man/woman in a strict dichotomy. It is more of a continuum than one or the other. That doesn't mean that for the individual who faces the impact of society's condemnation of being outside the accepted gender roles isn't faced with serious medical health issues. If someone chooses surgery as a way to deal with these issues then my best wishes go with them. A little societal compassion is in order.

macfan
Jul 27, 2003, 12:45 PM
In a question of public health priorities, sex change operations shouldn't even be on the radar screen. If someone wants to choose surgery, they can choose it and they can pay for it.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Burning the flag = free speech. I would oppose any amendment to ban it.


we agree! woo-hoo!!

vniow
Jul 27, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
V, I do not mean to say that those feelings are less important than others, my point is to say that they are feelings. There is no medical fact that they should have been born with different sexual organs that what they have.

Its called gender dysphoria and yes, it is a very serious medical condition.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
at some point, we equated insurance paying for something w/ support via tax dollars. is that strictly correct?

I could care less if insurance pays for it. My problem is state tax dollars paying for it. You see my point?

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Sorry, but that is just wrong. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. Taxes are your obligation. Once you pay them, what the government does with that money is not up to you, and therefore, the use of that money for promoting satanism isn't forcing anyone to do anything, much less violate their religion.

(edit) One more thing. They aren't "your tax dollars." You owe a tax, they take it, it is their money. That money that you pay in taxes, is not for you, it isn't earmarked for you or your city or your state or your causes. It is the goverment's money, to be used for the benefit of ALL of its citizens, even those who are not "middle of the road, average, heterosexual, caucasions."

Um, sorry, but that is just wrong. Tax dollars, I do decide how they are spent. By voting people out of office that spend the money in ways that I would not support. This is California state stuff that I am talking about. It would never happen in Alabama, so it is moot for me. However, I just think that it is wrong, but then again, plenty is wrong in California.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I could care less if insurance pays for it. My problem is state tax dollars paying for it.

thank you for the clarification.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by vniow
Its called gender dysphoria and yes, it is a very serious medical condition.

V, my only problem is that so many people are being labeled today. A.D.D., Gender Dysphoria, Bi-Polar. All we are doing is putting labels on ourselves, which I find funny because for many years, minoritys have fought to remove labels. I know some people generally have medical problems, however, I don't think that this is a medical condition.

It is a feeling, and it is psychological. There is no other way to describe it. Your body is not rejecting the organs you were born with, your brain is making you feel like you should be something other than what you are.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
thank you for the clarification.

No problem my brother, no problem at all.


Wow, we are actually all debating, and not insulting each other ;)

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
your brain is making you feel like you should be something other than what you are.

this could also describe depression and other mental illnesses. methinks the issue is cloudier than it first appears.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
this could also describe depression and other mental illnesses. methinks the issue is cloudier than it first appears.

Well, I agree. Maybe treat what is causing someone to fell that way, but I cannot support the state paying for surgery in that manner.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I agree. Maybe treat what is causing someone to fell that way, but I cannot support the state paying for surgery in that manner.

from what i understand, there are a lot of people suffering from gender dysphoria who never make it to surgery.

but they do live as the other gender, take hormones and undergo talk therapy (which i believe is mandatory for the surgery, if they go that far).

so short of surgery, there are still medical costs. who should pay for those?

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
from what i understand, there are a lot of people suffering from gender dysphoria who never make it to surgery.

but they do live as the other gender, take hormones and undergo talk therapy (which i believe is mandatory for the surgery, if they go that far).

so short of surgery, there are still medical costs. who should pay for those?

Well, it is a touchy subject, but insurance companies should pay for it, along with the indivdual having the surgery. But before that can happen we need to make ALL relationships in this country legal and afford to the gay community the same rights that heterosexual partners have with reguards to insurance, and tax exemptions.

pseudobrit
Jul 27, 2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Zim, yes, mental health and care should be covered. However, I don't think that wanting a sex change is a mental issue, I think it is an emotional issue for whatever reason.

You "think" it is an emotional issue? I guess depression is an emotional issue, too.

Let's stop giving them meds, they'll just have to choose to be happy instead.

Again, pseudobrit, these examples are neruological conditions. Not one that is driven by a feeling.

Actually, schizophrenia is not traceable. There are no abnormalities of the brain or its function, only in the behaviour of the afflicted. So I guess since they're healthy humans, they can just choose to start feeling normal again.

pseudobrit
Jul 27, 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by macfan
If someone wants to choose surgery, they can choose it and they can pay for it.

And if someone with depression wants to be happy, they can choose happiness and pay for it. Or kill themselves. Either way, it's not your problem, is it?

pseudobrit
Jul 27, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Someone earlier said that these situations where gender and sex don't match are a "mistake" by nature. Frankly, the same type of argument could be made to say that homosexual orientation is also a mistake by nature, or a biological error. Now, I seem to recall a certain talk show host who made that statement and had to apologize for it!

Well, you've come in there with the notion that abnormality is something to be ashamed of.

I have less than perfect vision (20/40). I'm a biological mistake. There are plenty of aberrations in genetics that are not "normal" but they are certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

Nature doesn't make mistakes, just deviations from the average. It's what make us all unique.

pseudobrit
Jul 27, 2003, 03:47 PM
Oh, and one more for the anti-patriot theme:

Gather 'round you young rebels/
and list' while I sing/
for the love of one's country/
is a terrible thing.

It banishes fear/
with the speed of a flame/
and makes us all part of/
the Patriot Game.

(Traditional Irish Republican)

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, you've come in there with the notion that abnormality is something to be ashamed of.

I have less than perfect vision (20/40). I'm a biological mistake. There are plenty of aberrations in genetics that are not "normal" but they are certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

Nature doesn't make mistakes, just deviations from the average. It's what make us all unique.

I understand that, but why should the state pay for a sex change. That is teh off topic question that has yet to be answered.

toontra
Jul 27, 2003, 04:30 PM
Worth remembering that in the very (comparative) recent history people with physical and/or mental disabilities were classed by the state as being sub-human or even posessed by demonic forces.
I think and hope we've moved on there, as we should with sexual "abnormalities".

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by toontra
Worth remembering that in the very (comparative) recent history people with physical and/or mental disabilities were classed by the state as being sub-human or even posessed by demonic forces.
I think and hope we've moved on there, as we should with sexual "abnormalities".

Again, this isn't about label, or terms, it is a question of whether the state should pay for it.

pseudobrit
Jul 27, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Again, this isn't about label, or terms, it is a question of whether the state should pay for it.

Well, the state pays for people's depression and schizophrenia meds and any surgeries that may be required, right? Then why discriminate against those who need hormones or sex-change therapy?

There is no difference medically.

Just because you "think" the two are different doesn't mean they are; the medical community disagrees with you.

vniow
Jul 27, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I know some people generally have medical problems, however, I don't think that this is a medical condition.

There are many medical experts that disagree with you..

It is a feeling, and it is psychological. There is no other way to describe it. Your body is not rejecting the organs you were born with, your brain is making you feel like you should be something other than what you are.

There's lots of ways to describe it, and be careful when you say that your brain is making you feel something than what you are, what if what you are is the opposite gender from what your organs tell you? What makes a person who they are, is it their body, their mind or a combo of both?
I wouldn't just blow off people who identify as the gender opposite to their actual genitals as just a psychological feeling because there's much much more to what gender is than what your body tells you it is, if you really want to learn more about it, talk to some TG people, they're the foremost experts on this subject because they're the ones who are going through it.

I understand that, but why should the state pay for a sex change. That is teh off topic question that has yet to be answered.

Hell, I'd be happy if insurance companies were to cover the surgury!

macfan
Jul 27, 2003, 05:07 PM
A schizophrenic guy may think he's Napoleon, but that doesn't mean that you should give him plastic surgery to make him look like the one time French dictator!

There are cases of where it is hard to determine what sex a baby is. Sometimes, they can be born with two sets of organs, one male, one female. In some instances, a child may appear to be a girl, and then, develop male sexual organs at puberty. Genetics and hormones play a complex role in determining sex.

Whatever else it may be, a sex change operation is an elective procedure, much like a face lift. What I find particularly objectionable about the San Francisco sex change controversy is having someone take a job for the sole purpose of getting a sex change operation paid for by the city. I think that borders on fraud.

pseudobrit,
Your less than perfect vision doesn't entitle you to government funded elective laser surgery to correct it.


Well, you've come in there with the notion that abnormality is something to be ashamed of.

Where is IJ Reilly when you need him to point out that no one said anything about any notion of shame?

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by vniow
There are many medical experts that disagree with you..



There's lots of ways to describe it, and be careful when you say that your brain is making you feel something than what you are, what if what you are is the opposite gender from what your organs tell you? What makes a person who they are, is it their body, their mind or a combo of both?
I wouldn't just blow off people who identify as the gender opposite to their actual genitals as just a psychological feeling because there's much much more to what gender is than what your body tells you it is, if you really want to learn more about it, talk to some TG people, they're the foremost experts on this subject because they're the ones who are going through it.



Hell, I'd be happy if insurance companies were to cover the surgury!

V, for me, and for all of the education that I have had, sex is determined by the organs that a person has. I am male, not because I fell like I am a male, but because I have male reproductive organs. My wife is female because she has female reproductive organs. It boils down to what one is, not what one feels what one is.

macfan
Jul 27, 2003, 07:30 PM
backtothemac,
There is more to sex and gender than the sex organs. This is one of the great failing of the feminist movement--which often gives the impression that men and women are identical except for sex organs. However, I see no reason to pay for sex change operations since they are elective surgeries.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
But before that can happen we need to make ALL relationships in this country legal and afford to the gay community the same rights that heterosexual partners have with reguards to insurance, and tax exemptions.

agreed. new question: is there anything aside from organized religion stopping that?

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
agreed. new question: is there anything aside from organized religion stopping that?

Yea, actually I know a person that is an athiest that feels very anti-gay. In fact most of the Christians that I know accept people the way they are.

wwworry
Jul 28, 2003, 06:16 AM
I don't think the state should pay for the sex change operation. Who's to say he does not want the operation just so he can get into the woman's prison? Is there a history of this feeling that he should be a woman? I'm not convinced this is not some sort of scam. Plus it would not kill him to remain a man. Plus operations like that have some risk factors. Plus there are far worse things than feeling like a woman in a man's body. What if he felt that he needed both legs cut off? Would the state have to pay for that? (not that being a woman is like having both legs cut off) A sex change operation seems clearly to be an elective procedure.

I'm with macfan and BTTM on this.

Back to the flag - I find it interesting that people who support the flag burning amendment also don't see the harm in confederate state flags. On the one hand the US flag is a sacred object in itself and at the same time they disavow any deeper meaning in the confederate flag. Or, what white people see as sacred/profane is OK but what black people (and a lot of whites) see as sacred/profane is "being silly".

Also the US is not the kind of country that worships sacred objects. [except for one thing - money!]

BigJayhawk
Jul 28, 2003, 03:45 PM
What does ANY OF THIS have to do with the topic of this thread???

Whoa!

wwworry
Jul 28, 2003, 04:11 PM
fun isn't it

Sayhey
Jul 28, 2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by BigJayhawk
What does ANY OF THIS have to do with the topic of this thread???

Whoa!

You had to been there.;)

pseudobrit
Jul 28, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
I don't think the state should pay for the sex change operation. Who's to say he does not want the operation just so he can get into the woman's prison?

Yeah, I know lots of criminals who'd rather have their balls cut off than go to jail... WTF? :rolleyes:

Is there a history of this feeling that he should be a woman? I'm not convinced this is not some sort of scam. Plus it would not kill him to remain a man.

Just like it would not kill a schizophrenic to not take his medicine or someone with depression not to take his Prozac, right?

Medicine is about more than just making sure you don't die. Think about it.

wwworry
Jul 28, 2003, 08:44 PM
Well it might kill a schizophrenic not to take their medicine and the same with a severe depressive. Surgery is much more invasive and less predictable than drug therapy.

I ask about his history because if he was able to go this long without the surgery then why have it now? I do not think anyone here can really answer all the questions that have to be asked with the small amount of information we get. Most information given to us is used to invoke easy outrage, fast righteousness or simple pride which is good for the ratings.

Me, I know nothing about this at all except for my own cheapness, hense my "wait a minute..." reaction. Besides, it isn't even up to me.

My questions are:
Could the same ends be achieved using drugs?

What would happen if he did not have the surgery?

Medicine is about more than just making sure you don't die. Think about it.
I do know a bit about medicine. I know surgery is not to be taken lightly. What's that oath the surgeons all take?

pseudobrit
Jul 28, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Well it might kill a schizophrenic not to take their medicine and the same with a severe depressive. Surgery is much more invasive and less predictable than drug therapy.

Neither of these afflictions can cause physical death. If a psychiatrist recommends a lobotomy, the government, depending on the circumstances, is in a position to pay for it.

I ask about his history because if he was able to go this long without the surgery then why have it now? I do not think anyone here can really answer all the questions that have to be asked with the small amount of information we get. Most information given to us is used to invoke easy outrage, fast righteousness or simple pride which is good for the ratings.

Well, that would be ultimately a choice made by the patient and his physician.

Me, I know nothing about this at all except for my own cheapness, hense my "wait a minute..." reaction. Besides, it isn't even up to me.

Right. Which is the idea.

My questions are:
Could the same ends be achieved using drugs?

If a patient and his doctor come to the conclusion that drugs aren't enough, why would you block that with a blanket rule?

I do know a bit about medicine. I know surgery is not to be taken lightly. What's that oath the surgeons all take?

The Hippocratic oath.

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 12:27 AM
Lobotomy is never a treatment for schizophrenia.
Depression can cause physical death, as can schizophrenia.

pseudobrit
Jul 29, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Lobotomy is never a treatment for schizophrenia.
Depression can cause physical death, as can schizophrenia.

You're picking nits and taking things too literally.

judith
Jul 29, 2003, 06:35 PM
Just wanted to hear some opinions on what the flag represents to you.
I think the concept of disrespect (the epitome being burning it) ties directly with the intent of the 'message'.
Does it represent the current administation?
Does it represent our foundation at it's core?
Our beloved veterans?

pseudobrit
Jul 29, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by judith
Just wanted to hear some opinions on what the flag represents to you.
I think the concept of disrespect (the epitome being burning it) ties directly with the intent of the 'message'.
Does it represent the current administation?
Does it represent our foundation at it's core?
Our beloved veterans?

It represents different things at different times. That's why it's a mere symbol.

It's nice, but it's not what really matters.

Ugg
Jul 29, 2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by judith
Just wanted to hear some opinions on what the flag represents to you.
I think the concept of disrespect (the epitome being burning it) ties directly with the intent of the 'message'.
Does it represent the current administation?
Does it represent our foundation at it's core?
Our beloved veterans?

That is a good question!

In my head there are two very strong images, Betsy Ross sewing the original and the flag being planted on the moon.

I really think the flag can only really stand for those who created it and fought for separation from Great Britain. It was their blood, sweat and tears that brought it into existence and if the flag can possibly stand for anything it is their courage. Everyone since then has used or perverted it for their own purposes. My respect for the flag is based on that alone.

The current debate about the flag is nothing more than a group of people trying to force their opinion on another group. It has little or nothing to do with the flag itself.

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 11:47 PM
Being as human are symbol using creatures, calling the flag a "mere symbol" doesn't really do it justice. Symbols do have meaning.

The flag different things to different people. To some, the flag stands for the republic. It stands for the unity of the nation. It stands for the rule of law. It stands for freedom. It stands for courage. It stands for the legitimate pride that Americans can feel for being the cradle of freedom and for pulling civilization back from the brink of utter disaster at the hands of one evil empire and standing up against another one until it passed to the ash heap of history.

For others, the flag represents all that is evil in the world. It is a symbol of a horrible country that does nothing good and cares only for itself. Thus, it is good only for burning and stomping on in demonstrations against the Republic it represents.

Ugg
Jul 30, 2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Being as human are symbol using creatures, calling the flag a "mere symbol" doesn't really do it justice. Symbols do have meaning.

The flag different things to different people. To some, the flag stands for the republic. It stands for the unity of the nation. It stands for the rule of law. It stands for freedom. It stands for courage. It stands for the legitimate pride that Americans can feel for being the cradle of freedom and for pulling civilization back from the brink of utter disaster at the hands of one evil empire and standing up against another one until it passed to the ash heap of history.

For others, the flag represents all that is evil in the world. It is a symbol of a horrible country that does nothing good and cares only for itself. Thus, it is good only for burning and stomping on in demonstrations against the Republic it represents.

The cradle of freedom is going a bit far if you ask me. Brink of utter disaster and evil empire are a bit over the top as well but you and I have never really seen eye to eye have we?

My bicycle is the key to my happiness and well-being, and I mean it quite sincerely. I can't imagine life without it and the freedom it brings me. It is my 4th adult bike and I'm sure there will be a few more in my lifetime. The bike itself is expendable but the ideals it represents to me are priceless. I would never lay my life down for the machine, for what it represents, yes I would.

All well and good but what does it mean to you, macfan?

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Ugg

My bicycle is the key to my happiness and well-being, and I mean it quite sincerely. I can't imagine life without it and the freedom it brings me. It is my 4th adult bike and I'm sure there will be a few more in my lifetime. The bike itself is expendable but the ideals it represents to me are priceless. I would never lay my life down for the machine, for what it represents, yes I would.


and if i got mad at ugg and smashed his bike, it wouldn't mean that i hated fitness and bikeriding in general. it doesn't even mean i don't like ugg's bike.

i would be doing it to make a point -- to offend the person to whom the bike and what it represents means so much.

iow, if no one was offended by flag burning, i doubt anyone would do it.

pseudobrit
Jul 30, 2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
iow, if no one was offended by flag burning, i doubt anyone would do it.

And, if it were legal, no one would do it.

Oh, yeah -- no one does. (~40 cases a year last I know of)

judith
Jul 30, 2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
and if i got mad at ugg and smashed his bike, it wouldn't mean that i hated fitness and bikeriding in general. it doesn't even mean i don't like ugg's bike.

i would be doing it to make a point -- to offend the person to whom the bike and what it represents means so much.

iow, if no one was offended by flag burning, i doubt anyone would do it.

Assuming that's your intent - offense. But I don't think it's true in general that some that burn flags don't in fact hate the bike (flag) fitness (freedom) or those that cherish it.

So you're saying then that you feel people do this to offend those who honor the symbol?

I disagree, some might be offended by my sticking pins into a Tony Stewart voodoo doll, but no one sees me, so no one is offended, and I still enjoy the hell out of it. (this is hypothetical, of course;) )

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by judith
Assuming that's your intent - offense. But I don't think it's true in general that some that burn flags don't in fact hate the bike (flag) fitness (freedom) or those that cherish it.

My own impression is that those who do this here, in the US, are most often the very young who want to seem the most radical. I think very little real thought goes into this act. It's counter-productive, foolish, and alienating.

In other countries it represents an entirely different thing. For many it represents a protest against the domination of their country by the US. It represents real hatreds for real policies. We react when we see a symbol of our nation handled in such a manner, but perhaps we need to look to the individual circumstances. Some may be a hatred for the modern world; others may have legitimate cause for their hatred even if we still dispise the act. The best way to eliminate this is to foster a relationship of mutual respect. That, unfortuately, is not coming from this White House.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by judith

So you're saying then that you feel people do this to offend those who honor the symbol?


absolutely. i'd be willing to bet it's the vast majority, anyway.

imo, most flag burnings (and there aren't really that many) are political statements. i.e. "your policies offend me, so i'm going to do something that offends you."

the flag burner is coming from a weaker position and, thus, resorts to asymmetrical tactics: defacing a symbol. and offended people pay attention -- it may raise awareness of the issue being protested.

note that everything i wrote above can exist independently from how the burner feels about the US in general. the above can be true for an american protesting a war (who loves his country) and a foreigner who (believes he) hates all americans.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
absolutely. i'd be willing to bet it's the vast majority, anyway.

imo, most flag burnings (and there aren't really that many) are political statements. i.e. "your policies offend me, so i'm going to do something that offends you."

the flag burner is coming from a weaker position and, thus, resorts to asymmetrical tactics: defacing a symbol. and offended people pay attention -- it may raise awareness of the issue being protested.

note that everything i wrote above can exist independently from how the burner feels about the US in general. the above can be true for an american protesting a war (who loves his country) and a foreigner who (believes he) hates all americans.

I don't disagree that the act is done partially to offend, but if you stop there there is a very important part that is left out. It is a organizing tool. It is the same as burning or hanging someone in effigy. Symbolically the person is showing the power of the crowd watching towards the US. Although it alienates a US audience it does not neccessarily do that to the people of another country. In this country it serves no purpose as an organizing tool, quite the contrary. It draws attention to the flag burner, yes, but it obscures the message of the demonstration. As I said before, I've never been in a demonstration where this is done as a statement by the organizers of the demonstration, but only by individuals who wish to draw attention to themselves. In the most charitible interpretation they may have some well thought out reason for doing so, although I sure haven't seen it.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 02:32 AM
One last thing, I find it amazing how the flag has gone from a sacred symbol to a commodity. When I was young, my contemporaries and I used to sew the flag on our shirts or pants as a way of saying, "It is only a piece of cloth; what needs to be honored is our people." Now, as long as you are trying to make a buck you can put it on toilet paper. I surely don't want to go back to the day in which the flag was so venerated that if you accidently let it touch the ground you had to burn it because it had been desecrated. At the same time, the irony of how it is used as a commodity, by people who consider themselves super patriots, should not be overlooked.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
the irony of how it is used as a commodity, by people who consider themselves super patriots, should not be overlooked.

i ate 4th of july dinner off paper plates w/ the likeness of the flag and wiped my mouth w/ matching napkins.

i'm sure someone will find it ironic that _that_ felt weird to me, yet i would oppose a flag-burning amendment. and to me it feels perfectly consistent.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 11:09 AM
Maybe what we really need is a flag desecration amendment. I see far too many of those window-mounted car flags shredded from bouts of 80 mph flag-waving, or ripped from the vehicles of their patriotic owners and deposited in a roadside gutter. But I suppose flag desecration in the name of "true" patriotism isn't what we're after, though.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
The cradle of freedom is going a bit far if you ask me. Brink of utter disaster and evil empire are a bit over the top as well but you and I have never really seen eye to eye have we?

....

All well and good but what does it mean to you, macfan?

I don't think it's a bit far at all to call the United States the cradle of freedom. There simply were no nations that tested democracy and were successful before the United States did so. In a time of the divine rights of kings, the United States stood up and said that all men were created equal. This was the cradle of freedom and the birthplace of liberty. Nor is it over the top to say that a Nazi victory in WWII would have been utter disaster for civilization, IMO.

I tend to see the flag as representative of the first paragraph I wrote, but also see it as representative of the history of the republic, which is one of overcoming serious flaws (which I would characterize as evil) and increasing freedom. Part of that freedom includes the right to burn that flag in protest. It is a deep and abiding irony that the flag represents the right to burn it. Those who disrespect and demean the flag do so under the protection fo the Constitution of the republic which the flag represents.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by macfan
I don't think it's a bit far at all to call the United States the cradle of freedom. There simply were no nations that tested democracy and were successful before the United States did so. In a time of the divine rights of kings, the United States stood up and said that all men were created equal. This was the cradle of freedom and the birthplace of liberty. Nor is it over the top to say that a Nazi victory in WWII would have been utter disaster for civilization, IMO.

I tend to see the flag as representative of the first paragraph I wrote, but also see it as representative of the history of the republic, which is one of overcoming serious flaws (which I would characterize as evil) and increasing freedom. Part of that freedom includes the right to burn that flag in protest. It is a deep and abiding irony that the flag represents the right to burn it. Those who disrespect and demean the flag do so under the protection fo the Constitution of the republic which the flag represents.

As important as the American revolution was, it is also important to remember it came into the world with the handmaid of chattle slavery. Of couse, women had little or no legal rights as well. A little humility might be in order when we make claims of being the "cradle of freedom."

If we are to overlook these "serious flaws" then we should go back to Athenian democracy for such a claim. They too based a society on the revolutionary ideas of democracy and liberty and predate the US by some 2,000 plus years. They too were a slave-owning society that ignored the rights of women.

At the time of the Revolution there were also some contemporaneous examples that the US drew upon for inspiration. The English parlimentary system is only the most obvious. The Dutch, the Swiss and some Native American tribes would have some claim (if we ignore Classical examples) of being the "cradle of freedom." The founders were not ignorant of history and openingly gave credit to Greece and Rome for their inspiration.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 12:18 PM
Sayhey,
It is important to remember that slavery was part of the history of the republic. We should not overlook this evil, nor should we overlook its destruction or the triumph that respresented.

There were some small scale experiments in democracy that predated the United States, but, when one looks at the overall scope of history and the development of constitutitonal government, there shouldn't be any serious question as to the United States being the cradle of freedom, IMO.

To say the founders were merely not ignorant of history does them a great injustice. Not only were they not ignorant of it, they were steeped in it to an incredible degree. This is one reason why what they did--installing a representative democracy and a constitutional form of government on a large scale--was so revolutionary and bold--it had never been done successfully before.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by macfan

installing a representative democracy and a constitutional form of government on a large scale

"large" is subjective, so...

according to this 1790 census, (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=790) the US population was under 3.9 million.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
"large" is subjective, so...

according to this 1790 census, (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=790) the US population was under 3.9 million.

And what was the population of Athens 2000 years ago? (hint: it was substantially less than 3.4 million).

In any event, I was speaking more about the geographic scope and differing interests of the citizens (urban/rual etc.) than the number of citizens. Nevertheless, rememeber that 3.4 million was a lot bigger back then than it is today.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Sayhey,
It is important to remember that slavery was part of the history of the republic. We should not overlook this evil, nor should we overlook its destruction or the triumph that respresented.

There were some small scale experiments in democracy that predated the United States, but, when one looks at the overall scope of history and the development of constitutitonal government, there shouldn't be any serious question as to the United States being the cradle of freedom, IMO.

To say the founders were merely not ignorant of history does them a great injustice. Not only were they not ignorant of it, they were steeped in it to an incredible degree. This is one reason why what they did--installing a representative democracy and a constitutional form of government on a large scale--was so revolutionary and bold--it had never been done successfully before.

I meant know disrespect to the intelligence or knowledge of Jefferson, Washington, and friends. I was only commenting on the ignorance of others who don't recognize, what they did, that the American revolution owed a debt to earlier civilizations.

Athens was not a small scale experiment in democracy. It lasted from the overthrow of the tyrants in the last of the 6th century BCE to the takeover of Athens by Alexander in the 4th century BCE. It also was spead far out from Athens to areas controlled by the Athenian empire. In short, Jefferson knew where the "cradle of freedom" really was located - Athens.

As to slavery, didn't mean to overlook it or downplay the importance of the civil war that ended it. I thought you were.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 01:21 PM
There's a definite tendency to both lionize and minimize the accomplishments of the nation's founders. The historical record provides many ambiguities and contradictions, capable of being exploited in a debate, depending on what point is being made. We aren't going to settle this question here, that's for sure.

In history, we've seen democracies devolve into tyrannical dictatorships of the mob, just as we've seen relatively benign monarchies. For me, one critical fact emerges out of all the other, more debatable ones: The strength of any democratic form of government is highly dependent on the consistent commitment of its people towards the principles of freedom and justice. The founders I think did understand this issue, and accordingly decided after much discussion to create that addendum to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The strength of any democratic form of government is highly dependent on the consistent commitment of its people towards the principles of freedom and justice.

and the tranparency of that government.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
and the tranparency of that government.

Well I think that naturally follows from the rest, if somewhat down the line. Any government that hides its activities from the electorate is in danger of losing the consent of the governed.