[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Which, again (...), is why I don't personally display the flag ANYWHERE, ever.

I'm just saying...again...that I understand why some people take pride in their Southern heritage, and choose to display the Confederate flag. Is it wise to choose the Southern flag? No. But what else are they going to show? A flag that depicts a pitcher of iced sweet tea?

That got a real lol from me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The suggestion that the Civil War was about slavery is as uninformed as the suggestion that the war "started" with the attack on the US garrison at Ft. Sumpter. The Civil War was about economics, pure and simple. The ONLY way the Southern states could produce any sort of cash crop was with a combination of slave labor and share cropping (mostly extremely poor whites), because they'd not invested in ANY sort of industrial infrastructure beyond the cotton gin. The states of the South complained in Congress that a variety of tariffs and other trade issues were "unfair" to those states because they seemed to favor foreign sources of goods and/or punish the Southern states' interests financially.

So how was it not about slavery exactly if the South was fighting for a way of life that was only sustainable because of slavery? You can look at slavery as a proximate cause in terms of it being a rallying issue for a lot of the secessionist sentiment (if you believe many of the statements of the time) as well as an underlying cause of long-term economic tensions. I mean, I understand that someone could have been motivated to fight for Virginia or South Carolina or whatever regardless of their opinions about slavery, but IMO you can't really get around the fact that the Confederate Battle Flag is intrinsically tied to an ugly idea.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I did grow up in the south and lived there until I moved to the UK about 4 years ago. I have roots in the deep south going back generations. I still don't understand how someone can fly a symbol of human oppression good-naturedly.

The Union Jack flew over more human oppression and slavery than the Confederate Flag ever did.

People are just strangely selective in what symbols they choose to pretend to get offended over. I also tend be believe it's because no one is taught any real history at all anymore.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Utter bunk.

I do have to say I'm shocked as to how many confederate apologists there are on this board.

Split hairs if you must. So the civil war was about economics. The economics of slavery. The south had not built the infrastructure to flourish without the use of a deplorable and completely unjustifiable practice and we are supposed to believe your antebellum nonsense that these were people of "principle" and "honor?" Lee may have believed this about himself, but he choose to lead an army that defended those who sought to continue to treat humans as property.

Perhaps the civil war did not begin at Ft. Sumpter, but to put in Texas terms so you get the picture- it was the start of "Major Combat Operations" and is generally considered to be the first battle. Pointing this out in response to the absurd notion that the "North" started it was not "uniformed" regardless how pompously you assert that it was.

The Stars and Bars was not "stolen by bigoted groups of knuckle draggers," they embody the spirit on which it was raised and for which blood was spilled. The mythical "principled, honor-bound young upper class men who 'took a stand' against being pushed around from without," were being asked not to end the inhuman and unquestionably evil practice of slavery on their own land, but to end it's spread to the new territories. They likely saw that this would be the beginning of the end of their deviant way of life, and these principled, honor-bound young upper class twits chose to kill and die rather than halt the spread of slavery. Not anything that anyone with an ounce of humanity should celebrate.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The Union Jack flew over more human oppression and slavery than the Confederate Flag ever did.

People are just strangely selective in what symbols they choose to pretend to get offended over. I also tend be believe it's because no one is taught any real history at all anymore.

I'm not sure which part of my statement led you to believe that I was all misty eyed about the Union Jack, but I did not move to the UK because I found it to ethically superior, I moved because of a job. I stay because I like my job and my life here.

However, the Confederate flag IS different. It's creation and veneration is completely tied up in the Civil War and slavery. The Union Jack (or Union flag for the purists) has many associations- from the oppression of millions during the colonial era, to the punk movement of the 70's. The confederate flag is a symbol of a snapshot of a deplorable period of US and human history.

I tend not to be offended by symbols or words at all, and I certainly don't pretend to be. Perhaps I'm unusually enlightened, but more likely I'm just exceedingly cynical. However I do understand their power to offend as well as excite, exhilarate, frighten, etc. I have, I believe, enough empathy not to flaunt symbols that I know will cause hurt. It's a shame so many people in the south don't, and a further shame that so many (like some posters on this board) enable and seemly encourage them to do so.

[Chuckit]

Oh, the Union flag has many associations? So you mean, like, if some people think a flag stands for oppression and slavery, and other people associate it with freedom and individual liberty, those are both valid meanings to attach to it?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, the Union flag has many associations? So you mean, like, if some people think a flag stands for oppression and slavery, and other people associate it with freedom and individual liberty, those are both valid meanings to attach to it?

Are you willfully thick? A flag that has been in existence for over 400 years as a official symbol of a state has inarguably more history and meanings attached to it than a flag that was created and existed for a few brief years as an official symbol of a rouge state that was created to protect the livelihoods of those that based it on the ownership of other human beings. Duh.

[Chuckit]

Am I willfully thick? I'm not the one who's ignoring the vast amounts of historical context and cultural perspectives offered in this thread and instead essentially shutting my ears and chanting "SLAVERY SLAVERY I CAN'T HEAR YOU SLAVERY SLAVERY LA LA LA!"

Several people here have pointed out that the flag is used with connotations of freedom and independence — it actually has this meaning for people — and your only response is to reiterate again and again that there was slavery in the Confederate states. I get that you feel differently, but it's a bit radical to outright deny that other opinions exist.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I get that you feel differently, but it's a bit radical to outright deny that other opinions exist.

I don't deny that other opinions exist. It's just that those opinions are held by those who are either ignorant of history (willfully or otherwise) or so lacking in respect or human empathy that they embrace a symbol of hatred, racism and oppression and attempt to wrap it in an absurd veneer of glory, pride and individual rights. Pride in place and heritage is understandable, but to choose this particular symbol to express it shows an utter contempt for those for whom it is so hurtful. Pride of self that necessarily denigrates others is not nobility.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I don't deny that other opinions exist. It's just that those opinions are held by those who are either ignorant of history (willfully or otherwise) or so lacking in respect or human empathy that they embrace a symbol of hatred, racism and oppression and attempt to wrap it in an absurd veneer of glory, pride and individual rights. Pride in place and heritage is understandable, but to choose this particular symbol to express it shows an utter contempt for those for whom it is so hurtful. Pride of self that necessarily denigrates others is not nobility.

We could say that about the Saint George Cross. And you know what's been going on with that lately.

(For everyone else, the Saint George Cross is the flag of England, and it's been in the news lately as some politically correct types try to stop it being flow in case if offends muslims. Check here.)

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We could say that about the Saint George Cross. And you know what's been going on with that lately.

(For everyone else, the Saint George Cross is the flag of England, and it's been in the news lately as some politically correct types try to stop it being flow in case if offends muslims. Check here.)

Perhaps. However I still belive there is a notable difference. St. George's Cross again has a history that spans hundreds of years and has many established connotations. To treat it only as a symbol of the crusades and english jingoism is not a truly valid comparison to a symbol such as the CSA battle flag.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The suggestion that the Civil War was about slavery is as uninformed as the suggestion that the war "started" with the attack on the US garrison at Ft. Sumpter. The Civil War was about economics, pure and simple. The ONLY way the Southern states could produce any sort of cash crop was with a combination of slave labor and share cropping (mostly extremely poor whites), because they'd not invested in ANY sort of industrial infrastructure beyond the cotton gin. The states of the South complained in Congress that a variety of tariffs and other trade issues were "unfair" to those states because they seemed to favor foreign sources of goods and/or punish the Southern states' interests financially.

You're saying it wasn't about slavery, but about the fact that they couldn't get by without it. That sounds a lot like it's about slavery. That difference is hardly significant enough to call someone uninformed (hint: it's not even a difference).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

You're saying it wasn't about slavery, but about the fact that they couldn't get by without it. That sounds a lot like it's about slavery. That difference is hardly significant enough to call someone uninformed (hint: it's not even a difference).

Slavery was a related fact. As I pointed out, the Union offered to let the rebel states keep their slaves if they just submitted to the federal government's authority. It was not ultimately about slavery, but control.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The Union Jack flew over more human oppression and slavery than the Confederate Flag ever did.

Considering the Union Jack is flown only at sea while the Confederate Flag is flown over land... you're probably right.

[SpaceMonkey]

I thought it was a joke about the oppressive nature of British naval service.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I don't deny that other opinions exist. It's just that those opinions are held by those who are either ignorant of history (willfully or otherwise) or so lacking in respect or human empathy that they embrace a symbol of hatred, racism and oppression and attempt to wrap it in an absurd veneer of glory, pride and individual rights. Pride in place and heritage is understandable, but to choose this particular symbol to express it shows an utter contempt for those for whom it is so hurtful. Pride of self that necessarily denigrates others is not nobility.

So according to you, I'm most definitely either a complete imbecile or an insensitive bigot...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I thought it was a joke about the oppressive nature of British naval service.

Confederate Flag isn't flown at sea, so the Union Jack would infinitely be more oppressive at sea compared to the Confederate Flag.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I pointed out, the Union offered to let the rebel states keep their slaves if they just submitted to the federal government's authority.

Not exactly. There was a preexisting act of Congress which declared that any slaveholder found guilty of treason would have his slaves freed. I think this would have still applied on an individual-by-individual basis even if the rebel states had rejoined the Union, meaning that as a practical matter there would be little incentive for anyone with any political authority to abandon the Confederacy at that point. At the very least it would have given them serious hesitation.

At this point, Lincoln was also reiterating his desire to see the slaveholding states that were part of the Union agree to some sort of compensated emancipation. Although there were plenty of critics who felt that Lincoln was not going far or fast enough (just as there were pro-Union Democrats who felt he was going too far), I don't think anyone was under the illusion that there would be a return to the status quo ante in terms of slavery.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

So according to you, I'm most definitely either a complete imbecile or an insensitive bigot...

I won't speak for Paco500 but I will speak for myself and say yes, I would think you are "a complete imbecile or an insensitive bigot" if you willingly fly the Confederate flag knowing that the flag represents a social and political movement predicated on subjugation and enslavement of other human beings.* Absolutely would I call you an imbecile or bigot. Either you are ignorant of the flag's meaning or aware of it and indifferent to that meaning.


*Granted, that is not the only symbolic meaning held by the Confederate flag--it has many others--its meaning as a symbol of those who would willfully subjugate other human beings to slavery cannot be eliminated. It's not like the swastika that developed two separate and distinct symbolic meaning frameworks for buddhists and nazis. (Not too mention numerous native american tribes who also use/used the swastika symbol.) At no time did the buddhist framework for symbolic meaning, as it relates to the swastika--ever intersect or overlap with the nazi framework for symbolic meaning. Unlike the symbolic framework for the swastika, there is no separate framework for symbolic meaning where the confederate flag represented something totally different than the Confederate states and their political, cultural, and economic goals. It's not like there was a separate independent group that developed symbolic imagery identical to the Confederate flag but used it for separate purposes. The Confederate flag has ALWAYS been associated with one group and one group only.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Considering the Union Jack is flown only at sea while the Confederate Flag is flown over land... you're probably right.

Union Jack.

As for 'only at sea', I'm curious how you think slaves got from Africa to Europe, the US, the West Indies, etc? Via air cargo?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

*Granted, that is not the only symbolic meaning held by the Confederate flag--it has many others--

Isn't that the whole point that's being made? Again, selective outrage.

There are many 'symbolic meanings' held by just about ANY flag, of any nation that's been around for any significant amount of time, and many flags flew over oppression in a nations past. All I've seen so far is excuses for this, but not a whole lot of logic. Face it, many heads were lopped off under the banner of the Japanese flag- the red circle over white- only 60 years ago. Yet it's doubtful anyone today flies it with that in mind.

The confederate flag had terrible things done under its banner, no doubt, but in more recent times, it's been adopted by people who don't necessarily hold it to that meaning.

I might remind people that THIS (crap though it was) was a part of pop-culture, not some underground thing that only sheet-wearing hayseeds watched in the dark of night.


The guys with the flag all over their car were portrayed as the 'good guys', and I recall kids in all parts of the nation, not just the south, buying merchandise and emulating the show, nothing to do with all the negative connotations the flag may have.

(Now, before kneejerking, someone please find me a similar example with something as equally innocuous, like, oh, I don't know, the Nazi flag.)

[BadKosh]

Ask the Dutch about the slave trade. They were responsible for almost 70 percent of it.

[BadKosh]

The dolts who think their own perceptions and assumptions are somehow universal need to STFU!

EXAMPLE:

"if you willingly fly the Confederate flag *****"knowing"***** that the flag represents a social and political movement predicated on subjugation and enslavement of other human beings."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Union Jack.

The Union jack is flown at sea, the Union flag is flown at land. A jack is a naval flag. To refer to the Union flag while on land as the Union jack is incorrect. They do look identical because the Union flag does not have its jack in the top left corner like many other maritime countries, so the flag is used as the jack. The U.S. jack is a blue square with 50 stars. If you go on a U.S. vessel, you'll see the U.S. jack near the bow of the ship.

You'll notice that the Australian jack looks identical to the Union jack because Australia's jack is the Union flag.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As for 'only at sea', I'm curious how you think slaves got from Africa to Europe, the US, the West Indies, etc? Via air cargo?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Confederate Flag isn't flown at sea, so the Union Jack would infinitely be more oppressive at sea compared to the Confederate Flag.

Because you missed it the first time:

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

(Now, before kneejerking, someone please find me a similar example with something as equally innocuous, like, oh, I don't know, the Nazi flag.)

Outside of the German historical context? I would say the Illinois Nazis in The Blues Brothers, which are lampooned in the film. Doesn't The Dukes of Hazzard play right into the negative Southern stereotypes that Jawbone, for example, said Southerners' embrace of the flag is in reaction to? These two examples seem to be along the same lines. It's worth noting that there is a conspicuous absence of black characters (even minor ones) throughout The Dukes of Hazzard's series run, giving the innocuous presence of the Confederate flag an air of unreality.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Isn't that the whole point that's being made? Again, selective outrage.

No, not selective outrage. Just an acknowledgment that the symbolic associations of this flag with slavery will trump any other associations the flag has. It will be centuries before the Confederate flag can be flown without its primary association being with slavery. So, the Confederate flag can have all the meanings it wants but its dominant symbolic meaning for the present and foreseeable future is an association with slavery.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The dolts who think their own perceptions and assumptions are somehow universal need to STFU!

EXAMPLE:

"if you willingly fly the Confederate flag *****"knowing"***** that the flag represents a social and political movement predicated on subjugation and enslavement of other human beings."

What is your point with this post?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I won't speak for Paco500 but I will speak for myself and say yes, I would think you are "a complete imbecile or an insensitive bigot" if you willingly fly the Confederate flag knowing that the flag represents a social and political movement predicated on subjugation and enslavement of other human beings.* Absolutely would I call you an imbecile or bigot. Either you are ignorant of the flag's meaning or aware of it and indifferent to that meaning.

Dear god....has anyone actually read anything I've posted throughout this thread?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Union jack is flown at sea, the Union flag is flown at land. A jack is a naval flag. To refer to the Union flag while on land as the Union jack is incorrect. They do look identical because the Union flag does not have its jack in the top left corner like many other maritime countries, so the flag is used as the jack.

Oooo. No no no, you don't want to be going down the route of discussing British naval flags. Don't go there - it's a labyrinth!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Dear god....has anyone actually read anything I've posted throughout this thread?

Umm, yeah.


Paco500's point was about a person flying the flag not knowing its historic significance or flying the flag knowing its historic significance and not caring about that significance.

Your point--in the form of a rhetorical question--was questioning whether or not you (Jawbone54) would be considered "a complete imbecile or an insensitive bigot" for flying the flag.

My point--a reply to your rhetorical question--was an affirmation stating that yes, according to Paco500's criteria for flying the flag, I would consider you an "imbecile" (for flying the flag not knowing its symbolic significance) or an "insensitive bigot" (for flying the flag while in fact knowing about the flags symbolic significance).


So, if you were to fly the flag, you could fly it knowing about its symbolic significance or not knowing about its symbolic significance. If you were to fly the flag knowing about its symbolic significance than I would consider you an "insensitive bigot". If you were to fly the flag not knowing about its symbolic significance I would call you an "imbecile" (for using a symbol to represent one's self while not knowing the meaning of said symbol). In this day and age, if someone uses the Confederate flag to represent themselves and they don't know about the flag's association with the Confederacy and slavery than I would call them an imbecile for not being informed about the symbols they use to identify themselves. It is not different than someone flying a flag with the biohazard symbol on it and not knowing there are negative associations with using such a symbol to represent one's self.


Fundamentally, my criticism in this debate is as much about the practice of ignorant use of symbols as anything else. If a person wishes to identify themselves symbolically and chooses not to inform themselves of said symbol's meanings I would call that person an imbecile. (Actually, I would use the term "idiot" but for the sake of consistency I have used the term imbecile throughout my posts.)

[Doofy]

Following on from that, DC, could it not be said that anyone who flies the current United States flag is either an imbecile or bigot?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oooo. No no no, you don't want to be going down the route of discussing British naval flags. Don't go there - it's a labyrinth!

Yarrrr!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Following on from that, DC, could it not be said that anyone who flies the current United States flag is either an imbecile or bigot?

What criteria are you using to qualify this question?

Paco500 had specific criteria about his statement. That criteria was knowledge of the associations of the Confederate flag with practices of slavery. That is one of the primary, if not the primary, symbolic association with the Confederate flag. So, what criteria do you wish to use to qualify your statement regarding the United States flag?

Basically, I need a logical premise that states "persons who fly the United States flag do so in ignorance of these specific negative implications associated with flying the United States flag". Your job is to provide those "specific negative implications".

I will evaluate them and decide if I think they are the primary symbolic association with the United States flag. If, after my analysis I agree with your sentiment that these specific negative implications associated with flying the United States flag are valid, then I will heartily agree with your assertion regarding those who currently fly the United States flag. But first, I need specific information on which to frame your statement (a logical premise) for which I will provide my analysis and answer.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Following on from that, DC, could it not be said that anyone who flies the current United States flag is either an imbecile or bigot?

I used to be a flag waver, but I soon realized that my flag was just a piece of imported cheap fabric made in the enemy country.

edit: I actually wore a confederate flag hat - in my teens. (I spent summers hanging out with hillbillies). It was a symbol of rebellious freedom to me - mainly because of Dukes of Hazzard exposure.

But as I learned what it meant to others, I realized that wearing such a flag is insensitive to some - even though the meaning was 'freedom' for me. For some, it still means pain, suffering, death, etc... I still have the hat, but I just can't really wear it on the subways 'cause I'll probably get cut or something. But I respect other people's feelings. Perhaps the Confederates should make a new flag.

[dcmacdaddy]

Does anyone here still not know that I care MUCH, MUCH more about the particulars and practices of debate and logic than I do about the subject upon which I argue? Just look at how many times in a debate I have weighed in on multiple sides of an issue when I thought I had a logically sound point to make. Making sound logical arguments is FAR, FAR more important to me than convincing someone "my" argument is correct.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I used to be a flag waver, but I soon realized that my flag was just a piece of imported cheap fabric made in the enemy country.

Kinda like those Support the Troops magnets. All proceeds go to... China.

[starman]

I think they're all Skynard fans and just move on.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

(Now, before kneejerking, someone please find me a similar example with something as equally innocuous, like, oh, I don't know, the Nazi flag.)

I don't recall flags, but the Germans in Hogans Heroes ranged from loveable buffoons to ineffective caricatures. Very similar to Dukes actually. Boss Hogg and General Burkhalter could have been cousins. Oh my god. Colonol Klink is Sheriff Rosco!

It all makes sense now.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm just saying...again...that I understand why some people take pride in their Southern heritage, and choose to display the Confederate flag. Is it wise to choose the Southern flag? No. But what else are they going to show? A flag that depicts a pitcher of iced sweet tea?

I thought they had decided to use the segmented snake flag.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Paco500's point was about a person flying the flag not knowing its historic significance or flying the flag knowing its historic significance and not caring about that significance.

Your point--in the form of a rhetorical question--was questioning whether or not you (Jawbone54) would be considered "a complete imbecile or an insensitive bigot" for flying the flag.

My point--a reply to your rhetorical question--was an affirmation stating that yes, according to Paco500's criteria for flying the flag, I would consider you an "imbecile" (for flying the flag not knowing its symbolic significance) or an "insensitive bigot" (for flying the flag while in fact knowing about the flags symbolic significance).

I had many, many other posts in this thread besides that one. But I'll say it for the 5,000th time...

I DO NOT FLY THE CONFEDERATE FLAG. I don't own a hat that has a Confederate flag on it. Not a t-shirt. Not a dinner plate. Not even a Dukes of Hazzard DVD.

I believe that it has the potential to be incendiary to many people, and I don't want to be bring criticism upon myself that isn't related to the values that I support in my life.

All of that said, I know people who display the flag in some fashion that are neither racist, uneducated on the flag's history, nor troublemakers. They simply sport it as a beacon of Southern pride. It's about Southern values (namely family-based, down-to-earth, neighborly values), and not about a side-issue of the Civil War that has been warped throughout history as the primary cause for the War.

I would assert that if someone thinks the Confederate Flag is primarily an icon for racism, then they are the one that is ignorant concerning history.

I'm still not displaying it because I'm careful about what I'm projecting, even if it's misunderstood. I just don't want to instantly categorize anyone who displays the flag a racist, idiot, or bigot.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Does anyone here still not know that I care MUCH, MUCH more about the particulars and practices of debate and logic than I do about the subject upon which I argue? Just look at how many times in a debate I have weighed in on multiple sides of an issue when I thought I had a logically sound point to make. Making sound logical arguments is FAR, FAR more important to me than convincing someone "my" argument is correct.

So you're more concerned with arguing that you are with what is right or wrong?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I thought they had decided to use the segmented snake flag.

Actually, I think most of them have settled on this one:

 

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What criteria are you using to qualify this question?

The original design of the union flag was created before any anti-slavery legislation made it to the law books. Thus the current US flag (merely an extension of the original 1777 one) could be said to have been created for a place where slavery was routine. Much like the CSA jack.

And the CSA never napalmed villages in the far east either. Which is more evil? A flag created by slavers for a slaver confederacy or a flag created by slavers for a slaver union which then went on to nape/nuke various places?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I had many, many other posts in this thread besides that one. But I'll say it for the 5,000th time...

I DO NOT FLY THE CONFEDERATE FLAG. I don't own a hat that has a Confederate flag on it. Not a t-shirt. Not a dinner plate. Not even a Dukes of Hazzard DVD.

I'll say it for the 4th time WHETHER OR NOT YOU FLY THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS IRRELEVANT TO MY POSTS.

Based on the premise Paco500 established and your rhetorical question of him, I answered your rhetorical question.

Whether or not you personally fly the flag is irrelevant both to Paco500's supposition, your rhetorical question, and my reply (to your rhetorical question based on his supposition). See below for a poor algebraic representation of my point.

Person A says: If a Person X engages in certain behaviors then Person A will criticize person X with derogatory terms.
Person B says: If I engage in the same behaviors as Person X then would you apply the same derogatory terms to me?
Person C says; Yes. IF you engage in the same behaviors as person X then I will apply Person A's critical, derogatory terms to you.

What the "certain behaviors" are that bother Person A are irrelevant to answering your rhetorical question. You asked Person A if you engaged in the "certain behaviors" that bother him if he would respond in a specific manner. While person A has not yet responded, I did respond stating that if person A's premises applied to you then I would answer your rhetorical question in a certain way. Again, for the purposes of logical debate IT IS IRRELEVANT what are those "certain behaviors" that will bother person A. For the purposes of logical debate, all that matters is that IF you engage in the behaviors that form the premise of Person A's complaint then Person A (and in this case, Person C) will apply Person A's criticisms to you.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The original design of the union flag was created before any anti-slavery legislation made it to the law books. Thus the current US flag (merely an extension of the original 1777 one) could be said to have been created for a place where slavery was routine. Much like the CSA jack.

Absolutely correct. Are you contending the slavery was the defining feature of the early United States and that all people who saw the early US flag would associate it first and foremost with the practice of slavery before anything else?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And the CSA never napalmed villages in the far east either. Which is more evil? A flag created by slavers for a slaver confederacy or a flag created by slavers for a slaver union which then went on to nape/nuke various places?

What is your logical premise with this set of questions? Are you trying to draw a rhetorical/logical/moral equivalency between the actions of the CSA and the actions of the United States? Or are you (haphazardly) trying to draw a parallel between common associations of the CSA flag and common associations of the United States flag?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Absolutely correct. Are you contending the slavery was the defining feature of the early United States and that all people who saw the early US flag would associate it first and foremost with the practice of slavery before anything else?

As much as the CSA jack can primarily be associated with the practice of slavery, yes.

The union flag was about saying "no thanks, we're our own bosses" to Britain as much as the CSA jack was about saying "no thanks, we're our own bosses" to the Union. Both union and confederacy were slavers at the time of their flag's inception. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is your logical premise with this set of questions?

That the vast majority of "state" flags are tarnished and that anyone who waves any of them is either an imbecile or a bigot. But then you knew that already.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Absolutely correct. Are you contending the slavery was the defining feature of the early United States and that all people who saw the early US flag would associate it first and foremost with the practice of slavery before anything else?

Aaaaaaaand....

Originally Posted by Doofy 

As much as the CSA jack can primarily be associated with the practice of slavery, yes.

The union flag was about saying "no thanks, we're our own bosses" to Britain as much as the CSA jack was about saying "no thanks, we're our own bosses" to the Union. Both union and confederacy were slavers at the time of their flag's inception. What's the difference?

...said it for me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I'll say it for the 4th time WHETHER OR NOT YOU FLY THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS IRRELEVANT TO MY POSTS.

Based on the premise Paco500 established and your rhetorical question of him, I answered your rhetorical question.

Whether or not you personally fly the flag is irrelevant both to Paco500's supposition, your rhetorical question, and my reply (to your rhetorical question based on his supposition). See below for a poor algebraic representation of my point.

I think you're kind of missing the point. You can't look at a reductio ad absurdum and then just go, "According to the logic being employed here, yes, that is a valid conclusion."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

As much as the CSA jack can primarily be associated with the practice of slavery, yes.

Ahh, that's where we differ. I *do* think the primary association of the Confederate flag is with slavery. Yes, they went on about state's rights and an oppressive centralised federal government--all valid claims, don't think I don't acknowledge that--but I think the only reason there was any attempt at secession was so the south could continue the practice of slavery and maintain some level of economic competitiveness with the northern states that had embraced industrialisation. If the south was equally industrialised as the north and the federal government decided that all communities should have features XYZ, do you think the southern states would have attempted secession to fight implementation of XYZ? Hardly. You know (and I know you know) that economics drives the decisions for what every government does. If it weren't for the economic disparities that would have resulted from outlawing slavery the south would not have been nearly as opposed to the federal government's plans.

So for me, slavery--as the underpinnings of the southern economic system--was the primary reason for the rise of the Confederacy. Without slavery, the south would have been an economic wasteland. So the southern states needed to come together to fight the federal government to maintain slavery in order to maintain their existing levels of economic prosperity.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That the vast majority of "state" flags are tarnished and that anyone who waves any of them is either an imbecile or a bigot. But then you knew that already.

Agree completely that the vast majority of state flags are tarnished.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think you're kind of missing the point. You can't look at a reductio ad absurdum and then just go, "According to the logic being employed here, yes, that is a valid conclusion."

Well, this is not a reductio ad absurdum, is it?

Or were you trying to point out that I was evaluating the merits of a logical debate ignoring all aspects of the content of the debate?

[starman]

Uh, oh. Someone played the Latin card. The thread is now doomed.