VFW members duct tape flag burner to flag pole

[quade 4]

Quote

Bottom line, the guy agreed to do it, isn't complaining about it now that he isn't taped to the flag pole. So logic dictates that he agreed to it and is fine with that decision.

So, women that don't report rapes "deserve" it and "agreed" to it?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

LouDiamond already addressed this

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

LouDiamond already addressed this

I dont' think so.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

oops-a little quoting error-apologies if you were confused. You can use the "in reply to" link the next time you get lost

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Lets no confuse this situation with rape or any other incident, deal with this one and the known facts. Trying to compare the two and your reference to it and your car radio question is circular logic that really has no relevance to this topic. I shouldn't have to explain the differences between rape and this incident as I give you and everyone else the benefit of the doubt that you have enough intelligence to clearly differentiate between the two....until you prove otherwise.

Post 128 in this thread

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Lets no confuse this situation with rape or any other incident, deal with this one and the known facts. Trying to compare the two and your reference to it and your car radio question is circular logic that really has no relevance to this topic. I shouldn't have to explain the differences between rape and this incident as I give you and everyone else the benefit of the doubt that you have enough intelligence to clearly differentiate between the two....until you prove otherwise.

Post 128 in this thread

And that's not answering the question; that's side stepping it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

That's stating that it's not a valid comparison-you must realize it. You're one of the most intelligent men that I've ever known to be wrong most of the time

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

That's stating that it's not a valid comparison-you must realize it.

So, in one case we have a person that may have forced another person to do something against their will and the second person doesn't report it to the cops and in the other case . . . what is different?

Further, what this case does by ignoring the vigilante aspect is encourage that behavior in another person. That next person may feel justified to amp up the punishment as we've seen by the replies to this thread. Vigilantism is an evil and some of the folks here have raised it to some nobel effort. It's not nobel. It's stupid.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[happythoughts 0]

This reminds me of younger days.

Every so often, someone would spend the evening being
a jerk. Then, a couple of days later, they would run into
the other parties. There would be a discussion and the
realization that someone was at fault.

That person would admit a mistake and make a sincere apology.
The other party would accept the apology and forgive.

People can agree on what is right among themselves.
Forgiveness lets people move on.

Seems like that got lost somewhere.

[quade 4]

Quote

This reminds me of younger days.

Every so often, someone would spend the evening being
a jerk. Then, a couple of days later, they would run into
the other parties. There would be a discussion and the
realization that someone was at fault.

That person would admit a mistake and make a sincere apology.
The other party would accept the apology and forgive.

People can agree on what is right among themselves.
Forgiveness lets people move on.

Seems like that got lost somewhere.

Except, that's absolutely not what happened here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

This reminds me of younger days.

Every so often, someone would spend the evening being
a jerk. Then, a couple of days later, they would run into
the other parties. There would be a discussion and the
realization that someone was at fault.

That person would admit a mistake and make a sincere apology.
The other party would accept the apology and forgive.

People can agree on what is right among themselves.
Forgiveness lets people move on.

Seems like that got lost somewhere.

Except, that's absolutely not what happened here.

the rest of the story

Quote

VALLEY FALLS -- The young man was given three choices: get turned over to the police, go one-on-one in a fight with a seasoned war veteran, or be duct-taped to a flagpole for six hours with a sign around his neck identifying his alleged crime: flag burning.

So, he was given choices.
- police and arrest.
- a fight.
- be embarrassed for a while.

He did admit that he burned the flag.
He was drunk and wanted to anger them in the
best way he knew.

He apologized.

In every online news account, townspeople know who
the person is, but refuse to identify him.

I'd say that there has been a sincere act of public apology
and it's acceptance. The town is ok with the outcome.

If he'd have been taken to the police, he may have
gotten off with a fine. That way, people don't learn how
to live right. They just learn that they can do whatever
they want and buy their way out.

In California, that is Lindsey Lohan and her minutes in jail.
Most people don't want to live in a culture like that.

Seems like the kid is a better person for this event.
That's a better community than LA.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>burning flags - screaming idiots -> doensn't help anyone's cause

>destruction of property

what about the deployment of a military force, is that perfectly acceptable for the proliferation and dissemination of a symbolic ideology?

I can't tell if you are advocating burning flags and screaming protests and angry mobs over peaceful demonstrations and public forums....or.....you just got possessed by one of the one-subject oddballs from around here and are off on a tangent

If it's a tangent, then my expected response is:

1 - to pretend to not understand your point and note that "but the VFW guys didn't deploy a military force, they just drove over and talked to the guy" (mainly a Billvon tactic, effective and, bonus, annoying.

2 - Or, if I did understand your point, then I have to question your logic that just because the public considers an public action to be unreasonable and over the top, then that gives them carte blance to protest in an over the top, illegal and harmful ways. More of a TomA response - reasonsed, but doesn't take us very far and avoids the topic you want us all to nod and smile on.

you expected a better argument from me (even though we've been on the same page) - now I'm expecting a better one from you

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

How is that an apology? How is that not vigilantism?

The article you posted used this phrase;

Quote

. . . was hunted down and forced to endure a public humiliation with its roots dating to the Middle Ages.

That's not the guy coming forward voluntarily, that's him being hunted down and coerced into enduring what he considered to be the lesser of three evils.

To the folks that wondered why nobody had called the cops; it appears at least one person did . . . and they essentially ignored it. The cops in this town are nuts!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

How is that an apology? How is that not vigilantism?

The article you posted used this phrase;

Quote

. . . was hunted down and forced to endure a public humiliation with its roots dating to the Middle Ages.

That's not the guy coming forward voluntarily, that's him being hunted down and coerced into enduring what he considered to be the lesser of three evils.

To the folks that wondered why nobody had called the cops; it appears at least one person did . . . and they essentially ignored it. The cops in this town are nuts!

He did something wrong. He burned someone elses
property.
He was trying to be as offensive as possible and he succeeded.

He made the choice to be humiliated, ala the stocks, instead of being arrested.
Something needed to be done and they gave him a choice.
Do you prefer that he has no consequences for his actions?

It is a small town. "hunted down" was a little bit dramatic.
Everyone knows the guy. No secret.
It was more like, "we're going over to Bobs to talk to him".

It seems like we have a growth experience here.
They resolved a case of minor-stupid without an arrest
record to haunt him forever. Five years from now, he
will tell the story as, "Man was I a dumb kid...".

A bunch of people (including the guy) worked things out fairly among themselves
and you'd like to tell them how unfair they were to the poor baby.

Those people are ok with him now and he is part of
the community again.

[LouDiamond 1]

Clearly you both don't get it and anything I or anyone else says is going to get either one of you to see this in any other way than which you choose to view it, which is sad actually.

I've actually put myself in your position and looked at this from your points of view to try and better understand it. Using Logic and the law, I came to the conclusion that if I agreed with your point of view then we would both be wrong. No one has provided any proof that a law has been broken by the VFW commander, yet EVERYONE agrees that the flag burner did break a law.

It is apparent that those who oppose the way the event was handled simply disagree with the way in which the VFW Commander handled the situation, which as far as anyone knows was not violent. Vigilantism and its definition of the word has been maligned to suit those that disagree with the VFW commanders actions. If this had been a case of Vigilantism I am sure the local authorities would have stepped in by now seeing how this incident is not what can be considered a secret or unpublicized. Truly, if a law had been broken or there was something to suggest a law might have been broken by the VFW Commander, the authorities would be involved by now. So far, to my knowledge, that hasn't happened, so what does that tell us?


As long as there is a society there will always be those who stand up and protect themselves and others. Those that are used to standing up for themselves and others will always rise to the occasion, sometimes that includes the use of violence unfortunately. This is a given no matter what country you are from or what your beliefs are. People fundamentally know what is right and wrong, even as children, and can make the conscious decision on which course to take. Righting a wrong doesn't have to involve the judicial system nor does it have to involve violence. The manner in which the VFW Commander handled this situation is an example of just that.


At this juncture I think it is fair to agree that "we"( meaning those who side with the VFW Commander) agree to disagree with "you" (meaning those who disagree with the VFW Commander).

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Using Logic and the law, I came to the conclusion that if I agreed with your point of view then we would both be wrong.

If you came to that conclusion, you clearly did not use logic.

Quote

No one has provided any proof that a law has been broken by the VFW commander, yet EVERYONE agrees that the flag burner did break a law.

You repeatedly overlook the fact that I didn't accuse the VFW post commander of breaking the law.

Quote

Vigilantism and its definition of the word has been maligned to suit those that disagree with the VFW commanders actions.

Bullshit. I used the definition of vigilantism straight from Black's Law Dictionary. Clearly, the VFW post commander exercised vigilantism.

Quote

The manner in which the VFW Commander handled this situation is an example of just that vigilantism.

Corrected for accuracy.

Quote

At this juncture I think it is fair to agree that "we"( meaning those who side with the VFW Commander) agree to disagree with "you" (meaning those who disagree with the VFW Commander).

That statement clarifies a lot. Some people have been supporting the VFW post commander because they feel like the discussion was about whether he XOR the vandal was wrong. OTOH, some of us recognized that neither one was right; both were wrong, one for violating the law and the other for taking it into his own hands.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[warpedskydiver 0]

You just don't get it, so lets just accept that and move along.

BTW I would not go into a VFW and try to convince them of your viewpoint.

You would not receive a warm welcome.

[LouDiamond 1]

Chris, I know this must be difficult for you but you just don't get it. It's clearly apparent and now you're even contradicting yourself. From your last post:

First you state:

Quote

You repeatedly overlook the fact that I didn't accuse the VFW post commander of breaking the law.

Then you state:

Quote

both were wrong, one for violating the law and the other for taking it into his own hands.

Or are you going to say I misunderstood you when you referenced Black's Law dictionary on the word vigilantism? [eyeroll]
You think the VFW Commander is guilty of Vigilantism aka breaking a law. Yet others to include the authorities don't. What does that tell you?

You (and others) don't get it, probably never will. Got it, I know where you stand so no use in beating the dead horse anymore.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[quade 4]

Quote

You just don't get it, so lets just accept that and move along.
BTW I would not go into a VFW and try to convince them of your viewpoint.
You would not receive a warm welcome.

Which is completely irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Clearly you both don't get it and anything I or anyone else says is going to get either one of you to see this in any other way than which you choose to view it, which is sad actually.

And how is that any more "sad" than the exact same thing can be said about "you" (the collective you on the other side)?

Let me submit to you that you are not using logic at all but are responding emotionally based on the first incident of flag burning and not being objective about the second action of the VFW members.

Admit that is the case and I think we can agree to disagree about the severity of the punishment with regards to the crime being correct in the minds of the VFW, but that's still not an excuse for vigilante justice.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

And how is that any more "sad" than the exact same thing can be said about "you" (the collective you on the other side)?

Its sad because one would hope that given the facts, as are known at this point, that the VFW Commander didn't break a law, and the collective "you" would be able to realize and accept that. Not being able to accept and admit when you are wrong and continue to argue about it is sad. The reverse cannot be said when the collective "us" in the right.

Quote

Let me submit to you that you are not using logic at all but are responding emotionally based on the first incident of flag burning and not being objective about the second action of the VFW members.

I defer back to my previous post where I stated that had a law been broken that the authorities would have acted accordingly against the VFW Commander. Since that has not happened, logic dictates that the VFW Commander did not break the law.

My Spock-fu is stronger than yours

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[quade 4]

Quote

I defer back to my previous post where I stated that had a law been broken that the authorities would have acted accordingly against the VFW Commander. Since that has not happened, logic dictates that the VFW Commander.

Actually, no. It doesn't make logical sense whatsoever.

If a person commits a crime and the police don't press charges it can be for any one of a number of reasons. It doesn't "prove" no law was broken.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You think the VFW Commander is guilty of Vigilantism aka breaking a law.

Actually, if you read my previous posts, Scott, you'll see that I explicitly am not considering vigilantism as a law violation without knowing the local laws.

Quote

You (and others) don't get it, probably never will. Got it, I know where you stand so no use in beating the dead horse anymore.

I think you're confused about who doesn't get it. Both parties, the vandal and the post commander, fucked up. It really is that simple. It's unfortunate that you can't grasp that.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I defer back to my previous post where I stated that had a law been broken that the authorities would have acted accordingly against the VFW Commander. Since that has not happened, logic dictates that the VFW Commander did not break the law.

That's not a logical conclusion.

BTW, did you learn what circular logic means, yet?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lefty 0]

If the post commander had tracked the guy down and decided to do nothing (not even notify the police to the arson), would it still be vigilantism?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin