Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism

I'll start by commenting on your: (1) Argument from Authority Comments: There are two kinds of testimonial evidence: EXPERT and NON-EXPERT. The expert has specialized knowledge of a subject such as, for example, marine biology. The non-expert has no specialized knowledge. I'm a non-expert relative to both marine biology and scouting. If I made statements about marine biology and scouting, a person hearing them would properly be skeptical of such statements. He or she would properly say that my opinions have very little evidential value. 1 On the other hand, the CONSIDERED OPINIONS expressed in their subject of expertise by EXPERTS have evidential value, e.g. an opinion about sharks expressed by a marine biologist who had studied sharks. By a CONSIDERED OPINION, I mean an opinion formed after the expert has used an appropriate SCIENTIFIC methodology in studying the issue in question. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I suspect that there are EXPERTS in Scouting, perhaps at the national headquarters. Further, I suspect that such experts have expressed opinions on the practice of flag retirement by burning and the practice's relation to the patriotism of scouts. I CHALLENGE you to present such expert testimonial evidence. (2) You state: " If I'm biased simply because I'm debating I could always invite the navy veteran who oversaw the ceremony to tell you about its importance, and its effects." And I and the potential voters would want to know if he was an EXPERT or a NON-EXPERT and what his experience and credentials were. We would then make a judgment on his credibility and on the evidential value of his opinion. Basically, my criticisms have been criticisms of the evidence that you have presented and not presented in support of your burden of proof. (3) Regarding "flag burning," a distinction should be made 'flag retirement by burning' ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) and 'flag desecration' ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). This debate relates to outlawing flag retirement by burning. The U.S. Flag Code, supra, provides: "When a flag is so tattered that it can no longer serve as a symbol of the United States, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning. The American Legion, Boy Scouts of America[5], Girl Scouts of the USA[6] and other organizations regularly conduct dignified flag-burning ceremonies, often on Flag Day, June 14." I argue that flag retirement by burning should be outlawed. I am absolutely opposed to burning the flag for any reason. I am absolutely opposed to all public flag burning ceremonies. The less that the flag is burned in public, the less the act of flag burning will be in the peoples' consciousness. The less that the act of flag burning exists in the public consciousness, the less likely it is that political dissenters will burn the flag to express their dissent. The Flag Code, supra, states that flags "should be destroyed in a dignified manner." I argue that rather than destruction by burning, flags can and should be destroyed by an alternative method that is dignified. That method is this: because flags are small in size, the flag's owner can privately BURY the flag anywhere (in his backyard, in a forest, on a farm, etc.) The flag in due course will disintegrate naturally causing no pollution, whereas burning the flag causes pollution of the air. If my proposed method of flag retirement is adopted, eventually no one will burn the flag to express their political protest. In fact, it may be that the disappearance of flag burning from contemporary may even result in the disappearance of flag desecration by other means to express political protest. Finally, rather than public flag retirement ceremonies, there are other methods of promoting patriotism through the use of the flag. Here is an example: http://www.herald-mail.com... I argue that this PUBLIC ACT by a boy scout troop promotes patriotism. Thus, I favor a law outlawing 'flag retirement by burning' and a law recommending 'flag retirement by private burying.' HAPPY THANKSGIVING. __________________________________ 1 " On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."http://en.wikipedia.org...