Flag burning

ON his VOters : "The opponen makes weak arguments and I refute them" is NOT a voter! He has to specify which arguments were so weak. First: Extend the fact that i say protests aren't necessary whereas the examples he gives like cars are necessary and his second example of parachutes do not harm others. Furthermore, comparing the curling iron situation and flag burning, flag burning is worse because even if u buy that you shouldnt be at least help reponsible at all for causing a fire with a curling iron, you actively choose and want to protest by burning a flag. The topic says "flag burning" and I am against it. However, this doesnt necessarily mean i have to OUTLAW it i simply have to LIMIT it, nowhere in the reslution does it say flag burning ought to be outlawed. Go to the curling example, i was simply illustrating how certain actions wil cause serious harm and needs to be deterred somehow. Im saying to put a law against LEAvING A CURLING IRON ON AND BLAMING THE PERSON for doing so, not OUTLAWING THE IRON ITSELF. "I believe more in protesting then killing all who disagree with you but again you're getting off topic. I was making the point that there is nothing wrong with flag burning when it is a part of political protest." TYhis is where he is contradicitng himelf. HE reserves flag burning for enormous acts of governmental atrocity, such as genocides, not normal daily governmental activities, he conceded this. My argument is that burning flags isnt necessary for small governmental acts, and for large ones, burning a flag is too mild. He also says I am "killing everyone that doesnt agree," personally, i would not want people in the government having moral views about events such as genocides being good so in this situation I think people are entitled to their own opinions but governmental officials who think like this must be removed any way possible. "I don't think that you are a tyrant. I just think that the government shouldn't decide what people put into their own bodies. And it is certainly someone's right to get drunk and smoke and spend all their money on drinking. I'm not saying it's right though." Lets use the smoking and drinking example. Sure, you can drink all the soda and eat all the opocorn you want, the govt doesnt care. The only time the government DOES care is when they themselves are harmed. Drunkedness causes riving accidents, reckless behavior, and societal ailments such as death to the user, so the government has to limit this "right." I think this is reasonable considering drinking only benefits yourself whereas it almost surely harms everone around you either physically or emotionally(family members). Im saying you can still drink and have a good time, but just limit the amount, similar to what Im advocating for the flag burning. You say flag burning should categorically be permissible, in order to prove this false i only need to prove there OUGHT to be a limit. "Most people don't decide to burn flags either. And you cited no source saying that protests were more common than ccampfires." This is common sense. In this modern age, not everyone wants to go out and build a campfire in the middle of the woods, but even the youngest hipseter these days can walk on the streets and protest. I am arguing that if you allow people to express their views via burning flags with no limit, then thats going to be a problem, because every political group could burn a flag in public areas, and it could become a social norm. "Most American's like America. You again did not provide a source. And show why this means it is wrong to burn an American flag." Ok, please don;t get enveloped into a "source" battle. I will provide the source if you demand it in the comments section with a national poll, but honestly if the majority of americans didnt like america, they woulnt be here. "So you showed that majorities are not stigmatized. You still did not refute that religion has caused much more violence and damage than patriots who don't like flag burners." OK, first offf I'm not linking flag burning to war on a religious scale, i think those two are two very different things i was simply comparing the two. Second, it doesnt matter the amount of damage, the people are still going to be stigmatized and discriminated against, furthermore i make the argument that whereas christianity and judaism have some consensus within thei groups and at least have some people to basck them up, political views differ so much it is impossible to form a strong political alliance(just look at the USA, basically theres the Democrats and Republicans and then the "rest" category. Voters: First: I advocate limiting flag burning, not abolishing it, and this is reasonable, as almost every right is limited right now, even the right to speech is limited and so is the right to bear arms, if yo dont have a license, trefore im not linking into his idea of outlawing the action Second: Stigmatization: If people are oing to be stigmatized then this is gonna be bad for them as well as society. Third: Fire hazards: Whereas fires can be started alot different ways, protests are public and frequent and thus cause fires and causes smoking hazards alot more frequently, I think you'd agree limiting this to the public should be a government's obligation to the people.