Patriotism

Byrnzie wrote:

A flag is just a piece of cloth. They're all mostly made in Korea. Why are people so precious about them?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that. But unless you're in the habit of pissing on linens in general, the act of pissing is making a statement about the flag. I wouldn't piss on a flag because it makes about as much sense as pissing on a beach towel.

A nation state is not just a piece of land cordoned off by borders.

Patriotism defines a nation. If you are not patriotic, that is, you do not love your nation and what it stands for, you do not belong on the land that was obtained by that nation.

That's okay. You don't need to live here if you don't love this country. That's perfectly fine with me.

Byrnzie wrote:

Depends who the beach towel belongs to. If I saw P Diddy on a beach in Miami and I had the chance to violate his towel and make him stink of piss for an hour or so, I'd jump at the chance.
We only live once afterall!

Now that DOES make sense. If you ever have the opportunity to piss on P. Diddy's towel, or his flag, by all means go for it

As to the more general point of simply pissing on a flag, I still say that unless you would piss on another meaningless piece of cloth, it doesn't make sense to piss on a flag. If you do, you're acknowledging that it does in fact have some symbolic meaning that you disprespect.

Byrnzie wrote:

What do people think of this concept?
What does it mean?

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about this country. At least not more or less so than any other place in the world. I don't even know what the word country means. And a flag is as relevant to me as a turd on the side of the street.

Discuss...

I'm very skeptical when it comes to patriotism, but if there are things that you're proud of with regard to your country then that's nothing to be ashamed of. There are a lot of things I like about England and other things I dislike. I think it's a great place to grow and to learn. We're quite down to earth and forward thinking while still retaining our historial and cultural values. We embrace multi-culturalism (compared with most other countries).

And most importantly, despite being a small country, we set the standards in rock n roll.

The weather is definitely a downside.

angelica wrote:

When you are busy seeing what a "better" way for him would be, you are very possibly overlooking what his actual natural Byrnzie-directed way is. And that's about your own view and agenda.

I can understand that he will hook all kinds of emotional responses by his irreverence. It's possible that's his intent--to hook people into these debates, even maybe for a "higher" purpose.

And I'm saying that, because of the point you made earlier about value judgements being meaningless to those who don't share the same values, Byrnzie's intent will fail to all those who don't share his vlaues and is therefore pointless. Rabble Rousing for it's own sake is a pretty pointless activity. To actually make someone consider the worth of their own beliefs, you have to give those beliefs respect. Accusing someon'es beliefs of being ignorant will only foster an angry response and will not lead to change. If you question someone's beliefs respectfully, you might actually get them to think about why they hold those beliefs. Only then will any "higher purpose" be achieved. Saying "i'll piss on the flag" won't do it.

I understood full well that his intent was likely to provoke a reaction. I'm just questioning the purpose of such an action when the method used will likely garner an angry response that will preclude intelligent debate. Extreme examples may seem like a good idea at the time, but they will only bring out extreme reactions.

Frankly, I think that describing his agenda as having a "higher purpose" while accusing me of imposing my view and agenda on his actions contradicts your whole point. I understand your point to be that imposing your own world view on the words and actions of another means you won't get what their trying to say. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm not imposing my agenda on Byrnzie. I get that he sees symbols such as the flag as harmful and divisive and, to an extent, I agree with him. I see that in saying he'd piss on the flag, he's trying to demonstrate that it's just a piece of cloth. My point is, his method is hurting his message. Not because my world view is too limited to see a "higher purpose," but because he has chosen make his point in a way that he knows (or should know if he has any world experience)will provoke anger, not thought.

Byrnzie wrote:

What do people think of this concept?
What does it mean?

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about this country. At least not more or less so than any other place in the world. I don't even know what the word country means. And a flag is as relevant to me as a turd on the side of the street.

Discuss...

Posts like this again remind me how life in Western society has become so plush & easy relative to the rest of civilization (across all time and places) that people just don't know what to complain about anymore.

Well if you really feel that way about England and feel it doesn't offer you as its citizen anything more or less than anyplace else, then take on off to the Sudan or something. Since it's all the same, I'm sure you'll be just as happy down there, right? I bet you could just as easily jump on the net like you do there in England.

And as far as the Union Jack being meaningless: I bet your grandparents who were bombed night & day and lived through that so that you could say have the time & means to post on a rock band's message board that the Union Jack is meaningless would feel different. I'm assuming, but I feel it's probably a safe assumption.

Folks, there's nothing wrong with being proud and happy about whre you are from. I'm proud of the street I grew up on!

dg1979us wrote:

I dont think its really a semantics nightmare. I think its more you are substituting the idea of the flag being irrelevant, with the idea of being anti- flag. They arent the same. Irrelevant would mean you couldnt care less about the flag. Being anti-flag means you have something against the flag, which means the flag is relevant.

I see another scenario wherein it's possible the flag is irrelevent to him, while at the very same time, he knows it's also an emotional symbol for others.

If that is the case, I don't think he owns that others get riled by his words.

I'm guessing he's smart enough to understand what his controversial approach will bring back to him, and again, that does not mean he is responsible to value systems he does not buy into.

angelica wrote:

I see another scenario wherein it's possible the flag is irrelevent to him, while at the very same time, he knows it's also an emotional symbol for others.

If that is the case, I don't think he owns that others get riled by his words.

I'm guessing he's smart enough to understand what his controversial approach will bring back to him, and again, that does not mean he is responsible to value systems he does not buy into.

I dont care about his controversial words or that others are getting riled by him, that has nothing to do with my point. You cant keep claiming the flag is irrelevant to you, and then keep tossing out the idea of pissing on it. If it is irrelevant then you dont care about pissing on it because it is more or less meaningless to you. If he feels the need to symbollically piss on the flag then it obviously has some type of meaning to him. It sounds to me like he has something against the flag, which is fine. But if that is the case, then the flag certainly isnt irrelevant to him. And desecrating the flag to upset or rile up others still recognizes the flag has some type of relevence to him.