I'm not a liberal or a conservative, but I find it funny that people that write stuff like this can't see the difference or connect the dots.

If you are carrying a side arm you have to take another action to harm me - Not a problem, or shouldn't be.

If you are drinking a large soda you aren't going to harm me at all (but you may infringe on my health care costs) - Not a problem, or shouldn't be.

If you are smoking in a closed area that I'm it is pretty well settled science that you are adversely affecting my health passively (as well as my health care costs) - That is a problem.

As for the large soda and the bad old government - as far as I know only NYC tried to pull that trick and it was shoved right up city hall's ass by the courts, but I may be wrong.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Well, the question is largely moot because I looked up the status of the NYC large soda laws, and saw that they were struck down by the courts. Even the appeals had failed. It's finished.

It doesn't seem worth it to argue over a comment that is no longer correct (and was never correct when I wrote it).

However, the gist of the argument would have been:

1.) Flag burning is offensive and hateful. Our enemies and people that want us dead and destroyed burn our flag. Flag burning isn't pure, and it isn't a fundamental principle behind the whole idea of the USA as a project.
2.) Purchasing and selling a drink is a common economic right most all righteous Americans participate in.
3.) If gov't can know that buying/selling a large soda is a "bad choice" then why can't it know that burning the flag is a "bad choice"? It's all the same logic, right?
4.) Yet, I get the idea liberals would go to great lengths to protect the flag burner and no virtually no lengths to allow a guy to buy a large soda. What's up with that?

How about the guy burning the flag isn't hurting me or you and it's not costing us money. Period. End of story on burning the flag. I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it. But it's not hurting you any more than porn, or bad daytime soaps, or reality TV.

The fat diabetic who is buying the 64 ounce coke is more expensive to you and me in that he has higher health care costs that we are contributing through either higher insurance rates or taxes if he's on some sort of state or federal health plan.

That sounds somewhat similar to the standard conservative resentment to "takers" of welfare, etc.

Now, having said all that I think that the cost argument is thin and overbearing considering the cost. It's also probably not the reasoning used to come up with the law. But you can at least come up with a better reason than "I don't like it".

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Yet, I get the idea liberals would go to great lengths to protect the flag burner

It's not just liberals who support the constitution

http://heavy.com/...t-freedom-of-speech/

I support the right to do. Just find it tasteless and something absolute scum would do.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Everyone dislikes something about the freedoms provided by the 1st amendment. Trump has already mentioned a few.

Well, depending on the composition of the flag, combustion temperature, and any accelerants used, it could be a Clean Air violation.

[/semi-pink]

but to point (1), freedom of speech is fundamental to the USA, so much so that it's enshrined in your constitution pretty robustly, minus the protected areas mentioned before. whereas the right to not be offended isn't. so if you find flag burning offensive and want it banned on those grounds, you don't have a legal leg to stand on. (and i don't know what you mean about flag burning not being "pure." who decides that? is publishing hustler or the national enquirer pure?)

2) 'purchasing a drink' is probably a bad counter-example, since it's already highly regulated. if that drink is alcoholic, there's a constellation of rules around it. if that drink is for human consumption the FDA will want to see it's safe. if it's medicinal it's subject to a lot of oversight. etc.

3) as explained, no - the choice behind the soda ban was about public health. it wasn't arbitrarily decided by 'the government' to be "a bad choice."

to point (4), get serious. "liberals would" . . . really? which ones? when? come on man, argue this like an adult.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Look, I understand leaving out half my sentence when it neither adds nor detracts from your point. However, when including the last half of my sentence makes your point seem rather absurd then it's probably safe to say you're quoting me out of context.

You're missing the broader point, here. There are many freedoms that are fundamental to the USA. Somehow for flag burning we can't use the same facile arguments used to take away other freedoms. It's a case of special pleading.



It most certainly was decided by the government to be a bad choice. Arbitrarily? What does that mean? Anyone can think of reasons for anything -- and they do. Nothing is ever arbitrary. "Public health" is as bull shit a reason for a large soda ban as "public sanity" is for ending flag burning.



Huh? Why would you make a big deal of identifying liberals like this (as if they don't exist) when you are literally exhibit A? You are defending flag burning freedom of expression full on, and giving up on freedom of commerce in some loosely reasoned BS about the health consequences of convenience store large cokes. Maybe that's not your position, but you seem pretty passionate about how much you love the USA because you can show your hate for it, where as you seem pretty blasée about much more common and useful economic freedoms.

The fat diabetic didn't necessarily ask you to set up or force state and federal health plans on everyone. It seems like that's the state's or the Fed's problem now. I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it. Or, I guess your point is that we just voted some of the diabetic's basic freedoms away? Having to pay for those freedoms -- still -- is what makes this country great!

I have Blue Cross Blue Shield for Insurance. If that fat diabetic has the same insurance then my rates are affected by the cost of his care.

When his "freedom" starts costing me money, then it gets problematic.

Again, this one is pretty thin as I've said before, but somebody burning a flag doesn't cost me money. That fat, unhealthy guy who has a lot of medical costs does. He doesn't have a basic freedom to cost me money through his bad choices.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

All or at least many of our freedoms result in cost to the rest of society. We have the right to vote. Exercising that right requires that the govt spend money to administer elections. Let's say you don't vote, but some other guy does. That guys choice to vote just cost you money in the form of taxes.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Again, this one is pretty thin as I've said before,

It's worse than thin.

If you don't like him "costing you money," find another insurer. Or not. Your choice. Fatty isn't under any obligation to keep your insurance costs low, and he isn't hurting you. He is doing business with a private insurer who assigns him a risk and charges him as they see fit. You are doing the same thing. If you don't like the price, don't buy the insurance. Has nothing to do with Fatty, and doesn't give you any right to control him.

And you're ignoring SH's larger point, as he's mentioned. There are lots of things that are or were considered bound up in American ideals of freedom that people try to restrict, for lots of different reasons. It's not nearly as persuasive as it used to be to argue that restricting a particular freedom is un-American, or inconsistent with American ideals. So what? We've seen countless examples of restrictions on personal liberty. I'm less and less willing to accept that I have to tolerate speech I disagree with because of some lofty ideal that doesn't seem to apply across the board. Screw that. Just about ready to go full tribal. (And the Trump supporters already have.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

See, I'm glad you brought this up. Because it becomes an escalating argument to take away rights.

1. We give you "free" health care.
2. But because you live an unhealthy lifestyle, it is going to be less free for you.

So the argument goes from everybody should have basic health care to "look at what we added (free birth control)" oh and you have to participate in our program. But because you don't live the way we think you should or your lifestyle is costly to the system, we're going to impose some restrictions or additional costs on you.

This is proof liberals hate freedom. Freedom requires responsibility. If you are responsible, you fade away. The system shouldn't protect then punish you. Free will baby. Free will to drink all the sugary soda I want, get diabetes and all its consequence, and then pay the cost out of pocket/increased health care premiums of my choosing or die. That's how healthcare costs stay in check. That's how people remain free and the smart/strong survive.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning soda's. I'm just trying to point out that a reason (thin as it is) can be found for that position and contrasting that to the flag burning that just boils down to somebody not liking it.

BTW, I found an article on the CDC's web site that states that obesity costs $147 billion dollars a year in 2008 dollars.
https://www.cdc.gov/...ty/adult/causes.html

"The annual nationwide productive costs of obesity obesity-related absenteeism range between $3.38 billion ($79 per obese individual) and $6.38 billion ($132 per obese individual)"

I'm not sure how much flag burning costs each year, but I'll bet it's less than $147 billion dollars.

I do agree that this can be a very slippery slope to go down though. I might make the case that my cycling keeps me fit and therefore costs everybody less. But somebody else might argue that it costs them money and bring up the broken collar bone and surgery for a it a few years ago.

Regulating alcohol makes more sense in that somebody can get drunk and hurt an innocent.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

I'm just trying to point out that a reason (thin as it is) can be found for that position and contrasting that to the flag burning that just boils down to somebody not liking it.

Rationalizations can be found for any restriction of liberty. If you don't think so, I suggest you're not paying attention.



BTW, I found an article on the CDC's web site that states that obesity costs $147 billion dollars a year in 2008 dollars.

So what? What's the financial threshold that justifies restricting personal liberty? What other behaviors do you think cost billions of dollars according to some fabricated calculation, and should be restricted? Does every obese person contribute to the cost? Is every person who wants a large soda obese? Etc and so on.


I'm not sure how much flag burning costs each year, but I'll bet it's less than $147 billion dollars.

Again, so what? Is money the only reason we're allowed to restrict personal liberty now?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So what would you use as a reason to restrict my "liberty of not having to work and living on welfare"? Other than financial, what would be the objection to me living the good life of a welfare queen?

Not to mention the part where you completely ignored that I admitted that restricting behavior based on cost is a very slippery slope.

And I've yet to see anybody come up with a compelling reason to ban flag burning beyond "I don't like it".

I don't disagree that banning soda's is dumb, I'm just pointing out a justification that could be used.

How about YOU tell my why we should ban burning the flag.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

So what would you use as a reason to restrict my "liberty of not having to work and living on welfare"? Other than financial, what would be the objection to me living the good life of a welfare queen?

I simply say that you have no such liberty. I don't see your point here. You're free to not work if you choose not to. You have no personal liberty argument to be on the dole. (Note that you're free to not work even though your laziness undoubtedly carries some financial cost to society in terms of lost productivity. Much higher than Fatty's absenteeism, too.)


Not to mention the part where you completely ignored that I admitted that restricting behavior based on cost is a very slippery slope.

Yeah, and yet still, the only argument you seem to consider is cost, and you seem to find it a sufficient reason to restrict personal freedom.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

so to be clear, you think flag burning should be banned under a constitutional amendment because you don't like it.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

???

Was that intended as sarcasm?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

But what is defined as a Large?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/.../02/080204212858.htm


Lifetime Medical Costs Of Obese People Actually Lower Than Costs For Healthy And Fit, Mathematical Model ShowsDate:February 7, 2008Source:Public Library of ScienceSummary:What are the lifetime medical costs associated with obesity? Researchers found that the group of healthy, never-smoking individuals had the highest lifetime healthcare costs, because they lived the longest and developed diseases associated with aging; healthcare costs were lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the group of obese never-smokers.