It's things like this that give me hope for the human race. This man braved the danger of a severe lightning storm to rescue a downed American flag. Figured I'd post this for the rest of you to consider.
Putting yourself at risk to save a symbol doesn't sound terribly "heroic" to me. The symbol only has value in what it stands for; the object itself is just an object.
@Goldomark - you make WAY too many assumptions in your post. Also - some false information (taxes ARE collected, and programs ARE in place, for example).
@Pinnacle - you are partially correct. The correct statement is that a symbol only has the value that an individual places upon it (regardless of what it may stand for - symbols are interpreted by the individual - ie. the solar cross or swastika - is it highly religious, or a symbol of an authoritarian regime?). The video shows the man to be a patriot. Based on learning from his time as a security guard, he shows a level of commitment normally found in the military (which, apparently he was NOT).
edited to add: @Goldomark - also based on the estimated (as it's hard to pin down an exact figure) 150,000 - 300,000 homeless in Canada of a population of 34,164,000, which equates to roughly .44 - .88%, compared to the 700,000-2,000,000 homeless in the US of a population of 309,674,000, which equates roughly to .22 - .64%, it seems you should look closer to home before criticizing the programs in the US. (implicitly, if not explicitly)
The value of this action is variable depending on whom you ask. Some individuals would not equate the preservation of a symbol as heroic, while others will see it as nationalism at its best (in this case since it involved a national symbol).
I am one of those that wouldn't equate this as a heroic deed. A moment of national pride would fit this situation better in accordance to my parameters.
But on one hand, it is inspiring that someone who you would presume lost hope (being homeless) still has such dedication to his country. On the other hand, he was risking his life to "save" an object.
But I guess thinking of it, its his life to risk and if he felt it was important, then more power to him. So I think its a good story.
He did not climb that pole during a thunderstorm, it was already down.
The only he did was to put aside the fallen flagpole and he folded the flag military-style.
It was a civic and respectable action on his part, but calling that heroic is a bit over the top.
Also... even homeless people are more important than flags.
Are we sure he's not just mentally ill instead of heroic? That would explain the homelessness.
Didn't watch the video, but I thought flags that got wet and muddy were to be burnt, not saved.
Also... even homeless people are more important than flags.
Are we sure he's not just mentally ill instead of heroic? That would explain the homelessness.
He did not exactly sound like Einstein during his interview....
People identify symbols with ideals or the like. That's pretty much their entire purpose... to symbolize things. Different people put different stock into the importance of the symbol, but the symbol typically is more valuable than the item itself.
For example, most people probably would feel worse if they lost their wedding ring compared to some other equivalent ring.
It's a symbol of pride. When your flag and anthem are born of rebellion, they tend to take a special meaning. The country was created by a fight with a superior adversary that was won. Any symbol of that is gonna be pretty important to the people that love their country. Flags are also placed over the caskets of military dead - something I've personally seen and personally felt the meaning of. The flag means something to patriots. If you're not an American patriot, it won't make any sense to you personally. But that doesn't mean it's not something easily understood - so long as you take the minute amount of time necessary to put aside your own feelings on the matter in order to understand that people, being different than yourself, have different experiences that lead them to different places. In other words, pull your head out of your behind and take a look around. The world is bigger than you. ;)
On the other hand, it's also a tool to keep people focused on the wrong stuff. Attack the flag and you attack the people, you see. Kind of handy when you need to direct aggression. It is a symbol of nationalism. Pride in the place where one is born. In America, it extends much, much further. People have pride in the city, state and region they hail from. They feel united with their fellow Clevelanders, Ohioans and, when the call is there, their fellow Americans. At any rate, it's pretty much as dangerous as any other 'ism'. It can prevent clear thinking, creates a 'side' to join (and one with automatic membership) and can turn a feeling of belonging into one of superiority. In short, it fosters division. That's a problem, IMO.
Either way, if it brings attention to the homelessness problems in that area then I suppose the article being made is a good thing, regardless of the merits of the deed itself.
IN AMERICA!I'd have to get the full story to decide if the action was heroic, but regardless I think it was probably also stupid. The two aren't in conflict, ya know.
Either way, if it brings attention to the homelessness problems in that area then I suppose the article being made is a good thing, regardless of the merits of the deed itself.
For this one person, at least, based on prior news of a similar nature, I expect that he will not remain homeless/jobless for long. I've often found that when such "human interest" stories are aired and receive decent coverage, the person in question is often compensated by firms looking to bolster their PR. In fact, just yesterday, I heard a recap on NPR about a woman who was suffering due to the housing crisis. Faced with foreclosure due to escalating mortgage prices (where the home value had decreased sharply), a bank president (from another bank) called her personally, after hearing the story, to state that his bank would assume the mortgage, and rewrite the terms to be affordable and within market.
(And I'm sorry goldomark, maybe Canada is worthless to you, but America while in ruins is worth the world to some of us. And then some. At least it's core values anyway.)
Sure our country is loaded with alot of unemployed people right now, but alot, if not most of those still have their homes. Most people in america by far still have their homes.
Our biggest issue is our screwy medical system, and our crumbling infrastructure. Two things that honestly we could Easily remedy.
Flags, particularly for Americans are symbols. Every bit as important as a religious icon. We don't have a Pope, or the Church. The one commonality between all of us is that we're Americans. And we're taught to have pride in that.
Also, just remember, we're Canada's Military. And Mexico's. So when someone comes knocking on your door we're the ones that are going to come and kick their **** off of your doorstep. Probably while bombing the enemy into submission. :-p
I do believe we could spend more intelligently on our Defense budget (and honestly the money we'd save on what we buy would probably pay for our Infrastructure and Medical), but I do give us some slack, because we're defending two continents, especially since no one else on either of the Americas is frankly spending enough to be a credible Deterrent.
I am glad to see that there are people selfless enough to see the value in something that represents something greater than themselves.
(And I'm sorry goldomark, maybe Canada is worthless to you, but America while in ruins is worth the world to some of us. And then some. At least it's core values anyway.)
Sure our country is loaded with alot of unemployed people right now, but alot, if not most of those still have their homes. Most people in america by far still have their homes.
Our biggest issue is our screwy medical system, and our crumbling infrastructure. Two things that honestly we could Easily remedy.
Flags, particularly for Americans are symbols. Every bit as important as a religious icon. We don't have a Pope, or the Church. The one commonality between all of us is that we're Americans. And we're taught to have pride in that.
Also, just remember, we're Canada's Military. And Mexico's. So when someone comes knocking on your door we're the ones that are going to come and kick their **** off of your doorstep. Probably while bombing the enemy into submission. :-p
I do believe we could spend more intelligently on our Defense budget (and honestly the money we'd save on what we buy would probably pay for our Infrastructure and Medical), but I do give us some slack, because we're defending two continents, especially since no one else on either of the Americas is frankly spending enough to be a credible Deterrent.
You say "Easily" but I think you're forgetting that we have a system run by politicians.
If the world weren't run by politicians jokeying for position everything would probably run smoother.
That's why I'm voting for Klirshon in 2012. Or maybe Robin Hoodlum...
I have often gone out during a thunderstorm to spin around on the front lawn and watch the lightning.
I will routinely go out in a thunderstorm to make a "run for the border".
It's a blasted thunderstorm, not a hail of damned gunfire. It is no big deal, especially not for people who are not exactly unaccustomed to being out in inclement weather (such as Floridans, and homeless people).
It was a much better reason to go out in the rain than many, but heroic it ain't. Hell, I've gone out in a hurricane to stop my trash can from blowing away...
I am sure all those mexican killed at the border had alot hope linked to the US flag.
Then mabey they should have respected her borders a bit more, eh?
I am sure conquering Canada will be hard.
Actually the war of 1812 proved that conquering Canada would be hard. America had its arse handed to itself for that war.
Thank you, EvilVegan, for your support. Though currently I am not allowed to run for office as machines are not recognised as citizenry. I intend to either change that or skirt the boundaries of legitimacy.
I recieved the flag that was over my Dad's coffin and I'm telling you that I would kill to protect it. No joke, if the flag is stolen or damaged by someone else, they're a dead man walking.
Yeah, but alot of emotions are tied to that flag.
Would seeing any flag being damage provoke the same reaction in you?
Maybe not to me but as already mentioned in this thread the flag is a symbol and my father's flag means a lot to me. I have an emotional connection with a symbol and alot of other people have the same connection. This homeless man apparently lived not too far from this flag, essentially putting it in his front yard and he chose to rescue it because it holds meaning to him apparently as much meaning as my father's flag does to me.
He even took the time to fold it reverantly. I find that to mean that that flag had a special meaning to him. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Now that is just sick, cruel and a total lack of empathy. Even for me.
Not really. It is a soverin territory, the owner of said territory has the right to say who may or maynot enter. They know this. They know they are not legally allowed to enter. They decided to defy the law and attempt to enter said area through force of subterfuge. Should I make such a choice, and find myself caught, I would expect to be shot. It is not my place to decide if I should be allowed to enter my neighbors home whenever I wish, and, if I try to make that choice in clear defiance of my neighbors wishes, I would not hold it aginst him should he shoot me during the attempt.
You are a very disturbed individual.
Says the serial cheater who 'cannot resist having sex when he has a boner and there are women around'. Makes one wonder what would happen should none of said women be willing. Still, you seem to be in agreement with majority opinion regarding my emotional state, so I'll not argue the point.
Remember that statement after the next american civil war breaks out, the United States implode, and you are trying to find refuge in either Mexico, Canada or the Independant Republic of Québec.
Will do. If they refuse me legal asylum, and I attempt to enter anyways, I will not be angry at them for shooting me, nor expect them to show sympathy towards me or my relatives should I somehow die/sustain injuries in my attempt to ignore their wishes and violate the laws/borders of a soverign nation.
I am sure conquering Canada will be hard.
Actually the war of 1812 proved that conquering Canada would be hard. America had its arse handed to itself for that war.
Thank you, EvilVegan, for your support. Though currently I am not allowed to run for office as machines are not recognised as citizenry. I intend to either change that or skirt the boundaries of legitimacy.
Or other foreign powers that decide to get antsy. Oceans really aren't -that- prohibitive to invasion anymore you know.
or acts of terrorism.
And the war of 1812, was before we were frankly a country. if america of the Civil War period fought Canada of the same time period we'd have beaten them. The industrial revolution hit perfectly in the us. Because prior to that time we weren't really a country worth mentioning. We didn't have umpteen trillion things to replace, or upgrade, because it was non existent prior to that. Which is why america became such a powerhouse during that time period.
Also, that man's feelings for that flag are healthy enough. Think about it, really our homeless are not NEARLY as bad off as homeless in many other countries (over dozens really). Even being homeless in America you are still better off than many citizens in other nations that have homes.
I might be a pervert but I am not a rapist. Whores exist for that purpose. Beside, we are talking about two different things. Cheating on a girl or girls isn't the same thing then praising he murder of people whos crime was only to dream of a better future.
... he wasn't "praising" anything.
But alot of these mexicans have been murdered by common citizens who just want to shot people.
And? That's a bit irrelevant, isn't it? Murdering illegal aliens is illegal, and they should be punished appropriately. If I am mistaken and it is not illegal, then whatever.
I might be a pervert but I am not a rapist. Whores exist for that purpose. Beside, we are talking about two different things. Cheating on a girl or girls isn't the same thing then praising he murder of people whos crime was only to dream of a better future.
Cheating on a girl is not the same as praising murder. Praising murder is not a crime, harms no one, and does not violate any kind of trust or agreement unless you have some sort of Buddhist pact. If you have some sort of agreement with your faith and or diety to never advocate violence or something, then they would be most similiar.
Their crime was not "dreaming of a better future", their crime was willfully breaking the law of a soverign nation.
I never praised their murder.
I have strong will power [...]
But women... They are so deliscious. I can resist them if I do not have a boner in my pants. If I do, I just can't resist.
Can. Not. Resist. That is what you claimed your problem was, why you hadto cheat, why it isnt your fault.
To me this sounded like an endorsement, maybe praise was to harsh, of their murder because they didn't repect the US border. It felt very cynical.
A) You pointed to nothing specific. You said 'people who died crossing the border', a much wider target than 'people who where killed by vigilantes while attempting to cross the border'. The number who are killed by the actual smugglers is, I imagine, much larger than those killed by vigilantes, which says nothing of the numbers that die due to injury, exposure, or as a result of assaulting border patrol officials.
B) What kind of response where you expecting when you implied that we should feel guilty over the fate of people who love our country/its symbols so much that they break the law to enter illegally so that they may break further laws by remaining here and working here? They deserve no more sympathy than people who get shot robbing a bank, and the insinuation that we should feel guilty about people who become injured or die during the commission of a crime is insulting.
actually, TA - he gave the reason for the disconnect. He doesn't respect national borders (he feels they are "arbitrary"). Someone such as yourself, myself and others can easily see the correlation between someone's personal property, and a nation's sovereign territory - others, such as GoM, will not. Moreover, there are still others that do no respect personal property, either. Of course, the latter are generally considered criminals.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Could you reprhase or quote what specifically you are refering to?
...Personnaly, I see countries as arbitrairy borders for culture. ...
@TA: not a problem...Personnaly, I see countries as arbitrairy borders for culture. ...
My apologize, it seems I was unclear in expressing the cause of my confusion. You started your post with "Actually, TA-" and I am confused about what your response is intended as a response too.
What kind of response where you expecting when you implied that we should feel guilty over the fate of people who love our country/its symbols so much that they break the law to enter illegally so that they may break further laws by remaining here and working here? They deserve no more sympathy than people who get shot robbing a bank, and the insinuation that we should feel guilty about people who become injured or die during the commission of a crime is insulting.
Hrm... not sure I'll agree to the "they deserve no more sympathy" part. There's degrees to crimes, after all. That's why we have differing levels of punishment for different crimes. Particularly for non-violent crimes, it's much easier to argue that a given criminal may deserve sympathy.
Note that I'm not saying we should necessarily feel guilty, that's a different thing all together. But sympathy? Sympathy is easy to be deserving of.
I’ve removed content from this thread because illegal activities and explicit content is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
You can be ridiculously funny. This is bad faith on your part, you are taking my words to literally.
... it's bad faith to take someone at their word when they're trying to justify their bad behavior? If anything that seems to be an overabundance of faith.
A) Your right, I should have been clearer. I just assumed that anyone dying, no matter what was the circumstance, was a bad thing. My bad. Me and my ideals.
Yes. Your bad.
Between war, the death penalty, do-not-resuscitate orders, people that put it in their living will for their family members to pull the plug, self-defense, and so-on, it's very easy to see that many people do not share your views. So while you're free to have them, it is very naive to think they're anything close to universal.
B)Like PNB pointed out. I feel that we are the human race and we live on earth. Borders are arbitrary and if people want to cross them, people should be free to do so.
... I'm sorry, but what kinda crack are you smoking? If someone tries to wander into my house, without my invitation, they're getting their ass thrown out. And if they try again, I'm using a baseball bat and then calling the cops. Those borders might be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean they don't have meaning.
Also, again, when you say that people do not deserve any sympathy when they are shot robbing a bank, or crossing the border as you imply, I feel that you endorse and somewhat praise that person being shot.
Then that's you over-reaching yourself. I can think someone deserves no sympathy without being glad it happened. For example, I have a friend who consistently goes from bad relationship to bad relationship. Frankly after the third guy in as many months, I'm not really going to have much sympathy for her troubles. Do I think she deserves them, or praise the guys screwing with her? No. But that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for her either.
Same goes for anything else. Life is more complicated then that.
Hrm... not sure I'll agree to the "they deserve no more sympathy" part. There's degrees to crimes, after all. That's why we have differing levels of punishment for different crimes. Particularly for non-violent crimes, it's much easier to argue that a given criminal may deserve sympathy.
I guess your right. If some retarded kid broke into a school to steal back his Ipod from the teachers desk and ended up dieing in a fire, I guess I would have a little bit more sympathy for them. Not much, mind, but I can see where your coming from.
What would you prefeer the police to do? Stand around next to a crack dealer while he works, not to stop him from breaking the law, but to make sure his coustomers do not attack him or give him fake currency?
This is not the same as endoursing electorcution for sticking things in electrical outlets. This is an acknowledgement that they are free acting individuals, they knew the risks, they knew it was wrong, and they decided to do it anyways. Any consequences that occur are their problem, **** happens. If you want sympathy from others, well, you best not have brought whatever **** just happened down upon yourself.
Are you really serious? Or are you sarcastic? Trying to provoke some reactions.
Help me understand who you really are.
You said you were paranoid. Are you agoraphobic?
A) If you read that post, you know a big part of my paranoia is with people understanding me better than I want them too, so your request is strange.
B) How is my being affraid or not being affraid of falling into the sky relevant? Perhapes you mean the more popular common definetion of being affraid of leaving a house and entering a large public setting? If so, then no. I am not affraid of crowds, though they often make me angry.
C) I am serious. I would feel slightly more sympathetic to a student who died breaking into a school to steal his Ipod than I would for a bank robber who dies from being shot by a security guard. In both cases, my response would probably be to roll my eyes and think 'Idiot', but in the former case, I would feel a little twinge of sadness for the extreem pointlessness of it. But I would get over it quite quickly.
This is an acknowledgement that they are free acting individuals, they knew the risks, they knew it was wrong, and they decided to do it anyways. Any consequences that occur are their problem, **** happens. If you want sympathy from others, well, you best not have brought whatever **** just happened down upon yourself.
Oh? And what about the case of unjust or discriminatory laws? Shall I have no sympathy for the men twisting by their neck in Iran because their leader wants to be able to say they have no homosexuals there?
He took just can't resist to literally. It is pretty much a expression. When someone says: "I just can't resist chocolat", does that meen that they eat every chocolat bar they find in a convinience store?
If they can't then I'm going to berate them for their abuse of the language. Just like I despise when people use "literally" instead of "figuratively", "to" instead of "too", "wear" instead of "where", and so-on.
And, as you should remember, I did chide you when you first said that. Several days late, as I was in a different state at the time, but I find the "I can't help it, I'm a man" excuse to be very... distasteful and dishonest. But that's a rant for a different day.
I would tell you but that would be against the CoC. Now tell me. Do you actually believe I smoke crack or that I just a made a sarcastic remake? But I was talking about borders between countries. Not houses. As I said in my posts earlier.
I do believe that if you don't understand the importance of borders, then you must either be uneducated or have your judgement impaired by some substance (for the purposes of this conversation I'll consider "willful ignorance" a judgement-impairing substance). And yes, national borders are different then borders of personal property. But the concept is the same. If I have a right to keep someone out of my house, why does a country not have a right to keep people out it's house? Same concept, different scale.
But TA was saying that criminals deserved no sympathy when they were shot, no matter what the crime was. I felt it was an endorsement or even praising murder for something benine like border hopping. Maybe this time I was the one who took his statement to literally, but he did say it a few times.
The word you want is "benign", but I'm a little confused why you would characterize it as such. Everything on a given side of the border is supported and maintained by that country. The roads, the water system, the telephone lines, the medical system, police protection and so-on. Hopping the border, stealing those resources, effectively stealing tax-payer money... benign? No. Not at all. While there's other considerations that can make such a choice more understandable, you shouldn't lie and say it's benign.
That said, your mistake wasn't taking him too literally, it was projecting motives onto his words that weren't there.
My apologize, it seems I was unclear in expressing the cause of my confusion. You started your post with "Actually, TA-" and I am confused about what your response is intended as a response too.
Ah - it was intended to explain why, it seems to me, GoM would not consider illegal entry a crime, no less one that should have death as a potential (for whatever reason) consequence.
This is an acknowledgement that they are free acting individuals, they knew the risks, they knew it was wrong, and they decided to do it anyways. Any consequences that occur are their problem, **** happens. If you want sympathy from others, well, you best not have brought whatever **** just happened down upon yourself.
Oh? And what about the case of unjust or discriminatory laws? Shall I have no sympathy for the men twisting by their neck in Iran because their leader wants to be able to say they have no homosexuals there?
In my opinon? No, you probably should not. If they knew the penalty for behaving in a homosexual manner, had other options such as leaving, and decided to do what they did, then no, they do not deserve sympathy for the result of their actions. Outrage at the laws, understanding of the dificult choices they had to take, and sympathy for the situation they where in are all reasonable and understandable reactions to me. Sympathy for their execution? No. And again, this does not even fall within the bounds of my previous statment. The hanging was punishment, not an inherent result of the actions they took. A more apt comparison would be if they, for instance, decided to have gay sex ontop of a building and fell off.
My apologize, it seems I was unclear in expressing the cause of my confusion. You started your post with "Actually, TA-" and I am confused about what your response is intended as a response too.
Ah - it was intended to explain why, it seems to me, GoM would not consider illegal entry a crime, no less one that should have death as a potential (for whatever reason) consequence.
Ah. Thank you for elaborating. I am affraid that I will have to continue ignoring the existance of that philosophy though, as to me it seems so bat****-insane that its presence makes rational discussion of any degree completly impossible.
In my opinon? No, you probably should not.
Then you've a far colder heart then I, my toasted amphibian friend.
A) I think ou are being anal retentive here. Expressions exist and I bet you use them all the time. You can't blame someone for using them. I think not recongnizing them is just bad faith on your part.
Can, did, will.
B)No, no subtances. And I studied political science (and anthropology), I know what borders are and their implications. I do understand why countries ahve borders and why they are protected. What I was saying is that these borders are arbitray. The yare lines on a map drawn by bureaucrates. They are not, for the kost part, actual natural manifestations. Not line exist on the ground. Now that we agree that they are arbitray, I can explain that to me everyone should be free to go where he wants. We are all humans and our home is planet earth. It belongs to us all. So US territory is open to all and vice versa.
Now I am not suggesting that someone break into your house. But, what if a vacant piece of land exist next to your house, why shouldn't a homeless person build a house on it? Homeless? Why not mexican. Why cn't he claim it. He is a human with the same need then you. Earth (the planet) is his like it is yours. Can't we just share?
No, we cannot. That land belongs to someone. If it belongs to him, it is his to do as he wishes. If it belongs to someone else, he has no right to take it just because he wants it.
C) I think what I said in B explains what I ment by benign. The money spent on border watching could be used o built roads, medical falicities, etc. It is a little know fact that the american econnomy (like alot of the westerns economies) would cumble with out illegal immigrants.
We need cheap labbor working below minimum wagged, without it our stander of life would diminish because alot of things we buy would cost alot more. Capitalism is sad.
So, crime is good, 'cause it benifits the economy? Your concept of right and wrong is vastly diffrent from mine, but I suppose we have already established that. Just be aware that, should I come home and find you have taken up residence in my home during my absence, and suggest that we should just share it, because it is as much yours as mine despite the fact that you contributed nothing to it, I'll probably shoot you. Then I will go to jail. And I'm okay with that.
A) I think ou are being anal retentive here.
Yes. And?
You can't blame someone for using them. I think not recongnizing them is just bad faith on your part.
Yes I can (as evidenced by the fact that I have), and it's not bad faith, it's being overly critical and particular. I do not like certain turns of phrases and I have particular disdain for trying to use your sex as an excuse for undesirable behavior.
Now I am not suggesting that someone break into your house.
But that's exactly what you're suggesting! You're saying that a country's borders are meaningless, that they should be ignored! You're saying that if someone wants to walk onto someone else's property that they should be free to do so! If someone is free to ignore the borders of a country, why do they suddenly care because the borders are of personal property not national property?
C) I think what I said in B explains what I ment by benign. The money spent on border watching could be used o built roads, medical falicities, etc. It is a little know fact that the american econnomy (like alot of the westerns economies) would cumble with out illegal immigrants.
We need cheap labbor working below minimum wagged, without it our stander of life would diminish because alot of things we buy would cost alot more. Capitalism is sad.
This word, "benign", I don't think it means what you think it means. It doesn't mean "net effect: positive", it doesn't mean "there's bigger fish to fry", and it certainly doesn't mean "necessary for the economy to run". What it means is something that's of a gentle disposition, something that's wholesome, or something that has no significant effect. Illegal immigration is necessary for a noteworthy part of our economy, is not desirable (as it means people are living outside of the system that they take part of), and is certainly not of no significant effect.
To put it simply... whatever you think of illegal immigration, "benign" is not an appropriate descriptor.