Was the Confederate Flag ban unnecessary?

[DJ_Bonebraker 183]

12 hours ago, PathfinderCS said:

Personally, and this is coming from a resident of south-west West Virginia where the flag is held, flown, and used by a LOT of good people, I felt it was necessary. While I also agree that it is a representation of slavery, it also represents a group that tried to fight against and overthrow the voted-in government in a bloody conflict. I don't know, but it never made sense to me. I mean, I could, in theory. understand the argument of "it represents my southern heritage" and such, but what does that really mean? Are we using that as an excuse to gloss over just what happened during the Civil War and why it was fought?

My question is how much history are we forgetting by it being in the public light? For everyone saying that we're forgetting history by removing it from governmental buildings & such; how much history were we learning by it remaining there? I won't advocate for every Confederate flag to be removed from private houses and burned, but I do think it'd be better if these flags are displayed in museums where people can actually learn what it stands for AND why people connect to it. To me; it seems we attach more emotion than reason to symbols without understanding how and why they are important.

Disclaimer: I won't claim to know everything about this subject; just my two cents.

I pretty much agree with what Pathfinder said here, but want to add a few more things to it:

Speaking as someone who had ancestors who fought on both sides of the Civil War, I believe that the only time Confederate flags should be displayed on public property is on an actual Civil War battlefield, as a way to mark where various units were positioned at key points in the battle, much like how it's done at the Gettysburg Battlefield (which is like 20 mi from my house & the ancestor who fought on the Union side was heavily involved in that particular battle). 
Furthermore, the flag that most people think of as the Confederate Flag was never actually used by the confederacy!  It is similar to the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (Robert E Lee's army), which was the same color & design, but square, as well as the Confederate Naval Ensign (which is the same design & shape, but somewhat different colors), so people waving the current flag aren't even waving a flag that was actually used by the Confederacy!

And one thing that really grinds my gears is some of the local yahoos/edgelords who thing their being cool or edgy by hanging the flag outside their houses... I'm basically like, "You guys DO know that they were the enemy during the Civil War right?  I mean those bastards burned our town to the ground and you're waving their flag around?!  Not cool!" 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Ganondox said:

Every time I see someone give an example of Anita “contradicting” herself, I’ve found said claim to be disproved just by watching the actual video. I’m not fan of her, but from what I’ve seen and know her arguments are completely sound. And while I know at least of your claims to her hypocrisy was taken out of context, it doesn’t MATTER if she’s a hypocrite or not, as regardless of whether or not she’s a terrible person has no bearing on whether her points are factually correct. Finally, she doesn’t NEED to play the games herself, she can still make her conclusions from doing second research. Considering the scope of her videos, where she covers hundreds of games as a part of larger narrative rather than individual games in depth, it’s not even a reasonable expection for her to play all the games herself. I’m not even a fan of her, her critics just don’t actually attack her on valid grounds. It’s clear her content just offended you so you have a bone to pick with her. 

Its completely irrevelant and you know very well there is a big difference between a deliberate symbol that’s represents an explicitly racist organization and well, LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Obviously you can’t ban everything, despite what you’re implying Anita and ilk are NOT the arbitrators, so blatant straw man is blatant. You haven’t actually made any cases for or against the confederate flag, all you’ve done is whine about Anita after dismissing OP’s requests, missing the fact that academic criticism from a feminist perspective and legal policy with regard to race relations are two entirely different things. 

Can you explain exactly what this law is that is forcing these things to be pulled from shelves? Also, civil war movies and video aren’t the best way to learn about the civil war, and no one is saying we stop teaching about it. I’m more concerned with something like Birth of the Nation being banned because despite being horrifically racist it’s extremely racist it’s important to the history of film from a technical standpoint. 

I could dispute all of that about Anita, but we'd be getting way too off topic. Another time, another day. The point is I was merely using an example to dispute one specific claim which was "why should we tolerate something that has been DEEMED racist" and my argument to that was: who gets to decide what is racist? Who gets to decide what is offensive? The people who generally try to claim to be the authority seem to always have an agenda, be hypocrites, or both.

I'll keep my rebuttal regarding Anita only on the points relevant: it's VERY relevant that people like her are hypocrites and admit that they have no experience with the subject they are talking about because they always frame themselves as some kind of expert but then admit that all of their knowledge and experience was acquired rather recently. Anita knows no more about video games than someone who spends a few months googling them. She did not go to school for them, she has not experienced most of them first hand but just googled them and watched them played. This is a huge thing when someone is pushing for laws to be made and the industry to bend to their ideals.

Also I don't see how anything was taken out of context in what I have said. She DID complain about Doom and Fallout and DID have photos of her with them in her collection. She DID admit to not playing video games as a kid despite saying she grew up playing video games. But again, getting off topic. The point is the people who claim to be the authority on these subjects end up proving they are morons with their own agendas. So again I ask the question: Who gets to decide what's offensive?

If you wish to debate Anita though, you're free to PM me, I have watched nearly everything she's put out and I assure you I can poke holes in every one of her arguments like no one's business.

I think we can agree there. There is no one in a position to say beyond any reasonable doubt what is offensive and what is not.

Also on the other side of things: did banning the flag have any effect on racism? Did it suddenly drop racism? Did the KKK disband? As far as I've seen it's had no tangible effect whatsoever. So it's... Pointless in my book.

[Ganondox 899]

40 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

I could dispute all of that about Anita, but we'd be getting way too off topic. Another time, another day. The point is I was merely using an example to dispute one specific claim which was "why should we tolerate something that has been DEEMED racist" and my argument to that was: who gets to decide what is racist? Who gets to decide what is offensive? The people who generally try to claim to be the authority seem to always have an agenda, be hypocrites, or both.

I'll keep my rebuttal regarding Anita only on the points relevant: it's VERY relevant that people like her are hypocrites and admit that they have no experience with the subject they are talking about because they always frame themselves as some kind of expert but then admit that all of their knowledge and experience was acquired rather recently. Anita knows no more about video games than someone who spends a few months googling them. She did not go to school for them, she has not experienced most of them first hand but just googled them and watched them played. This is a huge thing when someone is pushing for laws to be made and the industry to bend to their ideals.

Also I don't see how anything was taken out of context in what I have said. She DID complain about Doom and Fallout and DID have photos of her with them in her collection. She DID admit to not playing video games as a kid despite saying she grew up playing video games. But again, getting off topic. The point is the people who claim to be the authority on these subjects end up proving they are morons with their own agendas. So again I ask the question: Who gets to decide what's offensive?

If you wish to debate Anita though, you're free to PM me, I have watched nearly everything she's put out and I assure you I can poke holes in every one of her arguments like no one's business.

I think we can agree there. There is no one in a position to say beyond any reasonable doubt what is offensive and what is not.

Also on the other side of things: did banning the flag have any effect on racism? Did it suddenly drop racism? Did the KKK disband? As far as I've seen it's had no tangible effect whatsoever. So it's... Pointless in my book.

And I'm saying you and everyone else are well aware that an individual Anita calling literally everything sexist is not the same as a specific thing being deemed racist by the general public, you're just making a blatant strawman. Anita is not an authority on this subject, and you don't actually NEED an arbitrator as things can be determined racist methodically. The only person talking about these things is you, all you're doing is derailing the conservation to fit your personal anti-Anita agenda.

Anyway, since, you persist on this tangent with Anita, I'll go and shut it down. She IS an expert: She's an expert an feminist theory, which is what she's actually discussing, video games are just a vehicle for the discussion. She is doing academic research the same way everyone else does it, only people who know NOTHING about academic criticism think she's doing anything wrong. And what do you mean she didn't go to school? She has a freaking Masters, which I'm sure is more than you do. But for the sake of her arguments, it doesn't MATTER if she's an expert or not, all that matters is the actual content: that it's logically consistent and her premises are sound. Period.

"I think we can agree there. There is no one in a position to say beyond any reasonable doubt what is offensive and what is not."

Actually, it's very easy: people decide for themselves what is offensive. Legally, the term is obscene, not offensive, and it's very clearly defined who gets to decide what is considered obscene or not. Being obscene is actually unnecessary though because the Confederate Flag is the flag of traitors, and we don't fly the flags of traitors to the state in our government agencies. All the actual legal bans I know of ONLY relate to that. It's not even relevant to the Anita stuff, because she talks about things being problematic, which is a completely different discussion from something being offensive. 

"Also on the other side of things: did banning the flag have any effect on racism? Did it suddenly drop racism? Did the KKK disband? As far as I've seen it's had no tangible effect whatsoever. So it's... Pointless in my book." No one claimed banning the flag would do this, can you do anything aside from strawmen and ad hominem? You clearly know NOTHING about logical debate, and until you get the basic level of understanding so that you understand how to actually make logical arguments rather than just using fallacies you have no business even attempting it. 

PS: Since you insist on having me explain how it's taken out of context, her claim about not being a fan of video games was in the context of vidding, which makes a huge difference for what she means by fandom as subculture plays an important role in the practice. Her not being a part of the video game fandom doesn't mean she didn't like playing video games as a kid, which were way less graphically violent than the popular ones nowadays. I don't know the details for the Fallout/Doom crap and I really don't care, but it sounds like you're fundamentally misunderstanding everything about her, as one of her key points is that it's okay to like problematic content, because well, EVERYTHING is problematic. And no, I DON'T wish to debate Anita, please stop PMing me. I'll only debate the topic in public because other people are watching and are vulnerable to the misconceptions you spread.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ganondox said:

And I'm saying you and everyone else are well aware that an individual Anita calling literally everything sexist is not the same as a specific thing being deemed racist by the general public, you're just making a blatant strawman. Anita is not an authority on this subject, and you don't actually NEED an arbitrator as things can be determined racist methodically. The only person talking about these things is you, all you're doing is derailing the conservation to fit your personal anti-Anita agenda.

Literally was using it as an example until you decided to try and pick the example apart and talk about Anita. I was literally using it as an example to point out that people claiming stuff is offensive does not inherently make it so.

2 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Anyway, since, you persist on this tangent with Anita, I'll go and shut it down.

Except I offered to take the debate on her out of this topic, so...

2 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

She IS an expert: She's an expert an feminist theory, which is what she's actually discussing, video games are just a vehicle for the discussion.

I lol'd.

Yeah sorry but that's been disproven.

3 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

And what do you mean she didn't go to school? She has a freaking Masters, which I'm sure is more than you do.

Assuming much?

I said she didn't go to school for video games.

3 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

But for the sake of her arguments, it doesn't MATTER if she's an expert or not,

And that is the ENTIRE reason why I used her as an example: because she's not an expert yet claims to be and insists we make the laws and standards around her ideals despite not being an expert. This is why I am saying we simply should not ban something just because someone says it's offensive because what is the criteria for being an expert? What criteria makes someone "correct" for saying it's offensive? For the confederate flag, who gets to decide? That's the entire point I am making: who is the authority on saying it should be banned based upon offense? Who is qualified to say that? What are their credentials?

I was using an example to show that a lot of the people who claim to be experts are not.

6 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Actually, it's very easy: people decide for themselves what is offensive.

And opinions are like assholes... Everyone has one. Laws that does not make. Facts that does not make.

6 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Legally, the term is obscene, not offensive, and it's very clearly defined who gets to decide what is considered obscene or not.

Please define it for us then in this context.

What does the law say about who gets to decide the confederate flag is obscene?

7 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Being obscene is actually unnecessary though because the Confederate Flag is the flag of traitors, and we don't fly the flags of traitors to the state in our government agencies.

Except the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Do you think England handed this country to us when we said "yeah we don't want to be a part of England anymore." So it's okay to fly the flag of traitors so long as you win, right? England has no issue with us flying our flag despite being traitors and they actually are allies with us now. The south are also back in the country now, it should be treated the same.

8 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

All the actual legal bans I know of ONLY relate to that. It's not even relevant to the Anita stuff, because she talks about things being problematic, which is a completely different discussion from something being offensive. 

Except she too pushes for bans. You think she is calling things problematic and criticizing things just to do it?

9 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Also on the other side of things: did banning the flag have any effect on racism? Did it suddenly drop racism? Did the KKK disband? As far as I've seen it's had no tangible effect whatsoever. So it's... Pointless in my book." No one claimed banning the flag would do this, can you do anything aside from strawmen and ad hominem?

So there was no point then. It's not an ad hominem. I asked what benefit banning the flag did, you are openly admitting it has none therefore making the ban a waste of time and energy. It did nothing, so why did we bother?

10 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

You clearly know NOTHING about logical debate, and until you get the basic level of understanding so that you understand how to actually make logical arguments rather than just using fallacies you have no business even attempting it.

Pro tip - screaming somehow knows nothing about debate is an insult and thus an ad hominem and thus showing you yourself are currently engaging in logical fallacies. Therefore proving you are not debating very well either. Attack the argument not the person. I am not insulting your intelligence or ability to debate, so clearly... I'm winning right now because I'm sticking to the argument.

On top of that literally just screaming everything is a fallacy is an old tactic we sometimes refer to as "barraging". Literally just claim the opponent's arguments are all fallacies so they waste time trying to prove they are not and ignore the fact that you're not really making any claims that refute them. The most common is calling virtually every argument against you a strawman even if you can not prove such.

Calling an argument a fallacy does not mean you are excused from PROVING it's one.

Also the moment you begin insulting the other person's ability to debate you more or less are admitting defeat because you're resorting to try and fuel emotional responses out of them to try and get them to not argue logically anymore. It's the tactic of a man backed into a corner and I advise you to stop.

Right now you're debating extremely disrespectfully.

14 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

I'll only debate the topic in public because other people are watching and are vulnerable to the misconceptions you spread.

AKA: I will only debate you in a setting where it won't be 1 on 1 because I need back up. Got it.

 

[ElectricityBill 121]

Yes it was

Confederates are not more racist than "Black Lives Matter"

[Gestum 2,493]

14 hours ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

Apple's pulled Civil War games from their digital marketplace after the Charleston church shooting two years ago.

Actually, they didn't mean to pull games and educational stuff, and as far as I know Apple has restored 99% of those and you should be able to find them.

 

On 6/14/2018 at 2:32 PM, Key Sharkz said:

She also got up and criticized Fallout 4 and Doom for the amount of violence but was shown in a photoshoot with Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 3 and Doom 3 all in her game collection.

Heaven forbid she plays games before she complains about them. She should just complain about games without playing them. Oh, You complain when she does that too. 

It's almost like you are searching for reasons for hateing her. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Gestum

[Black Sabbath 2,486]

3 hours ago, YourElectricityBill said:

Yes it was

Confederates are not more racist than "Black Lives Matter"

Expect that "black lives matter" don't wave around a flag representing the right to own others based on the colour of their skin. 

[Ganondox 899]

9 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

Literally was using it as an example until you decided to try and pick the example apart and talk about Anita. I was literally using it as an example to point out that people claiming stuff is offensive does not inherently make it so.

Except I offered to take the debate on her out of this topic, so...

I lol'd.

Yeah sorry but that's been disproven.

Assuming much?

I said she didn't go to school for video games.

And that is the ENTIRE reason why I used her as an example: because she's not an expert yet claims to be and insists we make the laws and standards around her ideals despite not being an expert. This is why I am saying we simply should not ban something just because someone says it's offensive because what is the criteria for being an expert? What criteria makes someone "correct" for saying it's offensive? For the confederate flag, who gets to decide? That's the entire point I am making: who is the authority on saying it should be banned based upon offense? Who is qualified to say that? What are their credentials?

I was using an example to show that a lot of the people who claim to be experts are not.

And opinions are like assholes... Everyone has one. Laws that does not make. Facts that does not make.

Please define it for us then in this context.

What does the law say about who gets to decide the confederate flag is obscene?

Except the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Do you think England handed this country to us when we said "yeah we don't want to be a part of England anymore." So it's okay to fly the flag of traitors so long as you win, right? England has no issue with us flying our flag despite being traitors and they actually are allies with us now. The south are also back in the country now, it should be treated the same.

Except she too pushes for bans. You think she is calling things problematic and criticizing things just to do it?

So there was no point then. It's not an ad hominem. I asked what benefit banning the flag did, you are openly admitting it has none therefore making the ban a waste of time and energy. It did nothing, so why did we bother?

Pro tip - screaming somehow knows nothing about debate is an insult and thus an ad hominem and thus showing you yourself are currently engaging in logical fallacies. Therefore proving you are not debating very well either. Attack the argument not the person. I am not insulting your intelligence or ability to debate, so clearly... I'm winning right now because I'm sticking to the argument.

On top of that literally just screaming everything is a fallacy is an old tactic we sometimes refer to as "barraging". Literally just claim the opponent's arguments are all fallacies so they waste time trying to prove they are not and ignore the fact that you're not really making any claims that refute them. The most common is calling virtually every argument against you a strawman even if you can not prove such.

Calling an argument a fallacy does not mean you are excused from PROVING it's one.

Also the moment you begin insulting the other person's ability to debate you more or less are admitting defeat because you're resorting to try and fuel emotional responses out of them to try and get them to not argue logically anymore. It's the tactic of a man backed into a corner and I advise you to stop.

Right now you're debating extremely disrespectfully.

AKA: I will only debate you in a setting where it won't be 1 on 1 because I need back up. Got it.

 

You have the most asinine debating strategy. You keep repeating the exact same points after they have been challenged (you're pretty much just ranting about people being offended when I already stated it's not actually important to the decision), and make blunt claims (like Anita being an expert in her field somehow being disproven) with evidence, yet you are demanding I prove basic facts to you. I'm not your baby sitter, you can be a big boy and look up what obscenity means and how the laws work yourself, google is a thing. Anyway, a few specific points on new ground.

"Except the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Do you think England handed this country to us when we said "yeah we don't want to be a part of England anymore."" I don't know how you didn't notice this, but the English government doesn't rule America, the American government does. Likewise, the Confederate government doesn't rule America, not even the South, the Union government does. That's what makes them the traitors, they were enemies of the present State. 

"Except she too pushes for bans. You think she is calling things problematic and criticizing things just to do it?" I keep seeing people claim this, but I've seen NO evidence for it. From what I've seen her approach is entirely to point out problems in existing games and praise games that manage to avoid those problem, and create suggestions for future game developers. The UN wasn't a request to ban anything, IIRC it was requesting that existing anti-harassment laws in various countries actually be enforced when it comes to online content. The tricky thing with the internet is it's content is viewable around the world, so it passes through multiple legal jurisdictions. 

"So there was no point then. It's not an ad hominem. I asked what benefit banning the flag did, you are openly admitting it has none therefore making the ban a waste of time and energy. It did nothing, so why did we bother?" I never said it was an ad hominem, that fact you couldn't tell it was a strawman shows how bad you are logical debate. You're maintaining this strawman, no one claimed that the ban would reduce racism. Just because it doesn't reduce racism doesn't mean it's doing NOTHING, I admitted to no such thing. Your tactics are outright slimey. Anyway, my main reason for maintaining the ban is on a matter of principle as we don't fly enemy flags in our state offices, others argued it's offensive to black people. Fact is, we do label content as obscene, if we can ban nudity in public because it's offensive to some people then we can also ban hate symbols, and I'm not going to debate the legal process for deciding what constitutes obscenity, I just know that it exists and you have to deal with it. 

"Pro tip - screaming somehow knows nothing about debate is an insult and thus an ad hominem and thus showing you yourself are currently engaging in logical fallacies." No, it doesn't. First off, an ad hominem and an insult are two different things. It's only an ad-hominem if you're saying someone's argument is invalid as result eg. saying Anita's arguments are all wrong because she isn't an expect, rather than addressing her actual arguments. I said you couldn't argue AFTER I already attacked your arguments directly, so that would stop doing this crap. I wasn't even insulting you, I was just saying you're wasting my time (as well as yours) with your non-arguments. It's sad that you decide to take offense rather than improving yourself. 

"I am not insulting your intelligence or ability to debate, so clearly... I'm winning right now because I'm sticking to the argument." This is also a blatant logical fallacy. I don't know what it's called, but it appears to be a combination of ad hominem and false dichotomy (you're essentially claiming I'm wrong because I "insulted" you, and that you're right because I'm wrong). It's not about winning, it's about being right, and you have yet to prove anything correct. Also, you sticking to the argument, lulz, you're the one who derailed this with Anita and countless other red herrings. 

"Calling an argument a fallacy does not mean you are excused from PROVING it's one." First off, it's not an argument that's a fallacy, it's that fallacies are used in arguments in place of logic. Second, I DID prove it, you just seem to not even realize what the fallacies you use even are. 

"On top of that literally just screaming everything is a fallacy is an old tactic we sometimes refer to as "barraging". Literally just claim the opponent's arguments are all fallacies so they waste time trying to prove they are not and ignore the fact that you're not really making any claims that refute them." Except in this case they ARE logical fallacies. I don't need to refute a non-argument, but in case you didn't notice I bothered to do it anyway. You meanwhile didn't back up your arguments after they were countered, instead you're just pathetically justifying them by trying to shift burden of proof to me with this rant about barraging. It's not up to me to prove your claims are false when you don't even have relevant claims in the first place. 

"Right now you're debating extremely disrespectfully. " Says you. It's not like respect actually matters as far as correctness is concerned. 

"AKA: I will only debate you in a setting where it won't be 1 on 1 because I need back up. Got it."

In case you didn't notice, prior to this comment, I was holding you entirely on my own, so your claim doesn't match the evidence. You're just trying to guilt me into playing by your rules, but it's not going to work. This isn't a game, it's not about sparing for winners and losers, get over yourself. If I'm going to debate, it's going to be in public, because we aren't going to change each others mind, and the purpose is for the public to benefit from the conclusions. There is just as much of a chance for someone to back you up as me, maybe you should ask yourself why you aren't getting more support. 

[HawkbitAlpha 46]

In my experience (I live in Tennessee), most of the people who still like the CSA flag are genuinely good, non-racist people, who simply see the flag as a symbol of history rather than an embodiment of racism. They're just misguided is the problem.

But with that in mind...

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Gestum said:

Heaven forbid she plays games before she complains about them. She should just complain about games without playing them. Oh, You complain when she does that too. 

 

Not my point and you know it. My point is she bought Fallout 3 and apparently hated it and then bought Fallout: New Vegas and apparently hated it and somehow expected Fallout 4 to be something different. As her primary complaint was the violence in the game, so you can safely assume she had the same issue with the previous entries yet she bought a sequel when she didn't like the first game and now she's complaining about the third entry. It is stupid to literally complain like that because it shows you are looking at things you know will bother you and then being upset when you're bothered.

I actually aim to debate against Anita's views because I do not wish them spread and cause more damage, Anita just aims to point at things and go "this is problematic".

1 hour ago, Ganondox said:

You have the most asinine debating strategy. You keep repeating the exact same points after they have been challenged (you're pretty much just ranting about people being offended when I already stated it's not actually important to the decision), and make blunt claims (like Anita being an expert in her field somehow being disproven) with evidence, yet you are demanding I prove basic facts to you. I'm not your baby sitter, you can be a big boy and look up what obscenity means and how the laws work yourself, google is a thing. Anyway, a few specific points on new ground.

"Except the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Do you think England handed this country to us when we said "yeah we don't want to be a part of England anymore."" I don't know how you didn't notice this, but the English government doesn't rule America, the American government does. Likewise, the Confederate government doesn't rule America, not even the South, the Union government does. That's what makes them the traitors, they were enemies of the present State. 

"Except she too pushes for bans. You think she is calling things problematic and criticizing things just to do it?" I keep seeing people claim this, but I've seen NO evidence for it. From what I've seen her approach is entirely to point out problems in existing games and praise games that manage to avoid those problem, and create suggestions for future game developers. The UN wasn't a request to ban anything, IIRC it was requesting that existing anti-harassment laws in various countries actually be enforced when it comes to online content. The tricky thing with the internet is it's content is viewable around the world, so it passes through multiple legal jurisdictions. 

"So there was no point then. It's not an ad hominem. I asked what benefit banning the flag did, you are openly admitting it has none therefore making the ban a waste of time and energy. It did nothing, so why did we bother?" I never said it was an ad hominem, that fact you couldn't tell it was a strawman shows how bad you are logical debate. You're maintaining this strawman, no one claimed that the ban would reduce racism. Just because it doesn't reduce racism doesn't mean it's doing NOTHING, I admitted to no such thing. Your tactics are outright slimey. Anyway, my main reason for maintaining the ban is on a matter of principle as we don't fly enemy flags in our state offices, others argued it's offensive to black people. Fact is, we do label content as obscene, if we can ban nudity in public because it's offensive to some people then we can also ban hate symbols, and I'm not going to debate the legal process for deciding what constitutes obscenity, I just know that it exists and you have to deal with it. 

"Pro tip - screaming somehow knows nothing about debate is an insult and thus an ad hominem and thus showing you yourself are currently engaging in logical fallacies." No, it doesn't. First off, an ad hominem and an insult are two different things. It's only an ad-hominem if you're saying someone's argument is invalid as result eg. saying Anita's arguments are all wrong because she isn't an expect, rather than addressing her actual arguments. I said you couldn't argue AFTER I already attacked your arguments directly, so that would stop doing this crap. I wasn't even insulting you, I was just saying you're wasting my time (as well as yours) with your non-arguments. It's sad that you decide to take offense rather than improving yourself. 

"I am not insulting your intelligence or ability to debate, so clearly... I'm winning right now because I'm sticking to the argument." This is also a blatant logical fallacy. I don't know what it's called, but it appears to be a combination of ad hominem and false dichotomy (you're essentially claiming I'm wrong because I "insulted" you, and that you're right because I'm wrong). It's not about winning, it's about being right, and you have yet to prove anything correct. Also, you sticking to the argument, lulz, you're the one who derailed this with Anita and countless other red herrings. 

"Calling an argument a fallacy does not mean you are excused from PROVING it's one." First off, it's not an argument that's a fallacy, it's that fallacies are used in arguments in place of logic. Second, I DID prove it, you just seem to not even realize what the fallacies you use even are. 

"On top of that literally just screaming everything is a fallacy is an old tactic we sometimes refer to as "barraging". Literally just claim the opponent's arguments are all fallacies so they waste time trying to prove they are not and ignore the fact that you're not really making any claims that refute them." Except in this case they ARE logical fallacies. I don't need to refute a non-argument, but in case you didn't notice I bothered to do it anyway. You meanwhile didn't back up your arguments after they were countered, instead you're just pathetically justifying them by trying to shift burden of proof to me with this rant about barraging. It's not up to me to prove your claims are false when you don't even have relevant claims in the first place. 

"Right now you're debating extremely disrespectfully. " Says you. It's not like respect actually matters as far as correctness is concerned. 

"AKA: I will only debate you in a setting where it won't be 1 on 1 because I need back up. Got it."

In case you didn't notice, prior to this comment, I was holding you entirely on my own, so your claim doesn't match the evidence. You're just trying to guilt me into playing by your rules, but it's not going to work. This isn't a game, it's not about sparing for winners and losers, get over yourself. If I'm going to debate, it's going to be in public, because we aren't going to change each others mind, and the purpose is for the public to benefit from the conclusions. There is just as much of a chance for someone to back you up as me, maybe you should ask yourself why you aren't getting more support. 

The amount of ad hominem personal attacks are insane.

1 hour ago, Ganondox said:

"Right now you're debating extremely disrespectfully. " Says you. It's not like respect actually matters as far as correctness is concerned. 

 

Except on this website we have rules about respecting other users which you're currently breaking and thus have been reported for. Now if you wish to be respectful and lay off the insults and personal attacks, I'll gladly respond but not if you're going to continue to behave like this.

[Guest]

It's been decided this particular thread has run it's course. I really hate permanently shutting the door to discussion, but unfortunately through a volley of ill-tempered attacks and disappointing hostility that seems like the best course of action right now. I could see this topic perhaps being recreated in the Debate Pit with better preparation and preface where it's sure to draw more well-formed arguments, but as it stands I will be leaving this closed before anypony walks themselves into any trouble.

Thank you

[Jeric 46,852]

I look forward to this topic being created in DP with perhaps a calmer tone that would allow for a nuanced debate, since symbology and history is certainly not a simple topic to distill down to dismissive commentary. History is about perspectives, and looking at it through multiple lenses.

Can't wait.