Dare To Be Wrong!!!

by Scott Chastain 

                I recently read the anonymous essay, “Dare To Burn It,” and found it riddled with fallacious arguments typical of many of the uniformed “patriot” arguments cycling through the United States in recent years.  I feel it is time reason and truth be allowed their voice in response to these sorts of claims, and intend to focus on each of the fallacies in the original essay.

                The very first word of the argument attempts to use ambiguity to argue from consensus.  “Many Americans” is a subjective value.  How many is many?  100 million?  100 thousand?  100?  Even if the amount is closer to the first figure, I must cite the logical axiom that a thing isn’t true, just, fair, or reasonable simply because many, or even all, of the population thinks it is.  The earth was not flat because the majority of the world believed it to be, no more than it is spherical because the majority believes it to be!  A few paragraphs later the writer states that when viewing Johnson burning a flag, “This act threw many people into a rage…”  I doubt millions were present for this event, therefore demonstrating how arbitrary the quantitative value of “many” really is.  Apparently the writer really thinks this is a sound way to convince the audience, as “many” is reiterated throughout the essay as support.

                “Many Americans go into rage when our national symbol … is burned…”  So what?  People go into fits of rage over many things.  An extreme emotional state is a poor substitute for reason, and certainly has no place within a civilized society.  Apes go into a rage when their territorial boundaries are encroached.  Are we not more than apes?

                “In 1989 the Supreme Court passed a law that changed every American’s view of how our great country was ran.”  I am sure the fallacy here is obvious.  The writer certainly cannot speak for every American!  This particular paragraph also gives us another typical fallacy, that of ad hominem (arguing against the man).  In other words, the writer resorted to the schoolyard tactic of name calling, when he referred to Johnson and his supporters as “hooligans.”

                A similar fallacy to the one where the writer indicates his or her divine knowledge of  every American’s internal attitude occurs where the writer indicates his or her intimate knowledge of how the “founding fathers” would have felt about the case.  Apparently this psychic power is retroactive!  The “founding fathers” argument is typical when espousing these sorts of arguments, however.  The “founding fathers” were not Christian fundamentalists (most of them were Deists), and they themselves as English citizens who were unhappy with their current government, used similar tactics.  I am sure that along with effigies of King George, several English flags were probably burned!  I doubt that they would object to this sort of demonstration of discontent.  The American government of modern times reflects poorly on the government envisioned by our “founding fathers,” and I would not be shocked if Thomas Jefferson or John Adams decided to join in Johnson’s demonstration!

                The same paragraph then makes another stupid blunder.  Burning the American flag is not a value of Soviet communism.  Demonstrating that there is something wrong with the United States doesn’t affiliate the complainer with Red Flag either.  In fact, if you had burned the Soviet flag in the former Soviet Union, you would have probably been jailed or killed.  The writer’s views are more in line with the Communist parties way of thinking, in this regard.

                The “flame retardant” argument is a non sequitur.  Anything can burn, if you get it hot enough.  Also  the writer presents us with no evidence that the manufacturers of the American flag use flame retardant materials to thwart flag-burners.  The manufacturers of the flag probably use flame retardant materials for the same reasons that tent-makers, clothing-makers, and other fabric manufacturers do, to help prevent fires. 

                The same paragraph also commits continual ad hominem fallacies by labeling the Supreme Court the “Sinister Court” and “morons.”   The writer also suggests that the Supreme Court should abandon it’s useful and constitutional office and adapt a policy of money influenced mob rule.  By degrading an institution put in place by the “founding fathers” to ensure our freedoms are protected and justice is done, and encouraging political corruption, the writer has made a direct stand against the very principles that the United States and her flag represent, and showed disdain and disrespect toward this “great country.”

                The writer then commits the most salient of fallacies, with an outright lie.  “There is also a section in the First Amendment called “fighting words.”  This part of the amendment states that it is against the law to make an indirect reference to a person or their relative that is defacing.”  Not only does no such “part” exist in the first amendment, the very nature of such a part would violate the essence of the First Amendment altogether!  The First Amendment is as follows:  “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

                The writer then goes on to assert that the writer would have the legal right to commit a violent act against somebody who made degrading sexual comments about his or her mother.  Beyond the fact that such a violent act is illegal in all fifty states, and that there are no constitutional provisions for vigilante justice, it does demonstrate that the writer is a person of relatively low social skills and Neanderthal mentality.  This fabrication is introduced to support a weak analogy.  Let us assume that the First Amendment did provide such a knuckle-dragging clause.  To claim that the flag of the United States is a symbol of our “mother” and therefore we have the legal right to become pugilistic to the offender, is a non sequitur.  It does not follow that defending the honor of your biological mother justifies defending the honor of a proverbial mother.  After all “necessity is the mother of invention,” and if we are to apply this logic, we should have the legal right to beat up anybody who attacks “necessity.”  If someone tells a homeless person that they should get a job, they would be attacking necessity, and therefore be attacking “mother.”

                The final paragraph offers the only real attempt at a rational argument when it suggests that nudity is free expression, and if you express yourself by walking down the street naked you would probably be arrested for it.  This is very true, but it doesn’t really help the argument in the long run.  Should there be limits on free expression?  Yes, when they harm another person physically, or by damaging personal or public property, or otherwise supercede a greater right (e.g., I cannot be allowed to express myself by beating up another person whose views are different than my own).  It is obvious the anti-nudity laws are unconstitutional, and like the anti-flag burning laws, should be amended.

                In the end, the flag symbolizes many things, including our freedom.  If we limit the freedom of expression to protect the flag, we have destroyed everything the flag represents.  I feel it is the greater assault on the flag to not allow protests against the government, which is something the “founding fathers” felt very strongly about.  That is why we vote.  That is why we are allowed to comment on our leaders in speech and press.  That is why we are allowed to bear arms.  That is why we are allowed to file grievances against our government.  Destroy our right to free expression, and you destroy the flag.  Not burning one flag with fire, but destroying all flags by destroying the very principles that make America great.