Trump Flag

It's a lot more than a piece of cloth.

Any object is just an object until purpose and meaning are imputed to it. Then it becomes as it is perceived.

and even the inherent meaning is fluid to the observer.
unless they have been thoroughly indoctrinated.
then any debasement of that cloth is seen as sacrilegious .

Your subjective stance, free as you are to have it, doesn't overrule the object's original purpose, which is why people love it or hate it. A flag is made from cloth, but because it's made, created so to speak, then the mind that created it determines it's purpose and value apart from anyone's subjective interpretation.

It's like anything created, a document for example. If we want to understand a document, we do well to understand the purpose for it's creation, which is best done by asking it's creator, not some random stranger who thinks their opinion supercedes objective reality.

Your nihilstic approach to meaning is self-defeating. If meaning is purely subjective, then their is no meaning, which leads to absurdity.

and the supreme court has already ruled that burning the flag is under "free speech".
my approach is not nihilistic,you are just putting words into my mouth.

my approach is practical.
while an object can represent an idea/ideal it is still an object,and objects can be perverted,subjugated and twisted to serve another purpose.
an ideal is much harder to corrupt in that fashion.

unless,referring back to my point,one is indoctrinated to tacitly suppress their own agency to an "authority".

so,not a nihilistic approach,but a principled one.

"and the supreme court has already ruled that burning the flag is under "free speech".my approach is not nihilistic,you are just putting words into my mouth

Burning the flag is free speech precisely because flag burning is speaking about more than a cloth, thereby arguing that it's more than just a cloth. Cloth has a definition, one that overlaps the definition of "flag", but only in so much that a flag is made from cloth-like material. The two are have different meanings, precisely because they have different imputed meanings from their creator and have separate purposes as well.

"while an object can represent an idea/ideal it is still an object,and objects can be perverted,subjugated and twisted to serve another purpose.
an ideal is much harder to corrupt in that fashion."

A flag is the symbolic representation of an idea; hence, it can't be corrupted apart from its original purpose. To say a flag is a cloth...your original statement, is to argue against your own statement immediately above. Change the nouns in that sentence, but keep the structure and "practical" application and one sees where this line of reasoning can lead if universally accepted.
I could take my subjective opinion of some people and use it say that they were just useless pieces of meat; and therefore, better off set on fire, I'd be using the same logic. If something I didn't create is subject to my interpretation, then it's value is subject as well. This is a logical derivative of nihilism, which is why I brought that into the conversation. I didn't put words into your mouth, but simply showed you where they lead to. Nihilism is a principle in of itself. And it leads to logical absurdity.

Your authority to assign meaning to anything is limited to that which you create. Everything else is beyond your authority, unless is somehow aligns with the creator of that which you seek to define.

But on the contrary...you seem to be saying the opposite, that everything is subject to your authority to define it, which, if universally applied leads to no meaning at all, since, theoretically, everyone could disagree on the meaning of the same object, or idea effectively abolishing any real meaning ti might have had. That is nihilism. Unless you believe in the objective meaning in objects, assert your own authority to change it on a whim, which is a form of narcissism.

I think I get where you are coming from,though you took it to it's most absurd conclusion.yeah,i can see where you would take my stance to be in conflict.

maybe I am coming from the point where symbols are fairly meaningless,while I can still recognize the inherent intentions,and/or representations,i can still reject them as a being a viable symbol for an ideology.

I find symbols to be archaic representations of tribalism.
their inherent meaning is far more important to the user and just signaling to other like-mined people they are part of the "group" that they may identify with.

a flag is only one example.
maga hat could be another.
the crucifix another.

to me the idea is far more interesting than the symbol chosen to represent ..whatever.

so the flag can represent anything we wish to impose on it,be it "good" or "evil" but it is still predicated on our own perceptions and subjective understandings.

and both the objective and subjective can reside in the same context.
example:
the American flag stands for freedom,liberty and justice,with a common cause binding the American people together.

this would be the agreed upon,objective truth.

the American flag represents the militaristic domination,which has spread death,destruction and suffering across the globe.

this would be the subjective truth from those who have been dominated over the years.

yet both are true.

the American flag is a piece of cloth:true
the American flag represents the ideals and aspirations of the united states of America:also true.

I didn't expect to get into a philosophical discussion over my smart ass comment,but it has been interesting,and you are right about my conflicting comments,and I apologize for the confusion.

I was just being a sarcastic ass.

"I was just being a sarcastic ass."

Sarcasm and satire are perfect ways of hashing out ideas, so I get it. Problem is, Philosophy and History of ideas was one of my majors. So I tend to follow streams to their conclusions, sometimes (most times)while being an ass myself if I have time. Many philosophical positions end up in absurdity, but the ones that attack meaning, get there on the fast track, because the meaning in their own statements becomes mute in the process.

Good conversation.

philosophy,while intriguing,is not my strong suit.
history and politics,however,is.

always a pleasure my friend.

Tell that to flag hater Laonsite
imgflip.com/i/2wgix6
imgflip.com/i/2whgwh

He has Melania lust issues.