In Denmark the only flag that is legal to burn is the Danish one

this is reasonable

Because why not lol

because the state doesn't have a claim to any flag other than their own

Why should the state be responsible for a citizen of it's country burning another countries flag? If some jackass in Boston burns the union jack because of "muh irish heritage" it doesn't mean that the united states government hates the UK and condones burning their flag.

because the state is responsible for the actions of its inhabitants in one way or another, what do you think the police is even for?

So if a countries are responsible for their citizens burning another countries flag and should punish them for it, does that mean countries should also punish it's citizens for making fun of or insulting another country in any other case?

no, because making fun or telling jokes of someone shouldn't be illegal. burning a internationally recognized symbolic representation of another nations ideals and/or virtues should.

Do you think foriegners that move to sweden and burn it's flag on the streets should be punished for doing so?

I have a suspicion that this picture was taken after Danes published newspapers featuring a drawing of a muslim with a bomb on his head, which was a long time ago

Do elaborate on the significance of it being "internationally recognized", because it is not at all obvious why it's relevant to the destruction of one's own property.

yes.
why the fuck would you move to a country if only to burn it's flag? that just means you have zero intentions of either acknowledging or accepting the ideals and/or virtues of that nation

if you made a flag today and I burnt it tomorrow, literally no one would care because that flag wouldn't be recognized.
if you made a flag, that looked suspiciously a lot like the US flag, and I burnt it tomorrow, a lot of people would care because, even though it technically isn't, it would still be recognized as the flag of uncle sam

Sure. But what does the reaction other people might or might not have, have to do with the legality of the destruction of one's own property? Suppose I'm upset by your comment, should it then be illegal for you to have posted it? If not, then how do you differentiate between it and the former?

Sure looks like Denmark to me

>But what does the reaction other people might or might not have, have to do with the legality of the destruction of one's own property
because while you may own the physical flag, you do not own the ideal that it embellishes
>Suppose I'm upset by your comment, should it then be illegal for you to have posted it
>If not, then how do you differentiate between it and the former
because one's a violent act and the other is just words. I realize this is where we currently find ourselves with a lot of issues today but there has to be a middle-ground between everything is outlawed and everything is permitted. That's the literal definition of a law.

>part and parcel argument
You're part of the problem.