View Full Version : Patriotism cum stupidity
http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,58190,00.html
An eBay seller refuses to ship a product to a company that is canadian.
At the present time, we do not ship to, or accept bids from Canada, Mexico, France, Germany or any other country that does not support the United States in our efforts to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. If you are not with us, you are against us.
The canadian won the bid on eBay, and there was no reason economically for the guy to not ship the product.
I don't think the US needs patriotism like this at this time. :?
Mariner
25-Mar-2003, 22:53
A Belgian company with whom my company deals (they sell Football i.e. Soccer books) told us they lost the business of an American company a couple of months back. This was after Belgium and France vetoed NATO's call for military aid in Turkey.
They were told flat by the American company that they would no longer buy goods from or sell to Belgian or French people after this veto decision.
We were a bit bemused by this - a small bookseller in a Belgian town has little say over NATO decisions, after all.
epicstruggle
25-Mar-2003, 23:00
I hope people understand that they are private companies sellers, and its their right to sell/buy from whom they want. Personally I will not go to france/germany anytime soon. I will however go to England and Spain next time I go to Europe. People have a right to act as dum as they want, and most people take advantage of that right. :D
later,
Mariner
25-Mar-2003, 23:08
Yeah - no problems.
Just as long as you realise how dumb it is! :wink:
Joe DeFuria
25-Mar-2003, 23:38
More stupidity:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MFJ4HMJRN31F4CRBAEOCF FA?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2446136
BERLIN (Reuters) - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser, no Marlboro, no American whiskey or even American Express cards -- a growing number of restaurants in Germany are taking everything American off their menus to protest the war in Iraq.
And I won't even bring up the McDonald's in Paris that was trashed...by "peaceful protestors"...
I think it's time for Vince to bust in here and tell us all how important and constructive force patriotism is.
I think it's time for Vince to bust in here and tell us all how important and constructive force patriotism is. :lol: :lol: :lol: Vince, sorry could not resist that too :wink:
And I won't even bring up the McDonald's in Paris that was trashed...by "peaceful protestors"...
are you sure that was not just becuse the food sucks? :lol:
I think it's time for Vince to bust in here and tell us all how important and constructive force patriotism is.
Hey, whatever... When you have something to be proud of, the perspective changes.
And while the effects of these actions are in themselves, dumb; they're how a person approves or disaproves of an action or policy in a free-market economy. The acts, unfortuantly, may not hurt the targeted entity - but it's the underlying ideology which is primarily symbolic, which is whats meaningful.
PS. Hey Humus, aren't you a draft dodger? Why does it not surprise me that a person such as yourself who talks of lofty ideals like "all lives are equal" yet has sent another citizen to potentially die while you hide behind legalities would make that type of comment.
All in perspective, eh? I'm sure you country is just as proud of you.
I have no problem with people boycotting other countries goods if they don't believe in their policies. It applies both ways, and so long as its legal thats fine.
Granted, vandalism is a crime, so the Paris McDonalds hecklers should all go to jail as far as im concerned.
Personally, I feel the whole thing is a tad juvenile. But fine, whatever floats your boat. Patriotism isn't a bad thing, particularily in this case where no one is really hurt or anything of import is at stake.
And while the effects of these actions are in themselves, dumb; they're how a person approves or disaproves of an action or policy in a free-market economy. The acts, unfortuantly, may not hurt the targeted entity - but it's the underlying ideology which is primarily symbolic, which is whats meaningful.
Nice contradiction there. First it's dumb then meaningful.
PS. Hey Humus, aren't you a draft dodger? Why does it not surprise me that a person such as yourself who talks of lofty ideals like "all lives are equal" yet has sent another citizen to potentially die while you hide behind legalities would make that type of comment.
:D Now that's funny. Who sent swedish troops to the Gulf ?
Cheers
Gubbi
best i can tell Vince is just ranting for the sake of it. :?
demalion
26-Mar-2003, 01:16
I think it's time for Vince to bust in here and tell us all how important and constructive force patriotism is.
Hey, whatever... When you have something to be proud of, the perspective changes.
I've been thinking this for a while, but perhaps it is time to say it out loud: you're the kind of person that could make me ashamed to be an American.
The constant insertion of "nation"-size into your evaluation of your self worth just happens to strike me as the most offensive form of patriotism there is, and just a convenient excuse in your willingness to take any opportunity to deflate the self worth of others in your eyes. It seems you are incapable of keeping statements whose only purpose is this repulsive goal out of your commentary.
And while the effects of these actions are in themselves, dumb; they're how a person approves or disaproves of an action or policy in a free-market economy. The acts, unfortuantly, may not hurt the targeted entity - but it's the underlying ideology which is primarily symbolic, which is whats meaningful.
If you'd restrict yourselves to comments like this, I wouldn't have to feel the way I do above, but could maybe agree or disagree with you without a feeling disgust being nearly constant.
In case you missed it, I agree with this section of text.
PS. Hey Humus, aren't you a draft dodger? Why does it not surprise me that a person such as yourself who talks of lofty ideals like "all lives are equal" yet has sent another citizen to potentially die while you hide behind legalities would make that type of comment.
Actually, I enlisted voluntarily, and his comments don't seem unsuitable to me. When you base your justifications on unrelated issues, how does it feel to find someone who doesn't fit your cookie cutter dismissal, but would still feel compelled by the same emotions for which he would and did put his life on the line for his country to spit at your feet for the way you behave?
All in perspective, eh? I'm sure you country is just as proud of you.
Maybe we should compare our military records to determine the validity of our viewpoints?
Or, just maybe we could conduct a discussion without constantly saying "my country can beat up your country" and realize that saying that does not say anything about the issue being discussed, but the mentality of the person who'd make such a statement?
Don't worry, this is not a line of discussion I can conduct for long without JR being compelled to step in, because to my perception you are walking, spitting, and defecating on the very ideals I did put my life on the line to defend.
Maybe if you "yell" loudly enough back at me, you can pretend I actually said something else.
Nice contradiction there. First it's dumb then meaningful.
Burning a flag is, in itself, a pointless activity; yet the message it sends is anything but... need more examples?
Many things in life have little tangible relevence, yet have deep symbolic value. Perhaps you've just never encountered one since it seems like an alien idea to you; or maybe you just want to argue.
:D Now that's funny. Who sent swedish troops to the Gulf ?
"Everyone is mandated to go through tests and be placed into a military position for the case one would be called in, almost no exceptions. Fortunately I was able to hit one such exception and have been liberated from having to join the military under any circumstances until 2049 (and at that time I don't think they would want me anyway :wink: )" - Humus
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4545&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40
It's irrelevent if he ever actually served as it's his position and the inherient hypocricy in it.
demalion;
Do you actually want me to repond or just allow you to pretend that your argument against me is valid and save Baumann's bandwith.
Actually, I enlisted voluntarily, and his comments don't seem unsuitable to me.
Actually, this is the only valid comment and as such it should be addressed. So, I can presume by that statement that you have no negative thoughts about people who knowlingly violate the law, or find said loop-holes, in instances which concern the sending of people like yourself into harms way?
Just wanted to clear that up... because to members of my family who are enlisted or myself who would if necessary - there is no excuse for this. And aslong as he can take shots at me, I can point out the hypocricy in the shots directed at me. (Which he admits to)
Sharkfood
26-Mar-2003, 02:35
The original topic is an interesting one... (the contract between two private citizens and the refusal of good/services/trade due to geographical location..).
There truly are two sides to this argument or standpoint. It's unfortunate that prejudice becomes the stalwart result amongst men of nations...
The problem is- people seem to isolate opinion with geographic location, which isn't a guaranteed thing. Take for example, France. A person living in France may be for or against the action on Iraq. Although I haven't seen too many polls (a few), the overwhelming majority seem to be opposed, but there is still a fraction that appears to be in support. By blanketing an entire nation on an assumed opinion, you may be actually penalizing someone that you happen to be in agreement with. The odds may be statistically low, but there is still a chance of this.
Ignorance seems to know no bounds and it's tragically humorous. I read that some folks were banning the purchase of Grey Poupon, thinking this had some sort of tie to France... when in all actuality it's made by a company in New Jersey.
People have the right to refuse service, support or otherwise participate in things that go against their moral opinions- but the problem today seems to be little research goes into the decision. "Blanket" justice is no form of justice at all, but instead prolific prejudice... from which absolutely NO good can come.
demalion
26-Mar-2003, 02:44
EDIT: this is directed at Vince.
Well, it doesn't surprise me that you so effectively missed my plainly stating that your assertion that he didn't want to join the military, or your own opinion on the matter, has nothing to do with the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made.
Would it help if I simply repeated the words in question verbatim, or perhaps I could just point out that you've fulfilled his expectation exactly, and so your insistence in criticizing him for making it seems a rather circular exercise?
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Revolutionary concept? I know, it doesn't simplify things to equivalency to a sufficient degree to make you happy, so how about this:
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself? Or did I misunderstand that bit of sophistry that went "Just wanted to clear that up... because to members of my family who are enlisted or myself who would if necessary - there is no excuse for this." ?
Hey, I did enlist (and that's not even all my "trump cards" if we want to really dedicate ourselves to your style of debate), doesn't that place my viewpoints above yours, since you say you would enlist and you continue to maintain that makes your viewpoint more valid than his? Nevermind that what he said you'd do would seem to describe exactly what you are doing.
BTW, America doesn't have the policy you quote him as describing as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't there have to be a draft for him to be draft dodging?
Oh, part of his text you didn't quote: "That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight in another war that seriously threatens something I value, like your favourite freedom argument". Atleast you linked to it, so the lack of relevance to the labels you are throwing around can be evaluated independently.
What exactly is his hypocrisy, again? That is, assuming, you actually want to argue the merits of an issue for some reason now?
Do you have plans on enlisting soon, and are just inconveniently delayed for some reason? I mean, you know there is a war going on, right?
demalion
26-Mar-2003, 02:47
demalion;
Do you actually want me to repond or just allow you to pretend that your argument against me is valid and save Baumann's bandwith.
Yes, I'd really like you to demonstrate your response to my first post.
Are you capable of responding, or would it just be a collection of name calling and sidestepping?
MrsSkywalker
26-Mar-2003, 03:30
In the US nothing talks louder than money. When people think of what they can do to "stick it to" those not supporting the US, the first thing that comes to mind is usually a boycott. I think people are getting into this so much b/c it's their only way to show their opinion of France/Canada/Russia/Germany (although, I don't really have any problem with the way the Germans are handling it...hasn't it been the German's stance sine WWII to avoid all wars? I fully believe that they will help with humanitarian aid, and have seen nothing to indicate the contrary). I don't think it's silly...I think it's people just wanting to express hurt, anger and confusion in any way they can. I personally see no problem with it, although I think the term "Freedom Fries" is pretty stupid :wink:
Well, it doesn't surprise me that you so effectively missed my plainly stating that your assertion that he didn't want to join the military, or your own opinion on the matter, has anything to do with the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made.
His statement "the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made" was to piss me off, be humorous, due to our previous discussions on the topic of patriotism. I normally wouldn't care (eg. Pascal) because it was funny to an extent, but comming out of his mouth, I had to state somethign due to his beliefs.
He is of the belief that the very existence of a nation-state and/or the belief in it (eg. Patriotism) is inheriently wrong and leads to a general state of greater entropy in the geo-political landscape. This is, no doubt in my mind, due to the events of the 20th century and how they've altered the European landscape which he views on a daily basis. What I object to, is that his view of this are inheriently wrong as he's seen Patriotism used as a rallying cry used to increase the indiginous populations setiment against a foreign entity that would be conquered for purely chauvinistic means.
I happen to think thats inheriently wrong as I've seen patriotism used is a diffrent light. So, for him to make a comment like that which he stated, coming from a person who's basically broken the law to do something which is morally and ethically wrong; ticks me off. I'll explain this in detail a bit later - just hang on.
Would it help if I simply repeated the words in question verbatim, or perhaps I could just point out that you've fulfilled his expectation exactly, and so your insistence in criticizing him for making it seems a rather circular exercise?
This argument wasn't cyclical untill you spoke as I would have let it drop. Beyond that, I didn't fullfill any expectation, all I did is point out that coming from him - that comment is like the devil saying Jesus only lectures in here on good virtues. (Insert whatever other parrallel you like here where one entity breaks the status quo held and stated by the other)
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Well, while that is definatly beyond my scope of understanding, I can't seem to see how you answered my question or are even understanding why and what I said.
Nobody, myself included, questioned if you think people should be drafted and then you derive pleasure from that. Instead, I asked if you thought it was allowable that he basically broke the law (or if not due to a grey area, is morally and ethically wrong) and would allow a fellow citizen to take his place in the event that hostility ensued. In this case, he's potentially sent a fellow, law-abiding, citizen to die when it should have been him.
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
While it's now appearent to me from the above comment that your mental capacity to ingest and manipulate information is vastly superior to my own, I must state that you are totally missing the fundimental argument and instead appear to be lashing out based on your want to argue. Which, hey, I'll do if you want.
But, now, back to his statement and why I said what I did:
From your earlier post, I applaud you for the reductionist method of argument (obviously to allow my comprehension), so we shall continue upon that course:
Draft - "The process or method of selecting one or more individuals from a group, as for a service or duty"
Duty - "An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion"
Law - "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority" Antonym: Crime
Crime - "An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction"
So, in reductionist terms, we have a guy whose taken the draft - which is a duty - commanded by law - and not followed it - thus, resulting in a crime. Which if not legally, is morally wrong.
Yet, this man has made statement with slanderous intentions towards another concerning Patriotism.
Patriotism - "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country"
Serve - "To meet the requirements of; suffice for"
Requirement - "Something obligatory; a prerequisite"
Obligatoy - "Morally or legally constraining; binding"
Which brings us back to Crime
Thus, in the most simplistic method I can think of (which appearetly is all I can think of) I've shown of a man (eg. Humus) is, in terms you'll understand, "Bitchin' at me for supporting things (eg. law) which he, himself, doesn't at the cost of his society." Get it now?
Or did I misunderstand that bit of sophistry that went "Just wanted to clear that up... because to members of my family who are enlisted or myself who would if necessary - there is no excuse for this." ?
Sophistry implies fallacy. It's only a fallacy if I, or common knowledge, activly state a diametrically opposed situation and then move away. I, if you would have read the previous thread, openly believe that not everyone should be enlisted in times of peace as you can greater benefit the country via other means. Only during times of peril, or according to law, to the very nation and/or constitution (eg. when there's a draft) should citizens give-up their alterior paths in life and support the country at all costs. Pretty basic stuff.
Hey, I did enlist (and that's not even all my "trump cards" if we want to really dedicate ourselves to your style of debate),
Then I suggest you bring a "trump card" to the table because right now your fighting on ignorance of the previous debates and... hehe...
BTW, America doesn't have the policy you quote him as describing as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't there have to be a draft for him to be draft dodging?
BTW: He doesn't live in the US. Where he holds his citizenship, your required by law to do as I stated before. Helps to know the argument my friend.
What exactly is his hypocrisy, again? That is, assuming, you actually want to argue the merits of an issue for some reason now?
Stated above in language I can comprehend.
Do you have plans on enlisting soon, and are just inconveniently delayed for some reason? I mean, you know there is a war going on, right?
Show me a draft and I shall put my life and accomplishments on hold. Untill then, the above argument I outlines holds.
And thanks for this regurgitation of things which pretty much anyone which common sence could factor from the arguments. But, yet, some people just want to argue I suppose.
nice demonstration of sophistry there Vince.
nice demonstration of sophistry there Vince.
Thanks Kyle :) Is the "b" a middle or last name?
demalion
26-Mar-2003, 07:09
Hey, I did ask you to reply to my first post, Vince. Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?
Well, it doesn't surprise me that you so effectively missed my plainly stating that your assertion that he didn't want to join the military, or your own opinion on the matter, has anything to do with the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made.
His statement "the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made" was to piss me off, be humorous, due to our previous discussions on the topic of patriotism.
Ayep, I suspect because you pissed him off. I know your rants about patriotism piss me off.
It does seem he guessed right, though. Not that it was hard to do.
I normally wouldn't care (eg. Pascal) because it was funny to an extent, but comming out of his mouth, I had to state somethign due to his beliefs.
No, you "had" to state something due to your own opinion of your self worth being greater than what you think he is entitled to. An opinion which I do not share. I'm not sure anyone else does, to tell you the truth, so it seems an unproductive feeling to allow to govern your actions.
So...you really didn't "have" to include the reply you did, did you? So the justification for it isn't a self-evident fact, but rests on something that might be disputed...which, in fact, I am taking the time to dispute. My justification is still available in the first post, but I notice you don't seem to find the prospect of addressing that directly very appealing.
He is of the belief that the very existence of a nation-state and/or the belief in it (eg. Patriotism) is inheriently wrong and leads to a general state of greater entropy in the geo-political landscape.
With people behaving in the fashion that you are, I'm not surprised he has come to that opinion. If you'd read his post again, I'd think you might recognize that it's possible that it isn't the issue of pride and coherency among people to which he is opposed, but the attitudes and posturing people like yourself turn it into with the excuse of geographical borders.
This is, no doubt in my mind, due to the events of the 20th century and how they've altered the European landscape which he views on a daily basis. What I object to, is that his view of this are inheriently wrong as he's seen Patriotism used as a rallying cry used to increase the indiginous populations setiment against a foreign entity that would be conquered for purely chauvinistic means.
This is one barrier between our understanding that results from the set of certainties you consider to be absolutely true: you don't think that the way you carry on fits his concerns at all. I, someone who would only hesitate to call myself a patriot due to the behavior of people who use the label as you do, do not think he would be wrong to think that way about you.
Do I dare quote an excerpt from the definition of chauvinism?
Note: To have a generous belief in the greatness of one's country is not chauvinism. It is the character of the latter quality to be wildly extravagant, to be fretful and childish and silly, to resent a doubt as an insult, and to offend by its very frankness. --Prof. H. Tuttle.
I think the nature of my argument with Humus would be that I think that what many label loudly as "patriotism" is really this behavior instead.
I happen to think thats inheriently wrong as I've seen patriotism used is a diffrent light.
So have I, but we were talking about you. The nature of my disagreement with him would be that I don't think a patriot necessarily ends up behaving as I perceive you to.
So, for him to make a comment like that which he stated,
You mean a prediction that came true?
coming from a person who's basically broken the law to do something which is morally and ethically wrong;
You seem to be geting a bit loose in your interpretation of his statement, I think, at the same time you are getting more definite in your condemnation of his viewpoint. That combination doesn't worry you?
ticks me off. I'll explain this in detail a bit later - just hang on.
Hmm...sure. You realize that my opinion of you didn't spring up based on just your reaction here, right? Don't ask for a list, it would be much shorter to point to a post you think did not offend and disgust me with what you call patriotism in yourself, and ask if you were right.
Would it help if I simply repeated the words in question verbatim, or perhaps I could just point out that you've fulfilled his expectation exactly, and so your insistence in criticizing him for making it seems a rather circular exercise?
This argument wasn't cyclical untill you spoke as I would have let it drop.
How could you say you'd have let it drop, when you repeat the same things I find fault with all over the place, and it was a continued demonstration of your doing exactly the opposite of "dropping it"? Didn't I make it clear that it was a sentiment and behavior I had long found repulsive? If you really were concerned about this being cyclical, why didn't you respond to my initial criticism directly?
Beyond that, I didn't fullfill any expectation, all I did is point out that coming from him - that comment is like the devil saying Jesus only lectures in here on good virtues. (Insert whatever other parrallel you like here where one entity breaks the status quo held and stated by the other)
That strike me as humorous. Let me repeat a quote:
I think it's time for Vince to bust in here and tell us all how important and constructive force patriotism is.
Hey, whatever... When you have something to be proud of, the perspective changes.
Hmm...ok, here is another barrier: you don't think you've demonstrated exactly that by the very post I'm replying to and the sentiments you expressed before it. I think it is pretty evident that is exactly what you are and have been doing.
It really is too bad that your demonstration of "patriotism" seems to me to be making it synonymous with "chauvanism".
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Well, while that is definatly beyond my scope of understanding,
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
I can't seem to see how you answered my question or are even understanding why and what I said.
You mean this one:
"So, I can presume by that statement that you have no negative thoughts about people who knowlingly violate the law, or find said loop-holes, in instances which concern the sending of people like yourself into harms way?"
I presume you are proposing Humus did this to someone? I read your provided link, and I don't see it.
You are discussing a hypothetical draft, and since I don't view a draft as self-evidently right, I'd evaluate people on the actual actions they took in response to the actual need for them to serve. That would include Humus at such a time, and that would include you, as well.
Perhaps it is what I stated earlier being "beyond your scope of understanding" that would make this answer a surprise to you?
Nobody, myself included, questioned if you think people should be drafted and then you derive pleasure from that.
Are you using deliberatley confused wording to obfuscate your meaning?
The proper phrasing there to fit my statement would be "and then they derive pleasure from that". If you recognize they might not happily submit to the draft, why do you insist on judging their worth to criticize you beforehand for expressing that they would be unhappy?
Instead, I asked if you thought it was allowable that he basically broke the law (or if not due to a grey area, is morally and ethically wrong) and would allow a fellow citizen to take his place in the event that hostility ensued. In this case, he's potentially sent a fellow, law-abiding, citizen to die when it should have been him.
I don't get this logical construct of "sending someone in his place". Was everyone eligible drafted, or not? If not everyone eligible was drafted, did the government have criteria for preventing some from being eligible? If that is the case, where did Humus say that the lucky factor he mentioned was illegal instead of one of these criteria?
Regardless of the answers to these questions, I would "judge" Humus after the fact and not before, because I'm not filled with a desire to dictate that the decision would be simple for someone else even though the decision would be simple for me. My question to you now is, did you even ask these questions before you passed your judgement?
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
While it's now appearent to me from the above comment that your mental capacity to ingest and manipulate information is vastly superior to my own, I must state that you are totally missing the fundimental argument and instead appear to be lashing out based on your want to argue. Which, hey, I'll do if you want.
Hey, you sort of skipped something that was between the last quote and this:
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Revolutionary concept? I know, it doesn't simplify things to equivalency to a sufficient degree to make you happy, so how about this:
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
Doing so allowed you to skip over that I was proposing that it was the type of simplification you were proposing for dismissing his viewpoint, and spend a LARGE swathe of text arguing about it in isolation instead. An accident?
But, now, back to his statement and why I said what I did:
From your earlier post, I applaud you for the reductionist method of argument (obviously to allow my comprehension), so we shall continue upon that course:
Draft - "The process or method of selecting one or more individuals from a group, as for a service or duty"
Duty - "An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion"
Law - "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority" Antonym: Crime
Crime - "An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction"
So, in reductionist terms, we have a guy whose taken the draft - which is a duty - commanded by law - and not followed it - thus, resulting in a crime. Which if not legally, is morally wrong.
By your own definition of "law" and "duty" he is not committing a crime. Or did I misread? I read that he was exempted, I'd assume by law since draft laws tend to specify things like exemptions. Sort of makes the morality of it a bit more complex to consider, and consisting of things beyond your predetermination to condemn him for disagreeing with and criticizing you, it seems to me.
Have you discussed the exemption in question with him somewhere that I missed? It is good form to atleast have a some idea of the real factors behind what you are discussing when you try to impose your own definition of morality on others, isn't it?
Yet, this man has made statement with slanderous intentions towards another concerning Patriotism.
You're almost right...he might be slandering the word patriotism, but that would mean you are too. But who is this person he slandered by stating they would "tell us all how important and constructive force patriotism is."?
Patriotism - "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country"
How are you serving your country again? Does the reason for that line of questioning begin to sink in yet?
Serve - "To meet the requirements of; suffice for"
Requirement - "Something obligatory; a prerequisite"
Obligatoy - "Morally or legally constraining; binding"
Is it really your definition of reductionism to throw definitions around and yet completely fail to relate them to the issue being discussed? Where did you list the laws and moral concerns Humus is violating? As far as I can see, all you've done is presume that the moral and legal concerns you've made up are actually representative of his situation.
Which brings us back to Crime
When did we ever get to Crime before other than in the word games you are playing? Have you read the military service laws of his country?
Thus, in the most simplistic method I can think of (which appearetly is all I can think of) I've shown of a man (eg. Humus) is, in terms you'll understand, "Bitchin' at me for supporting things (eg. law) which he, himself, doesn't at the cost of his society." Get it now?
What I "get" is that you think you've shown "(eg. law)" and "at the cost of his society" by the above, when, as you can see by the questions I put to you, you haven't.
BTW, in case anyone thinks this tackles the issue I raised in my first post, take a look (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98018&98018). It looks to me like I was criticizing the behavior of Vince for reasons he has avoided discussing, yet here we are making stuff up about Humus to dispute as an alternative to dealing with the actual criticism head on. A round of applause for the effort, anyone?
Or did I misunderstand that bit of sophistry that went "Just wanted to clear that up... because to members of my family who are enlisted or myself who would if necessary - there is no excuse for this." ?
Sophistry implies fallacy. It's only a fallacy if I, or common knowledge, activly state a diametrically opposed situation and then move away.
No, it is sophistry if implies a fallacy. or indicates an attempt to mislead, by resemblence to a line of reasoning. The quoted statement does in fact seek to circumvent the little issue I've mentioned a few times now of proving that Humus is indeed "breaking the law", and that, further (though you seem to have devoted a lot of effort to avoiding the issue) that your opinion on the matter has nothing to do with his right to criticize you for your behavior.
To quote you again, Vince:
Hey Humus, aren't you a draft dodger? Why does it not surprise me that a person such as yourself who talks of lofty ideals like "all lives are equal" yet has sent another citizen to potentially die while you hide behind legalities would make that type of comment.
All in perspective, eh? I'm sure you country is just as proud of you.
No misleading "reasoning" there, I take it? To me it looks like you are saying he can't criticize you because of this illegal activity you seem to go through a great deal of trouble to construct.
I, if you would have read the previous thread, openly believe that not everyone should be enlisted in times of peace as you can greater benefit the country via other means. Only during times of peril, or according to law, to the very nation and/or constitution (eg. when there's a draft) should citizens give-up their alterior paths in life and support the country at all costs. Pretty basic stuff.
Yet you sort of skipped over discussing the law that Humus is violating. As far as I can see, it was the one you made up. Unfortunately, Humus doesn't recognize your sovereignty over him.
Perhaps you should look at the thread again, and read it through to the end, though I sort of doubt it would do any good given the nature of your response to his reply.
Hey, I did enlist (and that's not even all my "trump cards" if we want to really dedicate ourselves to your style of debate),
Then I suggest you bring a "trump card" to the table because right now your fighting on ignorance of the previous debates and... hehe...
Why would I need to? Either we practice your style of "you can't criticize me because your patriotic sentiment isn't up to mine" in which case you should already have stopped opposing anything I say or saying anything negative about me, or we don't, which was actually my point in the first place. Not that you haven't given me plenty of new points to criticize with your steadfast refusal to recognize that the first was a problem in the first place.
BTW, as I said before, I read the thread. I noticed the certain points of his commentary you dropped out in your replies. Points that answer the very issues of morality you so casually decree he is violating.
Hey, one example "You probably wouldn't find me armed in the frontline, because I would be useless at that position. However, I could probably join as a technician keeping computer and communication systems up." Wait, did your proof above state that he had to kill to be a patriot, or did you skip some details?
Perhaps if you keep saying I haven't read it, it will become true?
BTW, America doesn't have the policy you quote him as describing as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't there have to be a draft for him to be draft dodging?
BTW: He doesn't live in the US. Where he holds his citizenship, your required by law to do as I stated before. Helps to know the argument my friend.
No, as he has stated before, he is not required by law to do as you stated. Did you read the thread, or do you understand his meaning for being liberated from that obligation differently than I do?
What exactly is his hypocrisy, again? That is, assuming, you actually want to argue the merits of an issue for some reason now?
Stated above in language I can comprehend.
You and who else?
Do you have plans on enlisting soon, and are just inconveniently delayed for some reason? I mean, you know there is a war going on, right?
Show me a draft and I shall put my life and accomplishments on hold.
Easy to say, isn't it? Why should I take you at your word when you can't take Humus at his? Who is the hypocrite?
Untill then, the above argument I outlines holds.
Maybe if it held together.
"And thanks for this regurgitation of things which pretty much anyone which common sence could factor from the arguments. But, yet, some people just want to argue I suppose."
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
seemed rather clear to me.
oh, and Vince, sophistry does not require any fallacy aside from the conclusion. one can construct a sophistical argument based entirely on fact. Gorgias' essay "On Non-Being" is a wonderful example which i highly recommend you look into if the subject interests you. also, ya the "b" is for my last name, why do you ask?
Hey, I did ask you to reply to my first post, Vince. Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?
Reply to what, and I shall respond. You keep implying that I have this "self worth" type complex, but yet, you're the one whose trying your best to talk down on me.
BTW genious, stop using "sophistry" as your implying that my argument is capable of being true, in which case without you demonstrating how it's wrong or fallicious you're indirectly confirming that I'm de facto correct.
Ayep, I suspect because you pissed him off. I know your rants about patriotism piss me off.
It's ok, vent... tell us how you really feel. I got pissy because he arbitrarily injected me into this thread. You on the other hand seem to just have some problems.
No, you "had" to state something due to your own opinion of your self worth being greater than what you think he is entitled to. An opinion which I do not share. I'm not sure anyone else does, to tell you the truth, so it seems an unproductive feeling to allow to govern your actions.
I have an opinion about everything, in ever forum on this board. But, I don't post them, hardly the modus operandi of the person you portrey me to be. I hardly have this so called "self-worth" complex, but rather was putting his remarks into context in the same tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic/piercing way as he injected the first comment into this thread.
So, please... if you want to be Opera, do it to someone else.
So...you really didn't "have" to include the reply you did, did you? So the justification for it isn't a self-evident fact, but rests on something that might be disputed...which, in fact, I am taking the time to dispute.
I had to include the reply for the same reason he put me into this thread in the first place. If I'm this egotistical, "self-worth" dominated guy, why didn't I go off on someone like Pascal? Because he wasn't a blatent ass about it and I repect him and his views. Hardly the same for Humus and his views.
If you'd read his post again, I'd think you might recognize that it's possible that it isn't the issue of pride and coherency among people to which he is opposed, but the attitudes and posturing people like yourself turn it into with the excuse of geographical borders.
Geographical how? I make no distinction between any group or entity aslong as they share a common bond, a common goal, a common nucleus of support.
This is one barrier between our understanding that results from the set of certainties you consider to be absolutely true: you don't think that the way you carry on fits his concerns at all. I, someone who would only hesitate to call myself a patriot due to the behavior of people who use the label as you do, do not think he would be wrong to think that way about you.
Care to explain to me, in anyway, how this has to deal with my paragraph detailing MY OPINION ("no doubt in my mind") on the effects of the 20th centuries conflicts and chauvinistic regimes? Or are you going to stoop to such a level to chastise me for saying "no doubt in my mind" (as opposed to "No doubt") instead of IMHO? Get a hobby.
Do I dare quote an excerpt from the definition of chauvinism?
Note: To have a generous belief in the greatness of one's country is not chauvinism. It is the character of the latter quality to be wildly extravagant, to be fretful and childish and silly, to resent a doubt as an insult, and to offend by its very frankness. --Prof. H. Tuttle.
Hmm.. wanted to see if this was part of a larger selection and google.com sent me to dictionary.com and hyperdictionary.com. (as well as a UofC pageon Tuttle:)) Which leads me to believe that while you were looking up the word, you passed up the obvious defintion (eg. the one people who use the word use it for) which is:
"Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind"
I think you need to stop spinning the linguistics and start using some common sence as you just proved my point. Tuttle was obviously distinguishing between Patriotism and Chauvinism - in defense of people such as Humus, who has lumped Patriotism in the group and has taken an anti-nationalistic PoV.
If you were reading what I wrote, it [chauvinism] was being used to describe the rise of Nazism and Communism in the 20th century. A term that aptly describes them.
So have I, but we were talking about you. The nature of my disagreement with him would be that I don't think a patriot necessarily ends up behaving as I perceive you to.
Ohh, I see... we're talking about me now. So, is this some sort of witch-hunt or what?
You've just agreed to the basis of my argument with Humus; and the reason I brought up his draft-dodging nature when he threw the Patriotism charge at me. Because comming from someone such as himself who despises nationalistic identity, it's no wonder he'd say something like what he did.
But, lets bitch at Vince... good times.
You seem to be geting a bit loose in your interpretation of his statement, I think, at the same time you are getting more definite in your condemnation of his viewpoint. That combination doesn't worry you?
Ok, se let me get this strait. When someone says that they're within the age in Sweden in which their government mandates all males (age 18 to like 40 for active with upto age 70 to take part in civil defense) to register, have a physical and then if picked to serve in their military under a conscription based policy. Which is fair and just as their government is more socialistic with amazing social welfare and public programs, but sans a standing military. Thus, in return for the benefits of their truely great social system, as cizens they must apply and if chosen protect their nation for a specified amount of time.
But, yet, some choose to find grey areas and loop-holes which allow them to become exempt from the process untill something like 2040. Thus, they're marginalizing the very basis of their society and hurting the nation as a whole based on the selfish needs of one (while living off the social programs). Morally, I find this as perhaps one of the lowest acts that could be committed - as not only is he avoiding his responcibility, but he's stealing by not repaying the government lawfully under the contract of citizenship. And Beyond even that, because his spot isn't filled, some other Swede, with a family and loved ones must take that place.
This isn't right.. So, not only is he going to commit such actions, he's going to take what he's done and flaunt it publically by talking in such a negative light about Patriotism - the very thing that another Swede is potentially serving in his space for.
Hmm...sure. You realize that my opinion of you didn't spring up based on just your reaction here, right? Don't ask for a list, it would be much shorter to point to a post you think did not offend and disgust me with what you call patriotism in yourself, and ask if you were right.
Cute.
How could you say you'd have let it drop, when you repeat the same things I find fault with all over the place, and it was a continued demonstration of your doing exactly the opposite of "dropping it"? Didn't I make it clear that it was a sentiment and behavior I had long found repulsive? If you really were concerned about this being cyclical, why didn't you respond to my initial criticism directly?
(a) What criticism
(b) I would have dropped it as it was just a responce to his. I had no intention of posting here outside of that comment, as seen by the fact that I didn't post here prior to,
(c) I'll post in responce to you, because you're so off the wall.
Hmm...ok, here is another barrier: you don't think you've demonstrated exactly that by the very post I'm replying to and the sentiments you expressed before it. I think it is pretty evident that is exactly what you are and have been doing.
Again, my post wasn't to show superiority, but rather a sarcastic responce to his prior statement dragging me in here... is this so hard to understand? If it makes you feel better, I pondered typing, "Hey Humus, I love you too" But descided against as this was more substantive by showing his hypocracy and disdain for the very system that other citizens of his country will follow to defend this rights and family if necessary.
It really is too bad that your demonstration of "patriotism" seems to me to be making it synonymous with "chauvanism".
Give me abreak, you didn't even know what "chauvanism" was a day ago.
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Well, while that is definatly beyond my scope of understanding,
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
It's called sarcasm. You stated that it was "too complex for me," I agreed.
I presume you are proposing Humus did this to someone? I read your provided link, and I don't see it.
You are discussing a hypothetical draft, and since I don't view a draft as self-evidently right, I'd evaluate people on the actual actions they took in response to the actual need for them to serve. That would include Humus at such a time, and that would include you, as well.
Perhaps it is what I stated earlier being "beyond your scope of understanding" that would make this answer a surprise to you?
It's not a hypothetical draft if it's currently mandated by Sweden's legestalture. It's called law - so by your above remarks ("self-evidently right"), I take it that you don't consider laws to be "right" or necessarily followed?
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/04/19/p17s1.htm
Interesting ideology concerning the value of government and legeslature. Should I consider this another case of ignorance or are you an anarchist?
I don't get this logical construct of "sending someone in his place". Was everyone eligible drafted, or not? If not everyone eligible was drafted, did the government have criteria for preventing some from being eligible? If that is the case, where did Humus say that the lucky factor he mentioned was illegal instead of one of these criteria?
Whoa... did you even read what he wrote and his underlying ideologies? I can atleast respect him for doing what he believes....
You on the other hand are on an attempted witch-hunt and are totally irrataional. But, to each his own... if you really get off on this...
My question to you now is, did you even ask these questions before you passed your judgement?
I listened to him over the course of several threads and picked-up on his ideology. What more is there to say? I asked several questions - he repsonded.
Revolutionary concept? I know, it doesn't simplify things to equivalency to a sufficient degree to make you happy, so how about this:
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
I skipped this because it's irrelevent if you comprehended what I followed it up with. Your really don't pick-up on much, huh?
Doing so allowed you to skip over that I was proposing that it was the type of simplification you were proposing for dismissing his viewpoint, and spend a LARGE swathe of text arguing about it in isolation instead. An accident?
The "isolated incident" is the centre of this argument. The draft is self-evident as it's the LAW - and the law is self-evident in Westernized democracies.
Thus, as I showed in that "large swathe of text" - he broke the law, and if not the actual legeslative type due to a grey area, then he broke a moral and ethical boundry which is just as bad.
So, in reductionist terms, we have a guy whose taken the draft - which is a duty - commanded by law - and not followed it - thus, resulting in a crime. Which if not legally, is morally wrong.
By your own definition of "law" and "duty" he is not committing a crime. Or did I misread? I read that he was exempted, I'd assume by law since draft laws tend to specify things like exemptions. Sort of makes the morality of it a bit more complex to consider, and consisting of things beyond your predetermination to condemn him for disagreeing with and criticizing you, it seems to me.
Ohh my!! Not only did I clearly state "Which if not legally, is morally wrong" which you even reiterated (proving it's a "crime" on some level as I defined it), but I further stated many times that I'm not pre-determined to condemn because he disagrees - but that my virtues and morals don't allow me to repect his actions and ideologies which lead to this action as he's stated many a times over many threads on many topics.
Lets stop trying to find fault with Vince just because you don't like me...
Have you discussed the exemption in question with him somewhere that I missed? It is good form to atleast have a some idea of the real factors behind what you are discussing when you try to impose your own definition of morality on others, isn't it?
Exactly, how do you know in what medium we've discussed anything over the past 3-odd years we've been here? Where do you get off critizing me based on your position of a distant 3rd party with a hard-on for me?
Again, your position is worse than the one you've proported I have. You state I'm ignorant of him and his ideology that I've found in OUR discussion - but yet, you criticize me based on my understanding of Humus? Who the hell are you and why does your ideology or thoughts or feelings in this debate superceed mine?
You tell me I'm trying to make him approve of my ideology, but yet, your the one doing that very same thing to me? Way to be the same creation you think I am.
I'm bored with this.... When you've finally gotten some sleep and allowed your neural networks to become a bit more balanced in your subconscious and conscious thoughts about me - maybe I'll come back.
In the mean time, thanks for the enlightening talk. If only you weren't so similar underneath it all.
:lol: Hehehehe Think Ill call on one of my jesuit buds to help you guys out... man is it possible to nuance to this level something that should be clear as a bell?
Barnabas
26-Mar-2003, 13:22
More stupidity:
Quote:
BERLIN (Reuters) - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser, no Marlboro, no American whiskey or even American Express cards -- a growing number of restaurants in Germany are taking everything American off their menus to protest the war in Iraq.
As far as i know this is blown out of proportion. It started with one restaurant in berlin and a few others joined in, so growing support means you might have to use both hands now to count the participants. :)
epicstruggle
26-Mar-2003, 14:20
As far as i know this is blown out of proportion. It started with one restaurant in berlin and a few others joined in, so growing support means you might have to use both hands now to count the participants. :)
Isnt most coke-cola products bottled in that country. so boycotting it would really only hurting themselves, same with burger king, mcdonalds. American Express might get hurt though.
Anyways, I think we should all cut our noses to spite our faces.
later
RussSchultz
26-Mar-2003, 14:28
BERLIN (Reuters) - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser
Why anybody in Germany would drink Budweiser is completely beyond me.
BERLIN (Reuters) - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser
Why anybody in Germany would drink Budweiser is completely beyond me.
Seriously. Most american beer in general can easily be equated to piss water. At least when compared to German beer... Yum!
RussSchultz
26-Mar-2003, 14:57
Then again, I'm not sure why there's english restaurants here in the US...
John Reynolds
26-Mar-2003, 15:28
BERLIN (Reuters) - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser
Why anybody in Germany would drink Budweiser is completely beyond me.
Especially when a Bud is an import and costs more over there.
MrsSkywalker
26-Mar-2003, 15:38
Isnt most coke-cola products bottled in that country
Nah. There are only 9 bottling plants in Germany, and all of them bottle for domestic consumption only. The US has 80 licensed bottling plants for Coke. However, Fanta Cola, Coca-cola's most popular seller in Germany, was invented in Germany, but I have no idea if the boycott of coke includes Fanta.
Mariner
26-Mar-2003, 15:40
Then again, I'm not sure why there's english restaurants here in the US...
They actually have those? What do they serve?
Fish and Chips, Black Pudding, Full English Breakfast... Spotted Dick? :shock:
You should try Lincolnshire sausages - God knows what's in them, but they certainly taste good!
epicstruggle
26-Mar-2003, 17:02
Isnt most coke-cola products bottled in that country
Nah. There are only 9 bottling plants in Germany, and all of them bottle for domestic consumption only. The US has 80 licensed bottling plants for Coke. However, Fanta Cola, Coca-cola's most popular seller in Germany, was invented in Germany, but I have no idea if the boycott of coke includes Fanta. Actually thats what i meant. :) Most coke products are bottled in that country. so french coke is bottled in france, english coke in england, so on...
Sorry if i didnt state it properly.
later,
they use the "new coke" recipe over there also. do you all remember that stuff? man it sucks. :lol:
MrsSkywalker
26-Mar-2003, 17:35
Actually thats what i meant
Ah, gotcha. :)
they use the "new coke" recipe over there also.
Well, no wonder they are boycotting it! :wink:
Vince,
do you consider someone a draft dodger who refuses to do military service for ethic reasons but does civil service instead?
"New Coke"? I can't remember coke tasting any different than it does today.
it was like 1985 when they came up with "new coke" if i recall correctly, same time i moved over to Germany. they went back to "coke clasic" really quick here in the states but over there you all seemed to like it so it stuck.
BORDEAUX, France — Vandals in southwest Bordeaux torched a replica of the Statue of Liberty and cracked the pedestal of a plaque honoring victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
But, Americans could get the last laugh:
Lawmakers also introduced bills preventing France from participating in any postwar reconstruction projects.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82245,00.html
I guess that whole "freedom fries" thing really pissed them off.. Ohh well, not like I wanted to go to France anyways - hairy assholes. ;)
Vince, do you consider someone a draft dodger who refuses to do military service for ethic reasons but does civil service instead?
Of course not - the point is action and civil support. If you have a religious or ethical problem with potentially killing another being, then of course you don't have to be drafted into active service. But, in every military there are massive logistical needs which have no active combat component inherient in them. I object to people who find ways around the entire service part of the system (thereby avoiding personal responcibility at the cost of others), while using the social-program part of the system for their own betterment.
K.I.L.E.R
26-Mar-2003, 20:49
Am I the only one here who doesn't give a damn about any war or any country? :)
I only give a damn about myself. :lol:
So, for him to make a comment like that which he stated, coming from a person who's basically broken the law to do something which is morally and ethically wrong; ticks me off.
1) Get a clue about my opionions and what I've argued.
2) Get a clue about my so called "dodge".
3) Get a clue in general.
3 will be hard, but I'll help you with 1 and 2.
I am not the kind of guy that tries to escape form my duties and you're implying. And despite how much I've explained that you obviously fail to understand while claiming that you do so. I will fight for freedom, human rights and so on if neccesary. I've stated this over and over, but you are stuck on my opionion on drafting for military. The armed forces in just one way to fight a battle. A battle doesn't even need to armed. Unless I'm mistaken the UN human rights resolution gives everyone the right to choose their profession. I don't want to be a soldier, just as much as I don't want to be a firefighter or police. These are all people that are needed for a working society, but I just don't want the government to force a profession down my throut, even so for just a short period of time. People who want to be soldier may choose to be that, people who want be firefighters should be just that and so on. But I want to be a software developer working on graphics, and so shall I be. Would however my freedom or values be threatened, sure I would fight to ensure it remains. But that's not the same as fighting in the Swedish army.
On my so called dodge. I did not break any laws. In fact, the law explicitely states that I don't have to under my circumstances. To elaborate further, I grew up in a family of Jehovas Withnesses. While I'm not particularly religious anymore and not very active I'm still an official registered member of the congregation. The Swedish draft law has a special clause that excludes member of JW from having to do military service. Not too long ago it was extended to even exclude us from having to do the tests and assigning to military positions in event of war. My older brother had to do the test, but not me.
Why this special treatment of JW's? For two reasons, 1) 100% of the JW's have since day one refused to do the military service, 2) putting JW's into jail will not change their positions 3) JW's are to 100% productive, non-criminal and very society-friendly people. Our government has recogniced these facts, and given that putting JW's into jail is not going to change anything and will only be a burden on the taxpayers and given that this is very likely to be the only "criminal" act done by them ever in their lives it makes sense to just give in and exclude them from military service instead. To me, this is a small step in the right direction, and I feel very happy that I was granted the right I should have under the UN resolution of human rights. Would I have to fight for this right, then I would do so. My father have been in jail for this, and I would be willing to do the same if neccesary. What I would like, is that this right not be limited to JW's only, but to everyone.
As for why patriotism is counter-productive. It works like with religion. It creates a "we" and "them". While it may help within your special group, it creates conflicts outside. To me, I don't see why there should be a "we" and "them". I'm open to everyone, regardless of nationality, religion, race etc.
Patritism is for the weak-minded. People who can't figure out their opinons and values themself and need someone to guide them for doing so. My opinons and values are clearly distinct from those of our prime minister, or those of domestic media, or local mentality. I'm an independent individual. I don't need someone to tell me what to think. I wish you were as independent too.
demalion
27-Mar-2003, 00:09
Hey, I did ask you to reply to my first post, Vince. Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?
Reply to what, and I shall respond.
Is it the "my first post" or the "reply to" that is tripping you up? That's as polite as I can ask such a question about a statement so simple.
Or did you mistype something?
You keep implying that I have this "self worth" type complex, but yet, you're the one whose trying your best to talk down on me.
I'm not implying that you have a "self worth" type complex, I'm stating it. I quoted what you said that made me think so, and pointed out why. Of course, it isn't fallacious at all to avoid addressing that by accusing me of talking down to you, is it?
BTW genious,
You wouldn't be talking down to me, would you, and living up to your "proof by implication" attempt above? Did you get distracted between typing the above and this?
stop using "sophistry" as your implying that my argument is capable of being true,
Eh? I'm implying that your argument is capable of resembling truth...well, not to me, but that's besides the point. When I corrected your definition the first time, it would have been nice if you read it instead of making me correct the new one you made up.
in which case without you demonstrating how it's wrong or fallicious you're indirectly confirming that I'm de facto correct.
Heh, arguing that you aren't practicing sophistry, by practicing sophistry. Nice one.
Let's see, your statement resembles the structure of premise, support, and conclusion, but if I said "You say you exist, yet I've never seen you, therefore it is indirectly confirmed that you don't exist" that doesn't mean I'm making sense. Are you a Chimp at a keyboard? Artificial Intelligence plotting the downfall of humanity? Until I was willing to meet you myself (presuming I believed my eyes, or didn't think you were someone hired to pretend you were Vince), how would you go about proving me wrong by your criteria?
Hey, isn't sophistry fun? Maybe you should take kyleb up on his reading suggestions?
Ayep, I suspect because you pissed him off. I know your rants about patriotism piss me off.
It's ok, vent... tell us how you really feel. I got pissy because he arbitrarily injected me into this thread. You on the other hand seem to just have some problems.
I told you what my specific problems are...with you, and pages of text later you still seem intent on dodging around it.
No, you "had" to state something due to your own opinion of your self worth being greater than what you think he is entitled to. An opinion which I do not share. I'm not sure anyone else does, to tell you the truth, so it seems an unproductive feeling to allow to govern your actions.
I have an opinion about everything, in ever forum on this board.
Seems natural.
But, I don't post them, hardly the modus operandi of the person you portrey me to be.
Did you just say you don't post your opinions?
OK, first possibility is that you meant that statement exactly and are completely delusionial.
Second possibility is that you meant you don't post them all, in which case I direct you to the ones you do post.
The problem is, only the first possibility would refute what I said in even the smallest degree.
I hardly have this so called "self-worth" complex, but rather was putting his remarks into context in the same tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic/piercing way as he injected the first comment into this thread.
Oh, your draft dodging commentary were tongue in cheek? Is that why you defended them to me like this (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98023&#98023)
So, please... if you want to be Opera, do it to someone else.
"be Opera"? Hmm...well, our discussion is emotional, and though it doesn't seem all that dramatic to me a case could definitely be made. I'll accept that label from you, if you recognize that the post of yours I replied to set the tone. How about that?
So...you really didn't "have" to include the reply you did, did you? So the justification for it isn't a self-evident fact, but rests on something that might be disputed...which, in fact, I am taking the time to dispute.
I had to include the reply for the same reason he put me into this thread in the first place. If I'm this egotistical, "self-worth" dominated guy, why didn't I go off on someone like Pascal? Because he wasn't a blatent ass about it and I repect him and his views.
But, you did go off on someone like Pascal. (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48573&#48573) Is this an example of your "respect"?
What you stated was that you had to make a comment because you were pissed off, and that Humus didn't have the right to criticize you. What I take issue with is not the decision to comment, but the idea that you can throw around your evaluation of his right to criticize you under the blanket of worthiness-by-patriotism you seek to assign yourself. In fact, I seem to recall that I stated that the idea sort of disgusted me to the point of sickness. I understand you don't agree that is chauvanism, I just happen to think you haven't shown that belief to be valid, and have in fact demonstrated the opposite. Would be nice if we could have had a discussion about the text I provided, but you seem to have skipped around it for some reason.
Hey, feel like taking another gander at my first post (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98018&#98018)?.
Hardly the same for Humus and his views.
Yes, the way you "went off" on pascal is different in that post, though the underlying "put down" approach seems to be consistent. Nonetheless, it would seem your premise is incorrect.
Now, back to your patriotism comments.
Avoiding the draft is not necessarily treason, nor is protesting a war in progress treason, even if it is politically inconvenient. Though I'm sure politicians approve of such sentiments in times of war.
We can discuss whether it is legal or not (though Humus quite clearly stated his exemption is legal), or moral or not (though Humus has stated the moral impetus that would compel him to serve and in what capacity), but neither have to do with whether people can speak their mind about patriotism or war.
It strikes me that your regard of military service as being the only form of support and defense is a simplification resulting from not having served and having reflected on who and what in your country aided you in your ability to do so.
I certainly consider the politicians and policy makers to be the rightful focus of (verbal) wrath for disapproval of a war, and believe it or not, military personnel are capable of sharing that sentiment even when performing their duties.
Imagine that, someone going off to fight while sympathizing with the sentiments of peace protestors at home...miliatry personnel thinking the draft would be wrong but yet enlisting themselves to make sure a draft isn't necessary...
Where do you fit in all this, Vince?
Sort of complicates things a bit beyond "you won't submit to the draft, so you shouldn't be heard and should be deported", don't you think?
I know you claimed you were being sarcastic with your reply to my comment about complexity, but you've consistently failed to address such issues.
What makes you stand out to me, Vince, is that you fail to address issues while practicing your often-used, self-aggrandizing, put-down laden way of making a point, and are doing it under the self appointed banner of "patriotism".
Hey, I just repeated the sentiments of my first post! Maybe you'll reply now?
If you'd read his post again, I'd think you might recognize that it's possible that it isn't the issue of pride and coherency among people to which he is opposed, but the attitudes and posturing people like yourself turn it into with the excuse of geographical borders.
Geographical how? I make no distinction between any group or entity aslong as they share a common bond, a common goal, a common nucleus of support.
Then why do you continue to lambast Humus for stating he would defend ideals, but has no interest in defending borders? Do my comments about taking you at your word make sense to you yet?
This is one barrier between our understanding that results from the set of certainties you consider to be absolutely true: you don't think that the way you carry on fits his concerns at all. I, someone who would only hesitate to call myself a patriot due to the behavior of people who use the label as you do, do not think he would be wrong to think that way about you.
Care to explain to me, in anyway, how this has to deal with my paragraph detailing MY OPINION ("no doubt in my mind") on the effects of the 20th centuries conflicts and chauvinistic regimes?
Hmm? Look at the colon. Before it, I indicate there is a certainty on your part that is a barrier to communication. After it, I describe that certainty (that your promotion of national patriotism over personal morality doesn't fit his idea of how he should regard his nation). Then I end the sentence. Then I proceed to quote a description of chauvanism that fits such regimes, and your behavior, in my view.
Then you proceeded to confirm that, indeed, your certainty in that regard was a barrier, as you ask me to explain how what I had just stated related in any way to your paragraph.
Or are you going to stoop to such a level to chastise me for saying "no doubt in my mind" (as opposed to "No doubt") instead of IMHO? Get a hobby.
Or is it just that you didn't read the initial sentence very carefully?
Do I dare quote an excerpt from the definition of chauvinism?
Note: To have a generous belief in the greatness of one's country is not chauvinism. It is the character of the latter quality to be wildly extravagant, to be fretful and childish and silly, to resent a doubt as an insult, and to offend by its very frankness. --Prof. H. Tuttle.
Hmm.. wanted to see if this was part of a larger selection and google.com sent me to dictionary.com and hyperdictionary.com. (as well as a UofC pageon Tuttle:)) Which leads me to believe that while you were looking up the word, you passed up the obvious defintion (eg. the one people who use the word use it for) which is:
No, I didn't pass it up, I looked for a specific quotation that dealt specifically with chauvanism in the context being discussed.
"Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind"
Do you see group and kind in that general definition? I see group and kind in that general definition. Do you see how that precludes the applicability of my specific discussion? I don't see how that precludes the applicability of my specific discussion. But it sure was fun to explain something plainly stated again to you in lieu of actually discussing it.
I think you need to stop spinning the linguistics and start using some common sence as you just proved my point.
Really?
Tuttle was obviously distinguishing between Patriotism and Chauvinism - in defense of people such as Humus, who has lumped Patriotism in the group and has taken an anti-nationalistic PoV.
Hey, I guess there is hope that we are reading the same text. Didn't you catch that I would dispute Humus' attack on patriotism as well? The difference is simply that I view your behavior as chauvanism. I could have sworn I had just said that, but it is easy to lose track in all the run around.
If you were reading what I wrote, it [chauvinism] was being used to describe the rise of Nazism and Communism in the 20th century. A term that aptly describes them.
And aptly describes you, as I rather plainly stated.
Before you blow a gasket, an incomplete list of terms that aptly describe them (allocate as appropriate) that do not aptly describe you, AFAIK, are "genocidal", "racial supremacist", "german", "communist", "oppressive". I include the last because you aren't a government yet.
So have I, but we were talking about you. The nature of my disagreement with him would be that I don't think a patriot necessarily ends up behaving as I perceive you to.
Ohh, I see... we're talking about me now. So, is this some sort of witch-hunt or what?
Err...no. Perhaps if you go back and read the "colon" sentence explanation, you can see why. You did realize I'm quoting your text for a reason, right?
You've just agreed to the basis of my argument with Humus;
With the way I define patriotism perhaps, not the way you define patriotism for yourself by your own words here and elsewhere.
and the reason I brought up his draft-dodging nature when he threw the Patriotism charge at me.
See what I mean?
For some people patriotism means nationalism (and the dictionary supports them by listing it as a synonym).
For some people patriotism is not synonymous with nationalism (and the dictionary supports them as listing specific factors for nationalism that are distinctly emphasized).
Some people (they seem to multiply during war time, strangely enough) take it further than either, and consider personal beliefs they hold as additionaly necessary to qualify as patriotism as self evident parts of its definition, beliefs such as deporting people for not allowing "nationalistic identity" to absolutely overrule their morality, or that people whose idea of "national identity" doesn't meet their personal criteria don't have a right to voice their opinions. I think that in such cases, this last group fits the the concept of "chauvanism".
I think Humus may think (haven't discussed it with him yet) that patriotism is either the first or last, and cannot abide by it.
I think that you fit in the last, and that the beliefs you hold qualify your view as chauvanism (though you'd like to circumvent the text I put forth about it), and that it is natural for him to reject patriotism in a discussion with you because of it, for exactly the reasons you state.
In case you are curious, I'm in the second, though if I were serving, my actions would be more closely defined as following the first..
Does that clear up all the conflicts in your mind about my statements?
Because comming from someone such as himself who despises nationalistic identity, it's no wonder he'd say something like what he did.
I'd say something like what he did to you, and I think pascal would as well. Yet you maintain his view on nationalism and chauvanism is why his viewpoint is invalid.
I could have sworn I said something like this before...?
But, lets bitch at Vince... good times.
Let's complain and repeat ourselves instead...better times. ?
You seem to be geting a bit loose in your interpretation of his statement, I think, at the same time you are getting more definite in your condemnation of his viewpoint. That combination doesn't worry you?
Ok, se let me get this strait. When someone says that they're within the age in Sweden in which their government mandates all males (age 18 to like 40 for active with upto age 70 to take part in civil defense) to register, have a physical and then if picked to serve in their military under a conscription based policy. Which is fair and just as their government is more socialistic with amazing social welfare and public programs, but sans a standing military. Thus, in return for the benefits of their truely great social system, as cizens they must apply and if chosen protect their nation for a specified amount of time.
Lots of "musts" and "justs" you throw around.
But, yet, some choose to find grey areas and loop-holes which allow them to become exempt from the process untill something like 2040.
2049? BTW, we ever going to bother to consider that the government decided on the exemption, and might have had a reason in its self interest for doing so, and that the details of the exemption might have some bearing on whether it is valid to conclude...
Thus, they're marginalizing the very basis of their society and hurting the nation as a whole based on the selfish needs of one (while living off the social programs). Morally, I find this as perhaps one of the lowest acts that could be committed - as not only is he avoiding his responcibility, but he's stealing by not repaying the government lawfully under the contract of citizenship. And Beyond even that, because his spot isn't filled, some other Swede, with a family and loved ones must take that place.
Yep, your Opera label was quite apt. Hey, you think there might be the slightest chance that your representation might not quite be accurate? I mean, not knowing all the facts and all...
Nah, just me.
This isn't right.. So, not only is he going to commit such actions, he's going to take what he's done and flaunt it publically by talking in such a negative light about Patriotism - the very thing that another Swede is potentially serving in his space for.
We're talking about people living their lives. Which is why I've asked repeatedly for the details that seem to be required (to me, but maybe I'm just not sane) to make the broad reaching and absolute condemnations you are.
I might even think, ya know, you not being in charge of his life and all, it might, like, sorta, almost just maybe be that your opinion on the issue might not be the only valid one?
:lol: Vince, you keep wondering where the impression of your self importance comes from as you make it your point in life to judge and dismiss someone for something you haven't bothered to investigate. Fine to be curious and all, but you aren't even that, you're just interested in judging and don't even seem to be interested in what he's already stated.
...cuteness all around...
How could you say you'd have let it drop, when you repeat the same things I find fault with all over the place, and it was a continued demonstration of your doing exactly the opposite of "dropping it"? Didn't I make it clear that it was a sentiment and behavior I had long found repulsive? If you really were concerned about this being cyclical, why didn't you respond to my initial criticism directly?
(a) What criticism
I assume you are going backwards? In that case, the initial post I asked you to finish replying to.
(b) I would have dropped it as it was just a responce to his. I had no intention of posting here outside of that comment, as seen by the fact that I didn't post here prior to,
You would have dropped your constant practice of using put downs to handle disagreement, and your new twist of condemning Humus on the basis of your personal criteria for patriotism as discussed above?
(c) I'll post in responce to you, because you're so off the wall.
Guess not.
Hmm...ok, here is another barrier: you don't think you've demonstrated exactly that by the very post I'm replying to and the sentiments you expressed before it. I think it is pretty evident that is exactly what you are and have been doing.
Again, my post wasn't to show superiority, but rather a sarcastic responce to his prior statement dragging me in here... is this so hard to understand?
So you say, in yet another post rife with examples of you trying to argue based on the inferiority of the person you are speaking to.
Did I mention before that my problem is with your often demonstrated behavior? What, several times? Did I outline that I found your application of it to patriotism as something that necessitated my reply as well? Hmmm...
Just checking.
If it makes you feel better, I pondered typing, "Hey Humus, I love you too" But descided against as this was more substantive by showing his hypocracy and disdain for the very system that other citizens of his country will follow to defend this rights and family if necessary.
So you acknowledge you really didn't "have to" make your reply after all? Do you get tired of contradicting yourself?
Does the issue that what is "self evidently justified" being somewhat disputable beginning to impact on the barriers I listed?
It really is too bad that your demonstration of "patriotism" seems to me to be making it synonymous with "chauvanism".
Give me abreak, you didn't even know what "chauvanism" was a day ago.
Good to see you aren't trying to show superiority...and you aren't making up "facts" to suite you as you go along, either.
You sort of failed to show how my relation of the quoted discussion of chauvanism was invalid, though.
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Well, while that is definatly beyond my scope of understanding,
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
It's called sarcasm. You stated that it was "too complex for me," I agreed.
You may have intended sarcasm, because you thought I was attempting to demean your intelligence. It looked like plain truth to me, and still does. BTW, I don't happen to consider intelligence and understanding to be synonymous.
I presume you are proposing Humus did this to someone? I read your provided link, and I don't see it.
You are discussing a hypothetical draft, and since I don't view a draft as self-evidently right, I'd evaluate people on the actual actions they took in response to the actual need for them to serve. That would include Humus at such a time, and that would include you, as well.
Perhaps it is what I stated earlier being "beyond your scope of understanding" that would make this answer a surprise to you?
It's not a hypothetical draft if it's currently mandated by Sweden's legestalture.
You're right, I was discussing in the context of your example of "someone going and dying in his place", and I should have said "hypothetical situation".
It's called law - so by your above remarks ("self-evidently right"), I take it that you don't consider laws to be "right" or necessarily followed?
Err...Law's are not self evidently right. It would be a trivial exercise to discuss what has been legislated at laws, and are laws in various countries around the world, that illustrate this. Only in your insistence that national mandate is self evidently right is that not obvious, and it continues to amaze me how you dispute my label of chauvanism.
As for "necessarily followed", maybe you could read my text replying to your definition of crime again? Ya know, where I ask you to show where he shows he is breaking the law?
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/04/19/p17s1.htm
Interesting ideology concerning the value of government and legeslature. Should I consider this another case of ignorance or are you an anarchist?
You do like to simplify when it is in your favor to do so, don't you? So...when are you due to report to boot camp?
I don't get this logical construct of "sending someone in his place". Was everyone eligible drafted, or not? If not everyone eligible was drafted, did the government have criteria for preventing some from being eligible? If that is the case, where did Humus say that the lucky factor he mentioned was illegal instead of one of these criteria?
Whoa... did you even read what he wrote and his underlying ideologies? I can atleast respect him for doing what he believes....
Is the illegality of his exemption another one of those "self evident" things? You'll have to point out to me where he said he is violating law.
The immorality? He seems to be stating his morality pretty clearly.
Though it does seem legality and morality are equivalent to you in your statements.
You on the other hand are on an attempted witch-hunt and are totally irrataional. But, to each his own... if you really get off on this...
You do seem to be on the sexual innuendo kick, don't you?
My question to you now is, did you even ask these questions before you passed your judgement?
I listened to him over the course of several threads and picked-up on his ideology. What more is there to say? I asked several questions - he repsonded.
I notice you didn't say you asked him about the questions I specified. It might be enlightening to list the questions you asked and the statements that went with them.
Revolutionary concept? I know, it doesn't simplify things to equivalency to a sufficient degree to make you happy, so how about this:
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
I skipped this because it's irrelevent if you comprehended what I followed it up with. Your really don't pick-up on much, huh?
No, it was not irrelevant, because the sentiment precluded you answering the actual question I asked, which was part of what was in bold, not the part you quoted and answered. The question that was specified was the validity of making such silly simplifications, then you went ahead and answered the simplficiation I made and ignored the question about validity as it pertains to yourself.
Perhaps if you'd pause in your put down hurling, you could pick up on some of the statements I'm making. The bolding of the text could have helped you out if you hadn't made up your mind beforehand that a put down was in order. Seems to be a frequent occurrence. Oh...hey, didn't I mention that a few times?
Doing so allowed you to skip over that I was proposing that it was the type of simplification you were proposing for dismissing his viewpoint, and spend a LARGE swathe of text arguing about it in isolation instead. An accident?
The "isolated incident" is the centre of this argument
I didn't say "isolated incident"...concentrating too hard on put downs again? I said you spent your time arguing against the simplified statement in "isolation". Which is exactly what you did do, to facilitate avoiding the issue I raised. Hey, but let's skip the central issue again, and cause me to repeat myself.
The draft is self-evident as it's the LAW - and the law is self-evident in Westernized democracies.
I didn't dispute the definition of the law in your argument, I disputed that he was breaking the law. I didn't dispute the definition of morality, I disputed that he didn't fit it, and that your portrayal of the moral situation was accurate.
Thus, as I showed in that "large swathe of text" - he broke the law, and if not the actual legeslative type due to a grey area, then he broke a moral and ethical boundry which is just as bad.
No, you didn't show that. I already discussed why before, and repeated it again. Doesn't help when you simply ignore what I say, though. Hey, did I mention I have a problem with your posts?
So, in reductionist terms, we have a guy whose taken the draft - which is a duty - commanded by law - and not followed it - thus, resulting in a crime. Which if not legally, is morally wrong.
By your own definition of "law" and "duty" he is not committing a crime. Or did I misread? I read that he was exempted, I'd assume by law since draft laws tend to specify things like exemptions. Sort of makes the morality of it a bit more complex to consider, and consisting of things beyond your predetermination to condemn him for disagreeing with and criticizing you, it seems to me.
Ohh my!! Not only did I clearly state "Which if not legally, is morally wrong" which you even reiterated (proving it's a "crime" on some level as I defined it),
Your definition of crime did not contain "if not legally, is morally wrong", your conclusion did. I said your definition of law and crime did not apply, and repeated yet again that your moral interpretation was without justification.
but I further stated many times that I'm not pre-determined to condemn because he disagrees - but that my virtues and morals don't allow me to repect his actions and ideologies which lead to this action as he's stated many a times over many threads on many topics.
Your view of your virtues and morals is that they are indisputably right. Every time I say they are not, you completely misunderstand. Perhaps you could go back to our discussion about chauvanism above, and review it?
Lets stop trying to find fault with Vince just because you don't like me...
Obviously, I couldn't actually have a valid reason to find fault, right?
Have you discussed the exemption in question with him somewhere that I missed? It is good form to atleast have a some idea of the real factors behind what you are discussing when you try to impose your own definition of morality on others, isn't it?
Exactly, how do you know in what medium we've discussed anything over the past 3-odd years we've been here?
I don't...so I was asking if there was a discussion besides the one already linked that would validate your assertions.
Do you get a kick out of making me explain simple questions?
Where do you get off critizing me based on your position of a distant 3rd party with a hard-on for me?
It seems to me that you are saying I am not entitled to criticize you, because I'm a third party. I wasn't aware this was a Humus-Vince forum, so perhaps you'll excuse me for my mistake?
Again, your position is worse than the one you've proported I have. You state I'm ignorant of him and his ideology that I've found in OUR discussion - but yet, you criticize me based on my understanding of Humus? Who the hell are you and why does your ideology or thoughts or feelings in this debate superceed mine?
Here is an example of saying my thoughts and feelings supercede yours: "You are wrong and I am right, because you aren't entitled to speak".
Here is your statement. (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98000&#98000)
Here is my reply. (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98018&#98018) Please note what I criticize, and what I do not.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which fits your assertion. Psst: scroll up the page to where Vince says "Where do you get off critizing me based on your position of a distant 3rd party with a hard-on for me?"
You tell me I'm trying to make him approve of my ideology, but yet, your the one doing that very same thing to me? Way to be the same creation you think I am.
Pardon? When did I say "you didn't enlist, therefore get back to me on opening your mouth when you have"? I thought I was actually taking time to reply to your assertions and point out what is wrong with your statements?
Oh, wait, that text you omitted that didn't matter at all! When you drop that, it does seem I did say that, doesn't it? Strange, that.
I'm bored with this.... When you've finally gotten some sleep and allowed your neural networks to become a bit more balanced in your subconscious and conscious thoughts about me - maybe I'll come back.
In the mean time, thanks for the enlightening talk. If only you weren't so similar underneath it all.
Hey, nice to see you aren't trying to put anyone down. Hey, anyone else remember this:
You keep implying that I have this "self worth" type complex, but yet, you're the one whose trying your best to talk down on me.
PS. Hey Humus, aren't you a draft dodger?
You mean, kinda like Dubya Bush?
Did you serve?
Heathen
27-Mar-2003, 06:57
Patritism is for the weak-minded
Patriotism is for people who believe in their country. It does not make them weak minded any more believing in a nonexististent being (God) makes you weak minded (Whatever I think personally about them).
epicstruggle
27-Mar-2003, 09:37
Patritism is for the weak-minded
Patriotism is for people who believe in their country. It does not make them weak minded any more believing in a nonexististent being (God) makes you weak minded (Whatever I think personally about them). :roll:
Sigh, first if you dont believe in God, shouldnt you fight for everyones chance to live a free life harder, since this is the only chance they have at it? Im a hindu, but I believe my religion has many things in common with other religions. I think my faith is part of the reason that I am more chariatable. I would imagine that those who are religious are also more chariatable than those who are not. Does that make us weak mindended. I guess you would think so Heathen.
On another note about being a soldier (serving your country during war). You do not have to carry a gun or work for the military to help your government, during times of war, you can help by being a helpful contributor to that society.
Please remember that its the lonely soldier that helps keep your rights yours. Sometimes we forget that its the soldier that bleeds/dies so others may live a certain way (whatever way that is). If the good citizen does not fight for good, evil wins.
later,
Heathen
27-Mar-2003, 18:36
Epic, you misunderstand the point I'm trying to get across, however before you start hurlinig anymore accusations at me please ask yourself what assumptions do you make about life.
Why anybody in Germany would drink Budweiser is completely beyond me.
Because the Budweiser in Germany is the Budweiser from Budwar, Chechoslovakia, and not the Budweiser from the USA :)
To add something to this discussion:
It may be true that there are resntiments against German goods or French wine in the States.
It is also true that the peace demonstrants in Germany hand out flyers with lists of USA based products we shouldn't buy anymore.
It's also true that many of these products are made in the EU under the licence of the original home company and not imported from the States.
Last but not least it's even more true that very few people consider to buy USA based products (American cars for example - why one would buy an American car in Germany will always be beyond me in this case).
But another thing is very true:
The Arabic world is reconsidering their contracts with US/UK based companies large scale and shift to German or French companies.
In the last months business with the Arabic world became much more fluid than before.
The customers I have from the UAE are much more willing to talk lately.
Basically it appears to be a shift around where in the end nobody really get's hurt.
BTW - did you know that the financial interconnection between Germany and the US is the largest worldwide?
Almost 70 billion of US money is invested in Germany and on the other hand almost 250 billion of German money is invested in the US?
These ties can't get cut that fast - neither by boycotting US products in Germany nor by doing the same with German goods in the US.
If some restaurants in the US don't sell German Beer or French Wine anymore -fine! Why not?
If German restaurants don't sell Coca Cola (but Afri Cola instead - they have the nicer bottles anyway since the 70's) and Marlboro's anymore - fine! Why not?
Both of these very minor actions are more for publicity reasons than for ideology.
But that's only my uneducated opinion - feel free to ignore me.
War or not, I think that world could be "in better hands" nowadays.
Himself
27-Mar-2003, 21:06
I think some of you guys get paid by the word. :)
think some of you guys get paid by the word
Tell me 'bout it. That this guy has such a "hard-on" for me that he'd type out page replies. Oh well, this will end soon.
On Demalion:
Here's how it's going to be. You've stated on multiple occasion that I'm a Sophist and have accused me of using Sophistry in my replies, as well as being cyclical.
Thus, by your own confession:
(a) I have an argument which is plausable
(b) I have a consistent argument
This, means that:
(a) My argument is plausible untill you can show that it's not: Which due to the very nature of the internet and the degrees of freedom between us is impossible in a tangible aspect.
(b) You have yet to make a comment which have necessitated that I deviate from this cyclical argument - which means that you're not showing or proving anything. Thus, by your own confession of "Sophistry," it's a plausible scenario in which no fallicies have been proven.
Your wasting my time. Get a life. This is pointless - I mean read what your writing.
BTW genious,
You wouldn't be talking down to me, would you, and living up to your "proof by implication" attempt above? Did you get distracted between typing the above and this?
See, I mean look at how hard your trying to nail me on something. You're making yourself look like a desperate man with a grudge or worse. Lets put this comment into context, shall we?
You had previously stated this:
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you... enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it. - demenion, pg 1
Thus, we've established that simplistic ideas contained within your pretty basic sentance structure are "too complex for me." You then went on to state:
Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?
So, to that sarcastic comment I responded:
BTW genious, stop using "sophistry" as your implying that my argument is capable of being true, in which case without you demonstrating how it's wrong or fallicious you're indirectly confirming that I'm de facto correct.
I stated genious as, on page one we established that you are - in fact - superior (in ways that are incoherient to me) in utilizing linguistics to protrey a line of argument.
Thus, I was informing the one whose comments are " too complex for you [vince]" that his useage of that words actually states that not only is what I'm saying Plausible, but in the absence of contradictory proof - correct.
Now, how does that look in full? You try too hard to be mean and put me down...
I'm not implying that you have a "self worth" type complex, I'm stating it. I quoted what you said that made me think so, and pointed out why. Of course, it isn't fallacious at all to avoid addressing that by accusing me of talking down to you, is it?
Again, cute - especially considering we're talking over the internet.
I'm still a bit fuzzy on what exactly "made you think so," is it:
No misleading "reasoning" there, I take it? To me it looks like you are saying he can't criticize you because of this illegal activity you seem to go through a great deal of trouble to construct.
Which isn't what I'm stating. I've said several times that I added that comment, which was in responce to his arbitrary entry on my name into this conversation to infuriate me (which alone I don't mind) Actually, I stated this on page 1 as seen here:
And aslong as he can take shots at me, I can point out the hypocricy in the shots directed at me. (Which he admits to)
Which is all I was doing. I didn't say that he can't make a statement against me, nor did I say he was lesser or an idiot, or that he can't talk good or pee in the toilot without hitting the seat - all I said is that his anti-Patriotism/Anti-Vince comment should be put in context with his past actions (Which I'll address later on [very bottom] in the post, so don't worry yourself too much)
Heh, arguing that you aren't practicing sophistry, by practicing sophistry. Nice one.
Let's see, your statement resembles the structure of premise, support, and conclusion, but if I said "You say you exist, yet I've never seen you, therefore it is indirectly confirmed that you don't exist" that doesn't mean I'm making sense. Are you a Chimp at a keyboard? Artificial Intelligence plotting the downfall of humanity? Until I was willing to meet you myself (presuming I believed my eyes, or didn't think you were someone hired to pretend you were Vince), how would you go about proving me wrong by your criteria?
Wow... you need help. If you insist on taking a philisophical approach to this Sophistry debate - then I can assure you that I will end this debate as the realm of plausibility has ended and your intent to discredit me and find discontinuality in my arguments has reached new low. For someone whose stated that my ability to comprehend information is so weak, you've definatly proven to be... not strong... on this topic.
Infact, according to your line of reasoning which is a parrallel to this pseudo-18th century philisopical ideology that all of life is a dream with no tangible basis outside of the conscious mind of the beholder.
What your saying is basically, That although my argument does, infact, "resemble a premise, support, and conclusion" - you could never say that my argument isn't true and correct.
You've turned this and put the burden of proof on me, to prove that I'm correct - but this isn't how it works. You, as the one whose taken objection to my stated opinions and stated that there "Sophist" in nature must prove that although they are plausible, they are wrong for this or that fallacy or wronghood.
Now, the really cool part (where you really killed yourself) is that you've stated that you, just like the 18th century philosophers, can never prove that the comment is correct. For who knows - as you stated? I mean, I (aswell as the whole world) could be nothing more than a manifestation of your single onsciousness. It would be impossble to physically disprove this - just as it would be physically impossible to prove that my argument is false.
Thus, you can either:
(a) Assume it's correct (as evidence can't say it's not and anything CAN be, untill proven why it can't.)
(b) Assume that it doesn't matter (in which case your whole argument falls apart as my comments are correct - atleast for me at the min.)
Hey, isn't sophistry fun? Maybe you should take kyleb up on his reading suggestions?
I love Kyle, I'd much rather chat with him. He's literate, understands what I'm saying, and is well versed in interdisciplinary topics - was just chatting with him in the thread on Time Travel.
PS. Kyle, I'm not much into Philosophy lately, but I read "On Non-Being" when I was younger and I don't how I'm such a Sophist. I'm not aruing just for the sake of argument (as some others here are), I provide justification and background (eg. As in Humus's case), and my ideologies are part of a central core, they subscribe to an underlying train of thought which has held consistent.
Unless you think I can argue and "turn" arguments as well as say.. Protagoras.. or maybe even Gorgias.. but, I'm hardly that good, nah... Thats more like Joe DeFuria. :)
As for his comment:
oh, and Vince, sophistry does not require any fallacy aside from the conclusion. one can construct a sophistical argument based entirely on fact. Gorgias' essay "On Non-Being" is a wonderful example which i highly recommend you look into if the subject interests you. also, ya the "b" is for my last name, why do you ask?
My conclusion isn't a fallacy as it's my belief and it supportable. Humus, in his last post, has stated that he was exempt due to him being a JW. This is fine and I support (as stated as recently as the top of page3) that anyone who has a theocratic, moral, ethical problem with active service shouldn't have to fight. It's just plain wrong, and I'd never subject someone to that:
Yet! My objection comes from the specific Swedish law and the way it's done as it's ingeniously clever:
As I stated a few pages back, in Sweden, they have one hell of a government run social welfare program that it's citizens are the reciepients of. In order to do this (in the classical abstract image of "Guns vs. Butter"), the Swedes must each serve or be allowed to have a physical and in the event of a military build-up they shall serve.
Now, here's the cool part. You don't have to be an active member of the army, but can take part in civil service thats concurrent to the military - or as in the US take non-combat roles in the military. Each of these are viable and great acts that allow you to be supportive of the government that provides such benefit to it's citizens.
I mean, in the horrible case that Sweden must raise an military for defensive needs; why can't he have taken the Physical on the condition that he will serve in the civil defense or non-combat roles?
I'd atleast (and I don't mean this negativly) expect that his religious condition (especially as he self admits to not activly practice, but is "labeled as") it would restrict him from physical action in a manner similar to a 70 year old - who can be conscipted in Civil Service during times as seen below:
In Sweden, for example, all men between the ages of 19 and 47 are eligible to be drafted into military service. Moreover, Swedes up to the age of 70 can be conscripted for civil defense work.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/louv/20030112-9999_1e12louv.html
The following shows the conscription ages and duration per EU country. Rather, the 'Alternative Service' should be taken note ofhttp://skopiestelos.freepage.gr/english/eu.html
I mean, is that really too much to ask? Be serious, the country does this for a reason. And I truely believe if a 70 year old can civil serve - then Humus can aswell to support his country in the remote chance of a threat to Sweden that necessitates a build-up - I mean, he's removed himself from the entire loop and then talks down upon those in the loop who will protect his nation. I can't help but feel thats wrong and that he's side-stepping his responcibility (eg. that the 70 year olds can do though) and is almost spitting on those who don't have loop-holes to hide from and play the game strait. But, perhaps you feel diffrent - and I won't say thats wrong, I just disagree immensly.
Ok, I'm tired of this... I've said what needs to be said. If you want to bitch about me not writing 20,000 words - then F* it. You don't like me anyways and I could really care less. Enjoy your venomous hate of me.. I hope it really hurts.
demalion
28-Mar-2003, 11:34
think some of you guys get paid by the word
Tell me 'bout it. That this guy has such a "hard-on" for me that he'd type out page replies. Oh well, this will end soon.
Oh, that served a purpose other than a put down, of course.
On Demalion:
Here's how it's going to be. You've stated on multiple occasion that I'm a Sophist and have accused me of using Sophistry in my replies, as well as being cyclical.
Thus, by your own confession:
(a) I have an argument which is plausable
(b) I have a consistent argument
OK, I thought we had quoted a definition of sophistry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry), but apparently some one did not choose to read it.
Let's start with an excerpt close to what you are trying to distort:
"A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument."
Hey....hmm...plausible must mean your argument is consistent! I mean, that's what you keep saying, right?
plausible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plausible): " 1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible. 2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability."
Hmm...oh wait, it doesn't. But maybe if you de-emphasize "Seemingly" strongly enough, or ignore every time I mention "resemblence", you can, just maybe, pretend it does.
Hey, let's look at some other actual excerpts from the discussion on "sophistry"...not that I haven't mentioned them before, but your sidestepping to hide behind "plausible" seems to be trying to pretend they don't exist.:
"Using specious arguments or discourse." Obviously, specious (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=specious) (" Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious") means an argument is valid?
"The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only."
"a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"
Oh, yeah, my establishing your argument is sophistry sure does seem to mean I am proposing your argument is valid, doesn't it?
What a strong foundation to build a post on, Vince.
This, means that:
(a) My argument is plausible untill you can show that it's not: Which due to the very nature of the internet and the degrees of freedom between us is impossible in a tangible aspect.
I'm not trying to show that it isn't plausible, I am trying to show how it is plausible but is not valid. Which I did a few times, actually. Your counter is that "plausible" means "valid", and that therefore I can't disprove that since we are on the internet.
I think I've demonstrated your counter to be invalid as well. That doesn't mean you have to recognize it, and in fact your words establish that you have every intention of avoiding doing so.
(b) You have yet to make a comment which have necessitated that I deviate from this cyclical argument - which means that you're not showing or proving anything. Thus, by your own confession of "Sophistry," it's a plausible scenario in which no fallicies have been proven.
You're a chimp at a keyboard, Vince. Prove me wrong?
Hey, I can I have fun with sophistry too, you know.
Your wasting my time. Get a life. This is pointless - I mean read what your writing.
:shock: Perhaps you should follow your own advice?
BTW genious,
You wouldn't be talking down to me, would you, and living up to your "proof by implication" attempt above? Did you get distracted between typing the above and this?
See, I mean look at how hard your trying to nail me on something. You're making yourself look like a desperate man with a grudge or worse. Lets put this comment into context, shall we?
Since I'm the one looking desperate, sure, let's take a gander at your context establishment.
You had previously stated this:
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you... enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it. - demenion, pg 1
Ignoring the name mangling, this does seem to be a true representation of that one sentence in the post.
Thus, we've established that simplistic ideas contained within your pretty basic sentance structure are "too complex for me."
No, I wasn't discussing sentence structure, I was discussing the concept that someone might enlist and not feel others should be drafted. I later said you still failed to grasp that, and you seem to be intent on proving me correct while adamantly stating that I am not.
But your statements still resemble a logical sequence.
You then went on to state:
Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?
No, I went on to state: "Hey, I did ask you to reply to my first post, Vince. Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?" Would you have me believe that the first part of text was not excluded deliberately?
The question refers to you replying to the full text of my first post besides quoting one sentence and simply saying "This sentence is the only valid thing you said.", something which indeed has not happened. It seems rather obvious that it refers to this, because I said "first post" and "reply to" in a sentence structure that lends itself to that meaning...something I pointed out before in a section of my text that you, for some reason, also did not reply to.
Your statements do still resemble a logical progression, though it seems rather evident that the resemblence is superficial.
So, to that sarcastic comment I responded:
BTW genious, stop using "sophistry" as your implying that my argument is capable of being true, in which case without you demonstrating how it's wrong or fallicious you're indirectly confirming that I'm de facto correct.
Yes, you did respond that way at some point, but no, I wasn't being sarcastic in that statement. Your response that you are quoting was in reply to me using the word sophistr, not anything else. Since you are disagreeing with me, your use of "genious" seems to be sarcastic, and intended as a put down. Your "line of reasoning" doesn't seem to do anything at all to address that, though its structure does resemble something that does.
In case anyone has forgotten the discussion of sophistry from above, let me refresh your memory: "The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only."
I stated genious as, on page one we established that you are - in fact - superior (in ways that are incoherient to me) in utilizing linguistics to protrey a line of argument.
Either you aren't putting me down, and are being serious in that you recognize the deficiency in your argument, or you are putting me down and just think that display of "reasoning" above did something to hide that.
Since you just spent a lot of text defending the validity of your comments, it seems to me the first possibility is precluded, but my reply above addresses either possibility.
Thus, I was informing the one whose comments are " too complex for you [vince]" that his useage of that words actually states that not only is what I'm saying Plausible, but in the absence of contradictory proof - correct.
Was the purpose of your post to make sense? I must inform you that you seem to have failed.
Now, how does that look in full?
Hmm...do you intend to bait me with opportunities for one liners, or is it unintentional?
You try too hard to be mean and put me down...
The most credit (in terms of thinking, not honesty) I can give you is that you are intending to bait me by making statements as blatantly nonsensical as the above, to draw attention away from your own put downs by inducing me to describe how nonsensical your statements are. It seems to me that you could then quote those descriptions by me, without your own text that inspired them included, and then make a case that I was "putting you down".
Perhaps that is too convoluted, but since I do in fact think you are intelligent, the question I'm trying to answer in the face of your statements is what you are using it for when you are making them. You might think I am being sarcastic about your intelligence, instead of simply meaning what I am stating, but what I am disparaging is your honesty, not your intelligence. I think the above discussion clearly illustrates why, though there is nothing stopping you from ignoring such support again.
I'm not implying that you have a "self worth" type complex, I'm stating it. I quoted what you said that made me think so, and pointed out why. Of course, it isn't fallacious at all to avoid addressing that by accusing me of talking down to you, is it?
Again, cute - especially considering we're talking over the internet.
You argument was made on the internet, and I addressed it on the internet. Words and stuff can be good for things like that...you know, "communication".
I'm still a bit fuzzy on what exactly "made you think so,"
When I quoted your first reply, and said I took issue with it, that might have been a clue. When I answered you the last few times you asked, and quoted you again, perhaps you could have decided to read it.
When I said:
:lol: Vince, you keep wondering where the impression of your self importance comes from as you make it your point in life to judge and dismiss someone for something you haven't bothered to investigate. Fine to be curious and all, but you aren't even that, you're just interested in judging and don't even seem to be interested in what he's already stated.
after a sequence of statements, perhaps it could have provided some indication to have read the statements?
is it:
No misleading "reasoning" there, I take it? To me it looks like you are saying he can't criticize you because of this illegal activity you seem to go through a great deal of trouble to construct.
No, it was the text I was describing in that way:
Hey Humus, aren't you a draft dodger? Why does it not surprise me that a person such as yourself who talks of lofty ideals like "all lives are equal" yet has sent another citizen to potentially die while you hide behind legalities would make that type of comment.
All in perspective, eh? I'm sure you country is just as proud of you.
Which isn't what I'm stating. I've said several times that I added that comment, which was in responce to his arbitrary entry on my name into this conversation to infuriate me (which alone I don't mind) Actually, I stated this on page 1 as seen here:
And aslong as he can take shots at me, I can point out the hypocricy in the shots directed at me. (Which he admits to)
What hypocrisy? You consider him a hypocrite for believing differently than you about whether a national mandate should override his personal moral code, and then making a critical statement about how you interpret patriotism in the context of the discussion. The only way that makes sense is if you believe his beliefs preclude him from holding an opinion on patriotism that is critical of yours, as otherwise it seems pretty clear to be consistent with his moral stance, and not hypocrisy at all.
You continue to try to state that is not what you are doing by just repeating that he is being hypocritical, as if that label is something self-evident. A consistent theme I've covered at length before, and you've decided not to address.
Your entire viewpoint seems to hinge on refuting that your viewpoint can be invalid...look at your sophistry argument at the beginning.
Which is all I was doing. I didn't say that he can't make a statement against me,
No, you just attempted to dismiss his statement by calling him a draft dodger.
nor did I say he was lesser
I must have misunderstood "Seriously, don't you feel like a scumbag?" and the context in which your brought up "draft dodger", though I continue to provide examples that lead me to believe that I'm not.
or an idiot, or that he can't talk good or pee in the toilot without hitting the seat -
Nor did I claim you did, but including such obvious statements does allow your statement to resemble a supported argument.
all I said is that his anti-Patriotism/Anti-Vince comment should be put in context with his past actions
No, that's not all you said. You also said that he was a hypocrite for offering an opinion on patriotism because his opinion of "patriotism" as you display it is a negative one.
(Which I'll address later on [very bottom] in the post, so don't worry yourself too much)
OK, I'll see I guess.
Heh, arguing that you aren't practicing sophistry, by practicing sophistry. Nice one.
Let's see, your statement resembles the structure of premise, support, and conclusion, but if I said "You say you exist, yet I've never seen you, therefore it is indirectly confirmed that you don't exist" that doesn't mean I'm making sense. Are you a Chimp at a keyboard? Artificial Intelligence plotting the downfall of humanity? Until I was willing to meet you myself (presuming I believed my eyes, or didn't think you were someone hired to pretend you were Vince), how would you go about proving me wrong by your criteria?
Wow... you need help. If you insist on taking a philisophical approach to this Sophistry debate - then I can assure you that I will end this debate as the realm of plausibility has ended and your intent to discredit me and find discontinuality in my arguments has reached new low. For someone whose stated that my ability to comprehend information is so weak, you've definatly proven to be... not strong... on this topic.
OK, I've read that sequence a few times, and what I see is a bunch of put downs that make an assertion about my "worthiness", and attempt to provide validity for the assertions by the simple expedient of repetition.
Sort of a familiar theme for your arguments, which is why your entire post depends on the rather amazing denial of the applicability of "plausible" and "sophistry" at the beginning.
Infact, according to your line of reasoning which is a parrallel to this pseudo-18th century philisopical ideology that all of life is a dream with no tangible basis outside of the conscious mind of the beholder.
Actually, I was demonstrating an example of your reasoning, and your commentary about "no tangible basis outside of the conscious mind of the beholder" is in actuality describing the flaws in your own support that I am addressing.
Treating it as something I was actually proposing as valid allows you to, again, avoid actually showing that it was invalid and reflects your assertions.
What your saying is basically, That although my argument does, infact, "resemble a premise, support, and conclusion" - you could never say that my argument isn't true and correct.
No, I can say it, and I can provide a coherent support for that statement, but a sophist, such as yourself, need never believe it.
You've turned this and put the burden of proof on me, to prove that I'm correct - but this isn't how it works.
You could just dispute my description of sophistry, as you try to do above. You've just failed to do that, and wedded yourself to proposing something that is insupportable in an attempt to do so.
You, as the one whose taken objection to my stated opinions and stated that there "Sophist" in nature must prove that although they are plausible, they are wrong for this or that fallacy or wronghood.
Which I've done repeatedly, and continue to do. Your reply is simply to repeatedly deny that I have, and ignore the support I've given. It seems pretty clearly stated in my posts, and I think you look extremely foolish in your attempts to say otherwise. For example, by saying that I haven't shown your comments are sophistry by maintaining that "plausible" means "valid and true".
Now, the really cool part (where you really killed yourself) is that you've stated that you, just like the 18th century philosophers, can never prove that the comment is correct.
No, I said that a sophist need never recognize that comment is correct. If your assertion that I was proposing that was a valid argument were true, your argument makes sense. But, I've demonstrated it isn't...though it doesn't stop you from ignoring when I demonstrate that.
I ask you to keep quoting it in its entirety and propose that. I'm not saying you can't, as you just did that in this post I'm replying to, but I am saying that it serves to illustrate my assertion of sophistry, and I'm happy to have someone assisting me in doing so. People who read you doing so are free to agree with me or not as they see fit.
For who knows - as you stated? I mean, I (aswell as the whole world) could be nothing more than a manifestation of your single onsciousness. It would be impossble to physically disprove this - just as it would be physically impossible to prove that my argument is false.
See, when you spend a lot of text saying something is foolish, and you finish by saying that same something is just like what you are doing, you aren't actually helping prove your case. Just a helpful hint.
Thus, you can either:
(a) Assume it's correct (as evidence can't say it's not and anything CAN be, untill proven why it can't.)
(b) Assume that it doesn't matter (in which case your whole argument falls apart as my comments are correct - atleast for me at the min.)
Ok, thank you for establishing support for my assertion of sophistry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry) for me. You are saving me quite a bit of effort.
Hey, isn't sophistry fun? Maybe you should take kyleb up on his reading suggestions?
I love Kyle, I'd much rather chat with him. He's literate, understands what I'm saying, and is well versed in interdisciplinary topics - was just chatting with him in the thread on Time Travel.
And, of course, because you didn't say "demalion, you are illiterate, don't understand what I'm saying, and aren't well versed", I can't "prove" that is what you are intending to communicate.
I'll let you literate and well versed people talk amongst yourselves and leave your note to Kyle unaddressed.
As for his comment:
oh, and Vince, sophistry does not require any fallacy aside from the conclusion. one can construct a sophistical argument based entirely on fact. Gorgias' essay "On Non-Being" is a wonderful example which i highly recommend you look into if the subject interests you. also, ya the "b" is for my last name, why do you ask?
My conclusion isn't a fallacy as it's my belief and it supportable.
I tend to think we've rather thoroughly established otherwise. But there is nothing requiring you to recognize that as being valid.
Humus, in his last post, has stated that he was exempt due to him being a JW. This is fine and I support (as stated as recently as the top of page3) that anyone who has a theocratic, moral, ethical problem with active service shouldn't have to fight. It's just plain wrong, and I'd never subject someone to that:
Yet! My objection comes from the specific Swedish law and the way it's done as it's ingeniously clever:
As I stated a few pages back, in Sweden, they have one hell of a government run social welfare program that it's citizens are the reciepients of. In order to do this (in the classical abstract image of "Guns vs. Butter"), the Swedes must each serve or be allowed to have a physical and in the event of a military build-up they shall serve.
Now, here's the cool part. You don't have to be an active member of the army, but can take part in civil service thats concurrent to the military - or as in the US take non-combat roles in the military. Each of these are viable and great acts that allow you to be supportive of the government that provides such benefit to it's citizens.
And his moral objection is not to serving in such a capacity, but being called to serve in such a way in defense of an action to which he is morally opposed. Which is why I asked if you'd actually read what he said, and continue to wonder.
You know, it was you who brought up Nazis, Vince. Do you perhaps recognize the striking similarity of what you propose is the only right way to act, and the actions of Germans at the time? You continually ignore any concern being valid except his "self evident duty to his nation", and have proposed things like "laws are self-evidently right" to do so. You already said you consider this the reason Humus reacts to your description of patriotism the way he does...what is disturbing to me is that you don't react that way yourself.
Is this why you stopped addressing my commentary on "chauvanism"?
I mean, in the horrible case that Sweden must raise an military for defensive needs; why can't he have taken the Physical on the condition that he will serve in the civil defense or non-combat roles?
I'd guess because his moral code includes taking oaths and obligations seriously, and his government decided to give recognition to the demonstration that it dictates giving up the liberties you keep bringing up rather than violating that morality.
I thought the government was never wrong, Vince?
You seem to have dropped your "law" and "crime" arguments as well, though you still seem to be doggedly pursuing "immorality" in the face of rather clear evidence to the contrary.
I'd atleast (and I don't mean this negativly) expect that his religious condition (especially as he self admits to not activly practice, but is "labeled as") it would restrict him from physical action in a manner similar to a 70 year old - who can be conscipted in Civil Service during times as seen below:
In Sweden, for example, all men between the ages of 19 and 47 are eligible to be drafted into military service. Moreover, Swedes up to the age of 70 can be conscripted for civil defense work.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/louv/20030112-9999_1e12louv.html
Hmm...so, because that law says someone up to 70 can be conscripted, you are trying to say that his "religious condition" makes him as "feeble" as a 70 year old. Since you quoted something factual (to my knowledge), obviously your point is proven. Though, it seems you didn't clarify the text of his exemption.
The following shows the conscription ages and duration per EU country. Rather, the [i]'Alternative Service' should be taken note ofhttp://skopiestelos.freepage.gr/english/eu.html
Hmm...so, because you show the ages for conscription and conditions of service established elsewhere, you are "proving" that he is morally deficient by ignoring what he stated of his morality. Not sophistry at all.
I mean, is that really too much to ask? Be serious, the country does this for a reason.
What, the country does his exemption for a reason? Oh, no, that would make your argument look silly. You mean the country does the things you quoted to try and distract from the issue of the exemption and his moral stance, right?
And I truely believe if a 70 year old can civil serve - then Humus can aswell to support his country in the remote chance of a threat to Sweden that necessitates a build-up - I mean, he's removed himself from the entire loop and then talks down upon those in the loop who will protect his nation.
And, you don't see that as saying "70 years old serve, therefore Humus isn't entitled to 'talk down' to 'true patriots' because he is exempt.". I know, because you said you don't. The lack of me repeating a discussion establishing that that is exactly what you are saying, and then relating it to the discussion above where you say you aren't trying to say Humus isn't entitled to criticize you because he isn't a patriot, is because I think it is extremely obvious, and that I think that I have done so clearly before. Since those explanations were ignored or edited by you in your replies, and this post already contains one repetition, I don't see the point in providing another.
I can't help but feel thats wrong and that he's side-stepping his responcibility (eg. that the 70 year olds can do though) and is almost spitting on those who don't have loop-holes to hide from and play the game strait. But, perhaps you feel diffrent - and I won't say thats wrong, I just disagree immensly.
I maintain that what leads you to that is "chauvanism". I've demonstrated why before. For the record, it isn't your opinion that makes that the case, but that you view it as self evidently right and as grounds for dismissing his viewpoint. My issue with you is that I personally can't stomach your sentiment being called "patriotism", and you repeatedly proposing it with such arrogance. Which is why my focus is on the way you are saying Humus' feelings are wrong.
Ok, I'm tired of this... I've said what needs to be said. If you want to bitch about me not writing 20,000 words - then F* it.
Actually, it is not editing down I object to, but editing when it so obviously serves to distort. It is just that as far as our conversation has went, you've demonstrated them as being synonymous.
You don't like me anyways and I could really care less. Enjoy your venomous hate of me.. I hope it really hurts.
Well, the initial reaction did turn my stomach. The subsequent posts have done that as well on occassion, but the overall feeling I've had is one of bemusment. I don't think I'll be getting any ulcers, but thank you for your concern.
RussSchultz
28-Mar-2003, 13:52
First rule of engagement: Never get involved with Demalion in a battle of semantics and/or logic.
Other first rule of engagement: Never discuss politics with Vince unless you agree with him or like being verbally assaulted.
That is all, soldiers. Carry on.
epicstruggle
28-Mar-2003, 14:02
First rule of engagement: Never get involved with Demalion in a battle of semantics and/or logic.
Other first rule of engagement: Never discuss politics with Vince unless you agree with him or like being verbally assaulted.
That is all, soldiers. Carry on.
good rules to live by. :D
First rule of engagement: Never get involved with Demalion in a battle of semantics and/or logic.
Other first rule of engagement: Never discuss politics with Vince unless you agree with him or like being verbally assaulted.
:lol:
Better watch out though - if you even say the most Politically Correct, blanket statement that has the ability to hurt or make anyone feel lesser than anyone else because evereyone isn't explicitly stated to be on the same plane - you will face the wrath.
Vince, the reason you continue thinking my stance is unacceptable is that you still haven't understood it fully. I'll make myself perfectly clear:
I support drafting in times of war if found absolutely neccesary, and in such circumstances I would serve in non-armed forces. Would Norway get another Hitler kind of leader and invade Swede, then I would join if I was called in. I see no problem in serving as a field technician, do supporting logistics or otherwise serve the military.
In times of peace however, calling people into military service, or even alternative civilian service is to me an unacceptable intrusion of my freedom. It's forcing a profession down my throat.
To make my point clear, I'll make the analogy between a military (or alternative) servant (hereafter called soldier) and a firefighter. Both are required for our safety and security. The soldier protect us against threats of political nature. The firefighter protects us from the threat of deadly fires and protects our property from destruction. If the government sends you a letter tomorrow saying that you are now a firefighter and expect you to start serving in a few months with hardly any payment, would you just accept it? Would you feel it would be a "I need to serve my country" kind of thing, or would you be pissed that someone takes your freedom of choise of profession away? I would certainly be pissed. There are enough people who want to be firefighters anyway. And firefighter should most certainly have full payments for their important job. The same with serving in military. Being a soldier is a profession, they should be fully payed for their service and people should have the freedom to choose this profession if they want and choose not to be a solider if it's not in their area of interest. There are enough people who want to be soldiers anyway.
I pay taxes, and expect the government to arrange that a fire department protects me from fire. I don't need to serve as a fire fighter to have deserved this protection.
Again, I pay taxed, and expect the government to arrange that a military forces is available to protect me from any arrising military threats. I don't need to serve as a soldier to have deserved this protection.
IF however, a serious crisis happens, say a wildfire is spreading like mad and taking huge amounts of forrest with it and quickly approaching areas where people live, sure I would help if I could. I expect the trained firefighters to take the lead in the effort of getting the fire under control, but I would help in any way I could if it would be neccesary.
Same if a military crisis happens, I expect the trained forces taking the lead in the efforts. If however it would be neccesary, I would help the way I can.
And, last but not least, I would not join any efforts that goes against my value, ethics or actions which I don't support. If someone say I must join to fight a fire I don't see as a threat or maybe as something positive, like the olympic fire or the traditional May-fires, I would certainly object. The same way, I would not join any military actions I don't support. I would not join an invasion of Norway regardless of if the government says I have to. It's wrong, so I'm not going, end of discussion and no arguments of patriotism is going to convince me.
epicstruggle
29-Mar-2003, 00:34
@humus, what you said makes sense if the only options were firefigter, or soldier. But what if the government said you want social benefits(welfare, health care, clean environment,...) you needed to help serve the government for a year or two. And I would have no objections if they gave many options: pick up litter, help the elderly, build low income housing, run after school programs, becoming a soldier, and many other professions.
I dont see the problem in the government telling you to take a year or two of your life to help better the society around you.
later,
That's the wrong way of approaching a problem. I pay taxes for my social benefits and expect the government to provide them. It's the governments task to make sure these are provided to me, it's not my task. There are enough people who want to work in health care and other welfare services anyway. There's no need to force anyone. Would there be a problem getting for instance enough people to work in health care, then instead of just forcing people into it you should instead make efforts to make working in health care a more attractive option. Increase payment, improve benefits, invest in related education to get more qualified personel on the labor market, advertise with job offers and so on.
epicstruggle
29-Mar-2003, 01:21
humus what about people who dont want to work, but feel they are entitled to every social benefit we pay taxes for.
Also in the event of a bad economic cycle, i dont see the problem. There are many parts of the US that have bad health care because people dont want to live there. No amount of money will get me to live in Alaska, just to darn cold. :)
later,
MrsSkywalker
29-Mar-2003, 13:58
But what if the government said you want social benefits(welfare, health care, clean environment,...) you needed to help serve the government for a year or two. And I would have no objections if they gave many options: pick up litter, help the elderly, build low income housing, run after school programs, becoming a soldier, and many other professions.
What a very interesting idea! I would support something like that, wholeheartedly. Lots of people need the assistance, but I can't think of one single person receiving state/federal aid that couldn't contribute to society in some way.
Last question on this topic for me:
Demalion, is english your primary language?
Hey....hmm...plausible must mean your argument is consistent! I mean, that's what you keep saying, right?
plausible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plausible): " 1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible. 2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability."
Hmm...oh wait, it doesn't. But maybe if you de-emphasize "Seemingly" strongly enough, or ignore every time I mention "resemblence", you can, just maybe, pretend it does.
Because this is just the latest example in an recursive problem where you're missing the point I'm making or flate out state that you can't understand what I'm saying - while others have said that they do.
For example: I didn't infer that
"plausible must mean your [my] argument is consistent! I mean, that's what you keep saying, right?"
What I did say was:
Here's how it's going to be. You've stated on multiple occasion that I'm a Sophist and have accused me of using Sophistry in my replies, as well as being cyclical.
Thus, by your own confession:
(a) I have an argument which is plausable
(b) I have a consistent argument
Cyclical implies consistency as I'm repeating the same ideologies, same linguistics applied to articulate the same thought pattern.
No, that's not all you said. You also said that he was a hypocrite for offering an opinion on patriotism because his opinion of "patriotism" as you display it is a negative one.
Or this, I never said that. Perhaps if you stoped preaching and started doing some of that "investigation" and "listning" that you tell me I don't do enough of - you'd see that my problem with Humus isn't because he has a diffrent opinion from mine (as many a people do, and thats a beautiful thing). The problem stems from the fact that he's not a practicing JW, yet he's using his "official" status as one to avoid any type of civil service that the government would ask for during times of need. He's found a loop-hole and exploited it. During this whole period, he's enjoying the freedoms and social programs of Sweden.
And what really enrages me, is that he has the balls to then "talk shit" about Patriotism - the very ideology that will lead his fellow citizens to defend his family, home, and lifestyle is the horrible event that Sweden faces an external threat. Talk about cutting off the hand that feeds you and then peeing on it.
Never did I say he can't post, should post, should leave, or attempted to have his post deleted, et al. He has the freedom to state his opinion and I respect that - but I also have the freedom for his speech to enrage me and I have the freedom to comment. Which I did.
I read your responce (well, the first 3/4ths) and can't help but feel that you clearly didn't understand my argument and then when you got all tied up in this philisophical debate you turned to linguistic fallacies to show your side as the dominent one (eg. look no further than your constant bolding of particular words that have no context other than linguistical differentiation - "resemble" is a good example).
And then add to that your consistent, and primary reason for, engaging me in this debate which is my attitude and the way inwhich I present my ideologies (which are offensive to you), just so you can turn around and speak the following way to me:
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...
And then your constint attempt to hold true to this almighty high-ground and this ultra-sensitive 'Politically Correct" attitude when I complimented Kyle and didn't kiss your ass... just demonstrates that this argument is impossible to win as I'm fighting the same sort of hate-filled mentality that prevents any conclusion to the Israeli conflict.
And with that, I'm done. Enjoy your life, I hope you can get past this.
Although i served 11 months of civilian service, I wholeheartedly agree with all that Humus said. I think that conscription in times of peace should be done away with. I only did serve because I thought it was better than going to jail. But I consider it a year mostly wasted.
Ironically, if the German government abolishes conscription (which I expect to happen before 2010), it will be quite a problem replacing all those serving in the health care sector (and others) with professional workers.
The number of conscientious objectors has grown so big (190k) that the social system now depends on them.
demalion
29-Mar-2003, 23:14
Last question on this topic for me:
Demalion, is english your primary language?
Oh my. Let's see why you think you have to ask.
Hey....hmm...plausible must mean your argument is consistent! I mean, that's what you keep saying, right?
plausible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plausible): " 1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible. 2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability."
Hmm...oh wait, it doesn't. But maybe if you de-emphasize "Seemingly" strongly enough, or ignore every time I mention "resemblence", you can, just maybe, pretend it does.
Because this is just the latest example in an recursive problem where you're missing the point I'm making or flate out state that you can't understand what I'm saying - while others have said that they do.
Well, you say it so it must be true, right?
For example: I didn't infer that
"plausible must mean your [my] argument is consistent! I mean, that's what you keep saying, right?"
What I did say was:
Here's how it's going to be. You've stated on multiple occasion that I'm a Sophist and have accused me of using Sophistry in my replies, as well as being cyclical.
Thus, by your own confession:
(a) I have an argument which is plausable
(b) I have a consistent argument
Cyclical implies consistency as I'm repeating the same ideologies, same linguistics applied to articulate the same thought pattern.
Hmm....hokay.. :lol: . You're attempting to "prove" that because I implied that you are "cyclical" your arguments are therefore proven to be "consistent" so therefore can't be practicing "sophistry", right? All a sophist has to do is repeat himself over and over to not be a sophist, then? :lol:
A consistent argument is not merely one that you maintain consistently, it is one that holds together in a consistent fashion. Don't take my word for it, let's look up "consistent (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consistent)" and see if we can find an example of the usage for "argument":
"2: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly presentation" [syn: logical, ordered, orderly]"
If you'll note, there is no implication that repeating something over and over means what you are repeating is "consistent", just that you are being consistent in repeating it. That is why it can be said that you are cyclical, but your argument is not consistent, or that someone consistently practices sophistry, though you seem to be hell bent on saying otherwise.
Must be my poor grasp of English getting in the way again.
Hey...look what I stumbled upon in the definition of sophistry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry):
The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in usig a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion. --Coleridge.
If I keep thanking you for your efforts, will you keep proving my points for me?
Anyways, thanks again. :)
No, that's not all you said. You also said that he was a hypocrite for offering an opinion on patriotism because his opinion of "patriotism" as you display it is a negative one.
Or this, I never said that.
If you say something over and over, you are being consistent in saying it, so, obviously, what you are saying must be consistent, and therefore true. Obviously, you have me overmatched in you grasp of English.
Perhaps if you stoped preaching and started doing some of that "investigation" and "listning" that you tell me I don't do enough of - you'd see that my problem with Humus isn't because he has a diffrent opinion from mine (as many a people do, and thats a beautiful thing).
You say as you go on to describe your difference of opinion with Humus.
The problem stems from the fact that he's not a practicing JW, yet he's using his "official" status as one to avoid any type of civil service that the government would ask for during times of need.
Your interpretation of the facts is that there is a problem, and he does not share your opinion. It can be hard to see if you can't recognize your opinion on the matter isn't a fact, which you seem to be working hard to avoid.
He's found a loop-hole and exploited it. During this whole period, he's enjoying the freedoms and social programs of Sweden.
Well, you're enjoying the freedoms and social programs of the U.S., aren't you? You view it as obviously right that he be drafted, and he does not, and you happen to say this while you are not subject to a draft yourself.
Seems like your problem is a difference of opinion. That is, if you are capable of conceiving that the outlook that national mandate should override moral concerns is an opinion, and not something self-evidently true.
I notice the example of a parallel to non-military service in Nazi Germany in the discussion of chauvanism/Nazism you brought up seems to be missing....is it so that you can avoid the parallels I established to your viewpoint in the other post?
And what really enrages me, is that he has the balls to then "talk shit" about Patriotism - the very ideology that will lead his fellow citizens to defend his family, home, and lifestyle is the horrible event that Sweden faces an external threat.
Yeah, how dare he?! He doesn't have the right to...oh, wait...
You are determined to live up to the label of "Opera" you proposed, aren't you?
You've decided that people who don't agree with your patriotic ideal...have no business saying anything in disagreement to it. :shock: Oh wait, that's cyclical, therefore consistently stated, therefore a consistent argument, right?
Talk about cutting off the hand that feeds you and then peeing on it.
And you continue to refuse to read what Humus has stated multiple times to use dramatizations in place of supporting your argument. Color me conVinced.
Never did I say he can't post, should post, should leave, or attempted to have his post deleted, et al. He has the freedom to state his opinion and I respect that - but I also have the freedom for his speech to enrage me and I have the freedom to comment. Which I did.
Your reaction has been to avoid addressing the nature of the comments (such as the details and reasons for his criticism of your ideal of patriotism) and instead to say that it takes "balls" for a "draft dodger" like him to make comments at alll. That list of things you "never said" sure does resemble an argument stating otherwise, though.
I read your responce (well, the first 3/4ths) and can't help but feel that you clearly didn't understand my argument and then when you got all tied up in this philisophical debate you turned to linguistic fallacies to show your side as the dominent one (eg. look no further than your constant bolding of particular words that have no context other than linguistical differentiation - "resemble" is a good example).
I was trying, in vain, to aid yor reading comprehension, which is why such bold/italic/underlined words aren't presented out of context, but highlighted in context. <- See, like that is still in context and didn't magically jump out of context as a result of being in bold...
And then add to that your consistent, and primary reason for, engaging me in this debate which is my attitude and the way inwhich I present my ideologies (which are offensive to you), just so you can turn around and speak the following way to me:
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...
The sentence was "By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it. ". It seems to have been inconvenient for you to address the other times I've addressed your quoting the statement.
You keep quoting that "slight" that was and continues to be my honest opinion. I keep telling you that I don't view understanding as reflecting just intelligence, but also honesty, and you keep providing blatant examples of denial to maintain my opinion of what you are willing to understand.
There are plenty of other things you could quote that are "slights", though you might need to skip the text you posted that inspired them to make it look equivalent to your practicies.
And then your constint attempt to hold true to this almighty high-ground and this ultra-sensitive 'Politically Correct" attitude when I complimented Kyle and didn't kiss your ass... just demonstrates that this argument is impossible to win as I'm fighting the same sort of hate-filled mentality that prevents any conclusion to the Israeli conflict.
Oh my...I'm just like the Isreali/Palestinian problem now!? Obviously, if you drop something big like that just out of the blue, I must be wrong.
And with that, I'm done. Enjoy your life, I hope you can get past this.
Past what? Oh! My stomach is doing fine now, but thank you for your continued concern.
Nagorak
31-Mar-2003, 07:42
I hope people understand that they are private companies sellers, and its their right to sell/buy from whom they want. Personally I will not go to france/germany anytime soon. I will however go to England and Spain next time I go to Europe. People have a right to act as dum as they want, and most people take advantage of that right. :D
later,
The populations of all the countries you listed overwhelmingly feel the same way about the war. Time for you to start reading between the lines a little bit. :roll:
humus what about people who dont want to work, but feel they are entitled to every social benefit we pay taxes for.
Also in the event of a bad economic cycle, i dont see the problem. There are many parts of the US that have bad health care because people dont want to live there. No amount of money will get me to live in Alaska, just to darn cold. :)
later,
Well, my opionion is that the society should in every way encourage people to work and to some extent require it. Without people working the society will break down. If people don't want to work, then they have no right to any social benefits IMO. But there of course a difference between wanting to work, but not being able to because of either unemployment despite actively searching for job (there will always be some unemployed people regardless what) or there may be people who can't due to severe physical disabilities. For these people the government should kick in and provide enough economical resources for a decent life, but it should be clearly lower than an average worker so that you encourage people to continue look for jobs. If someone is unemployed for an extended amount of time, say > 6 months, then I think the unemployed should either offer them a job or education so that he at least does something. The unemployed costs money already, giving him a full job is not going to cost a whole lot more and there are many possible places within the welfare system where you could put him in.
About Alaska, well, you could apply that to where I'm from too. I'm from northern Sweden, just south of the artic circle, so that's as far north as mid-Alaska. Most people in Sweden live in the southern regions, it's mostly rural areas in the north. In the province of Lapland most towns are a few thousand people and only about 100,000 (I think) live that province even though it's around 25% of the size of whole Sweden. Still I don't see a large problem with health care. The only real problem is the physical distance. In my home-town this was solved by rebuilding an helicopter left over from the military to a flying ambulance. Placing it in the middle of the country in west-east direction it can get to most places in the region in less than an hour. It's costly, but the government pays.
The problem stems from the fact that he's not a practicing JW, yet he's using his "official" status as one to avoid any type of civil service that the government would ask for during times of need. He's found a loop-hole and exploited it. During this whole period, he's enjoying the freedoms and social programs of Sweden.
And what really enrages me, is that he has the balls to then "talk shit" about Patriotism - the very ideology that will lead his fellow citizens to defend his family, home, and lifestyle is the horrible event that Sweden faces an external threat. Talk about cutting off the hand that feeds you and then peeing on it.
FFS, will you drop that "loop-hole" idea. :roll:
At the time I was called in for military service I was a practicing JW. That was 5 years ago. I was baptised and thus became an official member pretty much at that time. At that time I had a strong faith, but over the years thereafter I got a lot of doubts. Most of my values have remained the same though. Do you expect me to today to call up the military saying "hey, I'm not really a JW anymore, so now you can call me in"?
Yes, I've enjoyed some social programs, but I've payed taxes too. Have I've been put into the military, against my will and against human rights, then I would not have had the ability to work and thus no ability to pay taxes either for more than a year. It would be very wasteful IMO. I would probably not be where I am today had I been called in. A year off from work, education and personal development. I don't think I would be sitting here typing this from a computer at ATi if I had to go through that. I feel sad for those who have been forced into military against their will and against human rights, but I'm not going to give up my freedoms I have been granted. I don't expect those of the Iraqies who have now been liberated and are under protection of coalition forces to give up their freedoms because other Iraqies yet haven't been as fortunate. Instead, I would hope that the others would be offered the same freedoms in the future.
And in the end, there are no practical needs for this. With todays low military funding they can't even bring in everyone who want to be there. Why should they force anyone? It's just a way for the government to get cheap labor. The idea belong in communism IMO. You are assigned a task, then you do it. No freedom, no choice. Refusing means going to jail. It does not belong in a modern democracy as Sweden. Thus it should go. To me I can't see how you as an outspoken rightist can come here to defend collectivistic ideas such as patriotism, ideas that should belong far to the left. You talk almost to religious levels about defending freedom, yet you require me to give up my freedoms. I will fight for things I believe in. I will not fight over a country border, or over the myth of a collective opinion dictated by some government (aka patriotism). Patriotism and country borders are two evils I hope we will get rid of some day. Fortunately, patriotism is low in Sweden, I hope the sentiment that all people can live together despite different opinions can spread.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.