Patriotism cum stupidity
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
You mean a prediction that came true?
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?
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.
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?
That strike me as humorous. Let me repeat a quote:
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".
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
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?
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?
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?
Hey, you sort of skipped something that was between the last quote and this:
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?
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?
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."?
How are you serving your country again? Does the reason for that line of questioning begin to sink in yet?
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.
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?
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. 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?
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:
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.
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.
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?
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?
You and who else?
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?
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."
Vince said:
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
You mean a prediction that came true?
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?
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.
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?
That strike me as humorous. Let me repeat a quote:
Vince said:
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".
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
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?
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?
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?
Hey, you sort of skipped something that was between the last quote and this:
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?
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?
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."?
How are you serving your country again? Does the reason for that line of questioning begin to sink in yet?
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.
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?
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. 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?
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:
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.
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.
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?
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?
You and who else?
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?
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."
demalion said:
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?
demalion said:
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.
Vince said:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cute.
(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.
Vince said:
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.
Give me abreak, you didn't even know what "chauvanism" was a day ago.
It's called sarcasm. You stated that it was "too complex for me," I agreed.
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?
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...
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 skipped this because it's irrelevent if you comprehended what I followed it up with. Your really don't pick-up on much, huh?
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.
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...
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.
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.Barnabas said: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.
Anyways, I think we should all cut our noses to spite our faces.
later
Why anybody in Germany would drink Budweiser is completely beyond me.
Then again, I'm not sure why there's english restaurants here in the US...
RussSchultz said:
Especially when a Bud is an import and costs more over there.
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
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.MrsSkywalker said:
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,
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
Ah, gotcha.
Well, no wonder they are boycotting it!
But, Americans could get the last laugh:
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.