Patriotism cum stupidity

Last question on this topic for me:

Demalion, is english your primary language?

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

What I did say was:

Cyclical implies consistency as I'm repeating the same ideologies, same linguistics applied to articulate the same thought pattern.

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:

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.

 

Oh my. Let's see why you think you have to ask.

Well, you say it so it must be true, right?

Hmm....hokay.. . 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?

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" 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:

If I keep thanking you for your efforts, will you keep proving my points for me?
Anyways, thanks again.

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.

You say as you go on to describe your difference of opinion with Humus.

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.

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?

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. Oh wait, that's cyclical, therefore consistently stated, therefore a consistent argument, right?

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.

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 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...

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.

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.

Past what? Oh! My stomach is doing fine now, but thank you for your continued concern.

 

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.

 

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.

 

FFS, will you drop that "loop-hole" idea.
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.