Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

War and Patriotism

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 10:13:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Naturally the common people don't want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it's always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or ...a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.

We call Bush and Cheney "conservatives," and they were the main impetus for the war. We call the people most susceptable to the rhetoric of these politicians (proud conservatives of the proletariat) "conservatives" as well. So my question is this: at what level is the divide between these two types of conservatives? At what point is the rhetoric pure manipulation, and where does this turn into honest interests? Are all Republican politicians conspirators, and conservative citizens simply victims of manipulation? To say that at least some of them aren't actively manipulating us in the precise way that this quote implies would be, in my opinion, wild stupidity.

Are the conservative talk-show hosts part of it? Are Democrats playing a big role? Wouldn't that make Democrats the actual worst out of them all, being as they are the one "check" we are supposed to have over the imperialistic party?
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism. Also, Hermon's quote only applies to an uninformed population (the German's weren't allowed any outside media, accept during the olypics, and even then, only for a very short time period).

It is not about convincing people to go to war. If you control the source and flow of information, you control the minds of the people, whether it be for war, or taxes, or policies, for whatever. The information is the key.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 11:05:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM, OreEle wrote:
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism.

There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral; not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours. This is the main impetus for conflict. Let's simplify the world into two countries: the white-blackies and the black-whiteys. If the White-blackies insist they are the best at a, b, and c, then it goes without saying that the black-whiteys are not.

Also, Hermon's quote only applies to an uninformed population (the German's weren't allowed any outside media, accept during the olypics, and even then, only for a very short time period).

We have plenty of internal media for the propaganda. So we're immune to it because I can listen to the BBC? I don't see the relevance.

It is not about convincing people to go to war. If you control the source and flow of information, you control the minds of the people, whether it be for war, or taxes, or policies, for whatever. The information is the key.

That information is patriotism.
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 11:17:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:05:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM, OreEle wrote:
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism.

There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral; not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours.

That's like saying that taking pride in your children is forcing others to sacrifice their chidren. In other words, false but reduction absurdism. I can take pride in my child without feeling any negative thoughts towards anyone else's kids. And as such, I can take pride in my country without viewing negatively on anyone elses.

pride =/= greed

This is the main impetus for conflict. Let's simplify the world into two countries: the white-blackies and the black-whiteys. If the White-blackies insist they are the best at a, b, and c, then it goes without saying that the black-whiteys are not.

And that could be a fact. Other countries can be better at one thing than another country, go figure.

But still, pride for a country is not only about "being the best." You can take pride for the actions that your country takes, meaning measuring against your own moral standards, rather than against another country.


Also, Hermon's quote only applies to an uninformed population (the German's weren't allowed any outside media, accept during the olypics, and even then, only for a very short time period).

We have plenty of internal media for the propaganda. So we're immune to it because I can listen to the BBC? I don't see the relevance.

Doesn't make one "immune," but it works as a level of prevention. Just like getting a flu shot isn't a guarentee that you won't get the flu, but it helps.


It is not about convincing people to go to war. If you control the source and flow of information, you control the minds of the people, whether it be for war, or taxes, or policies, for whatever. The information is the key.

That information is patriotism.

what? no it isn't. Since when has information (or the restriction of it) been information? You can have patriotism based off of information (be it accurate or faulty), but the info itself is not patriotism.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:05:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM, OreEle wrote:
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism.

There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral:

Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no??? More to the point, I agree with OreEle that you are conflating patriotism with a blind patriotism. The same could be said about the difference between an informed faith and a blind faith.

Patriotism certainly can be venomous, I would agree with you. But I don't think that rooting for specific beliefs is necessarily immoral.

I would never side with the United States, just because I'm a citizen, when they do something I believe goes against its core values. A blind patriot would simply nod approvingly like a bobblehead even when America is doing something wrong.

A true patriot would tirelessly fight for the ideal that the patriotism is supposed to symbolize.

not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours. This is the main impetus for conflict.:

I have no doubt in my mind that if you were to somehow create a State exactly with all the things you believe in (a cooperate society completely devoid of any monetary system) that you would feel pride for its core beliefs and sacrifices. And if those ideals were threatened, you might even raise up arms in her defense.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:19:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral; not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours. This is the main impetus for conflict.

The fundamental error is supposing that the world is a zero sum game. That error runs through all of nutcase socialism. If Canadian patriots want the best for Canada and American patriots want the best for America, the good comes from each wanting to do their best. It does not imply that one side wants to damage the other, not does it imply that they will.

Both would not be better if they merged or refused to compete. Nations have different assets and different cultures. The local people know how to make the best of those, not some distant rule by consensus. It's good to cooperate on truly national or international problems, but that's the exception, not the rule. The same logic applies to individuals, who are best left to make their own decisions that to be ruled by collective homogenization.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:23:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:17:52 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:05:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM, OreEle wrote:
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism.

There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral; not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours.

That's like saying that taking pride in your children is forcing others to sacrifice their chidren. In other words, false but reduction absurdism. I can take pride in my child without feeling any negative thoughts towards anyone else's kids. And as such, I can take pride in my country without viewing negatively on anyone elses.

Explaining morality can be difficult. Pride, lust, greed, even wrath/anger are sources of good feelings so it is difficult helping people make the distinction between the positivity they necessarily bring through feeling and the negativity they necessarily bring through action.

I use the 'proud of child' example because it is the hardest one I can think of to use in a negative way. Only a fool would criticize some parent for rewarding a child who did well, right? I commonly use this technique because it necessarily follows that if I can disprove my most difficult opposing argument, then I can easily disprove the others.

Being proud of your child feels good. But what are your options to act on this pride? One might say a parent would reward a child with a small luxury after a new level of achievement is performed - a flawlessly positive phenomenon. But is this really pride? Or operant conditioning? I don't give my dog treats because I am proud of her; I give her treats to mold her character.

So what does pride mean in reference to parenting? Well for starters, the parent is going to become obsessive about the child's progress because that would be a decrease in the amount of pride being fed in. After all; it is a source of joy and you are now being cut off from that joy. Parents who cannot control their pride are more likely to be abusive to their children when goals are not met. They are the people most likely to have a disagreement that simply cannot stand and cause damage to the relationship. Children don't want parents that are proud of them, they want parents that are there for them emotionally, and pride undercuts this at the most basic level. Sure, the child will believe at some tertiary level that pride in mom and dad=good, but that is just child psychology.

pride =/= greed

Pride is the chief vice; they are different things but pride reinforces the other six "sins."

This is the main impetus for conflict. Let's simplify the world into two countries: the white-blackies and the black-whiteys. If the White-blackies insist they are the best at a, b, and c, then it goes without saying that the black-whiteys are not.

And that could be a fact. Other countries can be better at one thing than another country, go figure.

They can... but it goes without saying who is best and who is not. If the black-whiteys start priding themselves on their accomplishments of a, b, and c, and start celebrating that fact (buying bumper stickers, making flags, commercials with cheesey music that portrays the home team as the best, etc) then what happens if the other country innovates an even better technique? Answer: hatred. Americans weren't too happy when Japan took over the television market, and we certainly aren't happy with their current conquest of the auto market. We HAVE to be the best, right? If we were smarter, we would lay down our pride for American auto manufacturing and embrace foreign success as our own. The only "patriotism" that is truly innocuous is patriotism of Earth, assuming we don't meet any Martians in the near future.

But still, pride for a country is not only about "being the best." You can take pride for the actions that your country takes, meaning measuring against your own moral standards, rather than against another country.

'Taking pride in' something isn't any concern; it's how you can control the actions it stimulates you to do.

Also, Hermon's quote only applies to an uninformed population (the German's weren't allowed any outside media, accept during the olypics, and even then, only for a very short time period).

We have plenty of internal media for the propaganda. So we're immune to it because I can listen to the BBC? I don't see the relevance.

Doesn't make one "immune," but it works as a level of prevention. Just like getting a flu shot isn't a guarentee that you won't get the flu, but it helps.

But you're assuming that everyone is as inquisitive, intelligent, and otherwise able to process that information as well as you or I. Most people I encounter in the non-DDO world have no interest in discussing politics, pollution, health, society etc. So even though the info is there, it's simply not enough. The difference therefore is not actually information, but oppression. Most people work 40 hours, have hobbies, children, school, cleaning/errands, relaxation time, sports/entertainment, travel time... They have no time, no energy, and no ability to use the information from 'legitimate' sources and weigh it against FOX news. There are enough conspiratorial whackjobs and otherwise a full spectrum of beliefs that must be chosen from... which one's the truth? We are all pretty informed here but we still don't agree.

It is not about convincing people to go to war. If you control the source and flow of information, you control the minds of the people, whether it be for war, or taxes, or policies, for whatever. The information is the key.

That information is patriotism.

what? no it isn't. Since when has information (or the restriction of it) been information? You can have patriotism based off of information (be it accurate or faulty), but the info itself is not patriotism.

The key information is patriotism.
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:45:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:23:59 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:17:52 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:05:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM, OreEle wrote:
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism.

There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral; not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours.

That's like saying that taking pride in your children is forcing others to sacrifice their chidren. In other words, false but reduction absurdism. I can take pride in my child without feeling any negative thoughts towards anyone else's kids. And as such, I can take pride in my country without viewing negatively on anyone elses.

Explaining morality can be difficult. Pride, lust, greed, even wrath/anger are sources of good feelings so it is difficult helping people make the distinction between the positivity they necessarily bring through feeling and the negativity they necessarily bring through action.

I use the 'proud of child' example because it is the hardest one I can think of to use in a negative way. Only a fool would criticize some parent for rewarding a child who did well, right? I commonly use this technique because it necessarily follows that if I can disprove my most difficult opposing argument, then I can easily disprove the others.

Being proud of your child feels good. But what are your options to act on this pride? One might say a parent would reward a child with a small luxury after a new level of achievement is performed - a flawlessly positive phenomenon. But is this really pride? Or operant conditioning? I don't give my dog treats because I am proud of her; I give her treats to mold her character.

So what does pride mean in reference to parenting? Well for starters, the parent is going to become obsessive about the child's progress because that would be a decrease in the amount of pride being fed in. After all; it is a source of joy and you are now being cut off from that joy. Parents who cannot control their pride are more likely to be abusive to their children when goals are not met. They are the people most likely to have a disagreement that simply cannot stand and cause damage to the relationship. Children don't want parents that are proud of them, they want parents that are there for them emotionally, and pride undercuts this at the most basic level. Sure, the child will believe at some tertiary level that pride in mom and dad=good, but that is just child psychology.

That is not the only way to express pride. You are also assuming that "the parent is going to become obsessive about the child's progress." By making this assumption, you've essentually shoot your own example in the foot because you are now only talking about a particular section of pride, and not pride in general. You continue to say, "Parents who cannot control their pride are..." which is another qualifier, thus limiting the scope of your example to an even smaller section of pride.

By the end of it, you are no longer taking about pride in children in general, but only a small section of it getting out of control. We know that this dichotomy is not accurate because the world is not made of just people with no pride at all and people that pride has taken control of. There is a middle ground which you've not addressed.


pride =/= greed

Pride is the chief vice; they are different things but pride reinforces the other six "sins."

This is the main impetus for conflict. Let's simplify the world into two countries: the white-blackies and the black-whiteys. If the White-blackies insist they are the best at a, b, and c, then it goes without saying that the black-whiteys are not.

And that could be a fact. Other countries can be better at one thing than another country, go figure.

They can... but it goes without saying who is best and who is not. If the black-whiteys start priding themselves on their accomplishments of a, b, and c, and start celebrating that fact (buying bumper stickers, making flags, commercials with cheesey music that portrays the home team as the best, etc) then what happens if the other country innovates an even better technique? Answer: hatred.

Not really. I take pride in Oregon Wines, but I don't hate other people if they make a good wine. But what does happen is improved products. There is such a thing as friendly competition and healthy competition, just as there is such a thing as unhealthy competition (the kind that leads to resentment). It is not logically accurate to broad brush it all together (either competition or pride).

Americans weren't too happy when Japan took over the television market, and we certainly aren't happy with their current conquest of the auto market. We HAVE to be the best, right? If we were smarter, we would lay down our pride for American auto manufacturing and embrace foreign success as our own. The only "patriotism" that is truly innocuous is patriotism of Earth, assuming we don't meet any Martians in the near future.

Do american's hate Japan over it? I wasn't aware of any hatred towards Japan.


But still, pride for a country is not only about "being the best." You can take pride for the actions that your country takes, meaning measuring against your own moral standards, rather than against another country.

'Taking pride in' something isn't any concern; it's how you can control the actions it stimulates you to do.

Doesn't make one "immune," but it works as a level of prevention. Just like getting a flu shot isn't a guarentee that you won't get the flu, but it helps.

But you're assuming that everyone is as inquisitive, intelligent, and otherwise able to process that information as well as you or I. Most people I encounter in the non-DDO world have no interest in discussing politics, pollution, health, society etc. So even though the info is there, it's simply not enough.

No I'm not. You may say that "it's simply not enough," but you still admit that it has an effect. I'd say that it is, given that many news organizations enjoy pointing out flaws in our government (from our own news on Bush, to our current news on Obama). I mean, how many people (because of news sources) didn't believe that Obama was born in the US? That's not exactly blind government controled media like the Nazi had.

The difference therefore is not actually information, but oppression. Most people work 40 hours, have hobbies, children, school, cleaning/errands, relaxation time, sports/entertainment, travel time... They have no time, no energy, and no ability to use the information from 'legitimate' sources and weigh it against FOX news. There are enough conspiratorial whackjobs and otherwise a full spectrum of beliefs that must be chosen from... which one's the truth? We are all pretty informed here but we still don't agree.

True, we have so much info flooding us, that we have a hard time finding out what is accurate. But that only indicates that it is not likely government controled media to generate blind patriotism. Looking at nearly all dictators in the past, they didn't want you to have a flood of info (that you couldn't follow), only their info that they approved.



what? no it isn't. Since when has information (or the restriction of it) been information? You can have patriotism based off of information (be it accurate or faulty), but the info itself is not patriotism.

The key information is patriotism.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:05:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/4/2011 10:25:18 AM, OreEle wrote:
you're confusing patriotism with blind patriotism.

There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral:

Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no??? More to the point, I agree with OreEle that you are conflating patriotism with a blind patriotism. The same could be said about the difference between an informed faith and a blind faith.

Both faith and patriotism are inherently blind. I'll prove it. If they were all based on objectivity, why would there be concentrations of American patriotism in America, Chinese patriotism in China, etc.? Wouldn't each Chinese person weigh the pros and cons and then make an objective decision? Of course not. Religion and/or faith (depending on how you are distinguishing the two) is the same way. I saw a friend from my old neighborhood on Facebook. Under religion, it said "cathloc." He doesn't have a clue how to spell it, but it doesn't matter: if you're from Johnston, RI (and part of the Italian community) then you are Catholic. No one says "hmmm..." and thinks about it; they just are. I didn't know what a Protestant was until I was in my twenties; never mind consider Islam or something even more peculiar.

The interesting thing about this point is that if you asked my friend what he was, and he told you, he would be more truthful in asserting his religion than an extremist (e.g., DATCMOTO). For DATCMOTO has actually contemplated what religion is and realized that there is a choice that he has to make, and as much as he will proudly broadcast his undying faith there will always be that .01% doubt that he can never quell. My friend does not know about any other decisions so this small margin of error arguably does not exist. Is that not interesting?

Patriotism certainly can be venomous, I would agree with you. But I don't think that rooting for specific beliefs is necessarily immoral.

Me either. But nurturing a selfish desire in the success of your country, at the expense of others, certainly is.

I would never side with the United States, just because I'm a citizen, when they do something I believe goes against its core values. A blind patriot would simply nod approvingly like a bobblehead even when America is doing something wrong.

Your distinction is meant to justify 'legitimate' pride but it is only demonstrating that you are controlling yourself in the way I am describing. Like I will continue to say, having pride in America is OK; it is deciding to make an action based on that impetus alone, something you would not have considered otherwise, that is distressing. If America does great then we will feel good; but let's let our accomplishments speak for themselves like honorable people instead of proclaiming ourselves the best and congratulating ourselves like little Donald Trumpians.

A true patriot would tirelessly fight for the ideal that the patriotism is supposed to symbolize.

Then fight for the ideal and forget about attempting to exclude different countries from the bounty. Why should borders affect your ideals?

not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours. This is the main impetus for conflict.:

I have no doubt in my mind that if you were to somehow create a State exactly with all the things you believe in (a cooperate society completely devoid of any monetary system) that you would feel pride for its core beliefs and sacrifices. And if those ideals were threatened, you might even raise up arms in her defense.

Indeed, if I was to suddenly gain such an inconceivable victory, my pride would be tested to the point where I could possibly break. If I clung to AnCom, only out of pride (say, because I realized libertarianism or ancap was actually better for society), then I would be hurting myself by prohibiting myself from the truth. How many of us would change our beliefs easily, without thought to our reputation?
kfc
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem I have with patriotism is there doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Woo, I was born in this particular geographical area by an accident of birth, therefore I have a devotion to the society located in this particular geographical location.

Why?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:19:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.

how do you figure?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:32:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:18:08 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem I have with patriotism is there doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Woo, I was born in this particular geographical area by an accident of birth, therefore I have a devotion to the society located in this particular geographical location.

Why?

people can have other reasons for devoting themselves to geographical locations? the cultures they contain maybe? the freedoms? the equalities? the sceneries even? it's all down to tastes..

patriotism doesn't have to be retarded.
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:41:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:32:28 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:18:08 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem I have with patriotism is there doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Woo, I was born in this particular geographical area by an accident of birth, therefore I have a devotion to the society located in this particular geographical location.

Why?

people can have other reasons for devoting themselves to geographical locations? the cultures they contain maybe? the freedoms? the equalities? the sceneries even? it's all down to tastes..

patriotism doesn't have to be retarded.

What badger said. You may be an accidental birth in that area, but I'm pretty sure that you have the choice of moving to other areas if you like them better. Also, the purpose of patriotism is for being proud of something that you identify with. If you identify as "american" then you identify with america.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:43:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:19:51 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.

how do you figure?

7 + 5 x 3 isn't inherently 22, otherwise everyone would agree, right? hur hur...

Just because some moron thinks it's 36, or some sociopath thinks microwaving babies is OK doesn't make it so.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:49:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:43:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:19:51 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.

how do you figure?

7 + 5 x 3 isn't inherently 22, otherwise everyone would agree, right? hur hur...

huh? also.. use brackets :)

Just because some moron thinks it's 36, or some sociopath thinks microwaving babies is OK doesn't make it so.

i do believe he meant everyone would agree it was immoral, rather than just agree. and i'd agree with him that if something was inherently immoral that everyone would agree that it was so.. as bad and good are, in my opinion, just perceptions.. so if something was inherently immoral we'd all perceive it as immoral.. thus the everyone would agree bit?
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:59:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:49:37 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:43:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:19:51 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.

how do you figure?

7 + 5 x 3 isn't inherently 22, otherwise everyone would agree, right? hur hur...

huh? also.. use brackets :)

He's saying that just because everyone agrees on something does not mean that it is "inherent" and just because not everyone agrees on something doesn't mean that it is not "inherent."


Just because some moron thinks it's 36, or some sociopath thinks microwaving babies is OK doesn't make it so.

i do believe he meant everyone would agree it was immoral, rather than just agree. and i'd agree with him that if something was inherently immoral that everyone would agree that it was so.. as bad and good are, in my opinion, just perceptions.. so if something was inherently immoral we'd all perceive it as immoral.. thus the everyone would agree bit?

inherent =/= 100% mutual agreement. And just because we don't all agree does not mean that it is not inherent.

inherent - •built-in. •implicit in the nature of something though not readily apparent

http://www.google.com...=

As Kenyon said.

7 + 5 * 3 = 22, that means that 7 + 5 * 3 is inherently 22, that is the nature of numbers and mathematical actions of that equation. Even if someone thinks that the answer is 36 or pineapple, what is inherent is not effected by what people believe.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:01:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:41:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:32:28 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:18:08 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem I have with patriotism is there doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Woo, I was born in this particular geographical area by an accident of birth, therefore I have a devotion to the society located in this particular geographical location.

Why?

people can have other reasons for devoting themselves to geographical locations? the cultures they contain maybe? the freedoms? the equalities? the sceneries even? it's all down to tastes..

patriotism doesn't have to be retarded.

What badger said. You may be an accidental birth in that area, but I'm pretty sure that you have the choice of moving to other areas if you like them better. Also, the purpose of patriotism is for being proud of something that you identify with. If you identify as "american" then you identify with america.

It's just the spill over of our millennia old yearning to belong to a group and to be accepted, cherished and respected within it :)

Can I be "American" in Russia without knowing about America? "American" has no inherent meaning without America. so your bit about "identify as "american" and then you identify with america" makes no sense.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:01:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
we perceive with built in parts, oreele... if something was inherently immoral, i'd take that (and i think fairly) to mean that it would be perceived by everyone to be immoral.
signature
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:06:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:49:37 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:43:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:19:51 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.

how do you figure?

7 + 5 x 3 isn't inherently 22, otherwise everyone would agree, right? hur hur...

huh? also.. use brackets :)

Don't need 'em. Use PEMDAS.

Just because some moron thinks it's 36, or some sociopath thinks microwaving babies is OK doesn't make it so.

i do believe he meant everyone would agree it was immoral, rather than just agree.

I know what he meant, and it's totally illogical.

and i'd agree with him that if something was inherently immoral that everyone would agree that it was so..

Why?

as bad and good are, in my opinion, just perceptions.. so if something was inherently immoral we'd all perceive it as immoral.. thus the everyone would agree bit?

Circular.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:13:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 3:07:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 3:03:54 PM, badger wrote:
i suppose you're a christian though..

No I'm not.

that was to oreele.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:18:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 3:06:46 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:49:37 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:43:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:19:51 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:05:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/4/2011 11:29:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nothing is inherently immoral, otherwise everyone would agree, no???

Non-sequitur.

how do you figure?

7 + 5 x 3 isn't inherently 22, otherwise everyone would agree, right? hur hur...

huh? also.. use brackets :)

Don't need 'em. Use PEMDAS.

Just because some moron thinks it's 36, or some sociopath thinks microwaving babies is OK doesn't make it so.

i do believe he meant everyone would agree it was immoral, rather than just agree.

I know what he meant, and it's totally illogical.

and i'd agree with him that if something was inherently immoral that everyone would agree that it was so..

Why?

as bad and good are, in my opinion, just perceptions.. so if something was inherently immoral we'd all perceive it as immoral.. thus the everyone would agree bit?

Circular.

explain how it's illogical and why that was circular.. i think it's a fair answer to your question, though athiestic...?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 3:21:07 PM, badger wrote:
is it that you think morality more than just a concept?

i'm saying that moral, immoral and ammoral are feelings one has towards things. and that if something was inherently immoral that everyone should feel it was immoral. that's probably easier to understand.
signature
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:58:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Both faith and patriotism are inherently blind. I'll prove it. If they were all based on objectivity, why would there be concentrations of American patriotism in America, Chinese patriotism in China, etc.?:

Why are there Green Bay Packers fans in..... Green Bay? If you blindly support everything your country does, simply by the virtue that it's the country you reside in, then you would have a point. But a whole lot of people who consider themselves patriotic wouldn't do that, and don't do that.

Me either. But nurturing a selfish desire in the success of your country, at the expense of others, certainly is.:

At the expense of others? Expound, please.

let's let our accomplishments speak for themselves like honorable people instead of proclaiming ourselves the best and congratulating ourselves like little Donald Trumpians.:

Having pride in your countries core values isn't necessarily self-congratulatory. I admire other countries principles too. Obviously we are all born citizens somewhere by mere happenstance. I happen to be a Dolphin's and Heat fan because I was born in Miami. Is it in some ways stupid? Yeah, sure. But it's also not that big of a deal.

Then fight for the ideal and forget about attempting to exclude different countries from the bounty. Why should borders affect your ideals?:

Oh, okay.... Now I get it. You want a one-world government where a czar tells you what to do and you want to praise multiculturalism. Here's the bottom line: Not everyone values what I value. Many citizens in different countries don't share the same beliefs, and I don't want to be associated with them and have their ways infecting what works in this country.

Indeed, if I was to suddenly gain such an inconceivable victory, my pride would be tested to the point where I could possibly break. If I clung to AnCom, only out of pride (say, because I realized libertarianism or ancap was actually better for society), then I would be hurting myself by prohibiting myself from the truth. How many of us would change our beliefs easily, without thought to our reputation?:

Nobody said you're not allowed to change you mind. I certainly don't embrace Obama's or Bush's policy's... Doesn't mean I forsake the entire nation because they hijacked it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 8:45:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:19:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
There's nothing illuminating about non-blind patriotism. Patriotism is inherently immoral; not only is the general theme based on pride (and as a derivative, greed), but the whole notion of taking pride in my country is forcing you to sacrifice yours. This is the main impetus for conflict.

The fundamental error is supposing that the world is a zero sum game. That error runs through all of nutcase socialism. If Canadian patriots want the best for Canada and American patriots want the best for America, the good comes from each wanting to do their best. It does not imply that one side wants to damage the other, not does it imply that they will.

Zero-sum or not, pride is a dangerous motive. Socialism... OK... Sometimes doing their "best" means at the expense of the other patriot, does it not? This is how problems get externalized and people get exterminated.

Both would not be better if they merged or refused to compete. Nations have different assets and different cultures. The local people know how to make the best of those, not some distant rule by consensus.

You know I would not support anything like this.

It's good to cooperate on truly national or international problems, but that's the exception, not the rule. The same logic applies to individuals, who are best left to make their own decisions that to be ruled by collective homogenization.

This isn't about cooperation, it's about refusing to act based on the emotion of pride. There is no 'macro pride,' however there are cultural effects at play nonetheless that obscure how people understand the concept.
kfc