patriotism?

[JollyRoger]

So how many Gods can Christians have? What is the divine tolerance for having more or less than one or choosing the wrong one or choosing to not accept Jesus as the middleman in acknowledging the correct one?

 

[kochman]

Hey JR, since you asked, I'll spend about this much time explaining it to you...
...

Ok, any questions?

 

[JollyRoger]

What part of the Trinity is the Stars and Stripes?

 

[Domen]

My original claim was that "patriotism" implies loyalty to the nation in itself, and not merely to one's countrymen, that will take priority overs one's loyalty to other human beings.

So you are wrong in understanding what patriotism or you redefine it to your Communist purposes.

The first part might be correct but the second part about taking priority over something is not.

If a person's loyalty to his country was superseded by even the most trifling human concern, then he would not in any meaningful sense be a "patriot"

What a rubbish mate, what a rubbish Communist propaganda you write here.

so it is clear that patriotism involves at some point putting "the nation" above actual people.

This is chauvinism - or radical nationalism in other words. Patriotism is something different.

As a humanist, I find this to be fundamentally objectionable.

As a patriot, I find this to be fundamentally objectionable too. As well as what you write about patriotism.

I haven't yet heard any coherent argument as to why this should not be the case that doesn't amount to a redefinition of "patriotism" into some sort of subcultural identity.

If anyone is redefining "patriotism" here - it is you. You also did redefine "fascism", or rather your Communist idols did.

The point is that there was no explicit concept of "civilisation", as we would understand it, until the 18th century.

The lack of existence of the concept which describes / denotes the phenomenon, doesn't mean that the phenomenon itself doesn't exist.

Civilisation as we understand it according to our concept, existed long before our concept of civilisation started to exist in 18th century.

Aleksey already tried to explain this to you - with no effect, as I can see.

There may have been a disdain for other cultures that were regarded as less sophisticated, but the categorical distinction between "civilised" and "uncivilised" peoples had not yet been developed.

This is not about "disdaining" or "regarding as", this is about objective facts which can be measured.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you have any argument that doesn't amount to "you're a communist"?

 

[Domen]

And do you have any argument that doesn't amount to "I think so"?

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you? Does anyone? This is necessarily a matter of interpretation; all that can be said is if any one interpretation is more or less coherent or has more or less explanatory power than another. I would make the claim that mine is more coherent and more effectively explanatory than yours, but you would of course disagree, so I don't really know what you actually expect from me.

 

[Domen]

There may have been a disdain for other cultures that were regarded as less sophisticated, but the categorical distinction between "civilised" and "uncivilised" peoples had not yet been developed. That, in my view, casts doubt on the claim that "civilisation" is an empirical phenomenon, and not just something that we made up.

As I wrote, what we denote under the name "civilisation", can be measured because it consists of objective facts.

It's not based on any "disdain" or opinion. Stating a fact that a tribe from Amazonia is uncivilized and Europeans are civilized, is not about disdaining them. It is just stating a condition - "uncivilized" and "civilized" are conditions, which carry no emotions, or at least should carry no emotions.

Unless, of course, you stick to a very nationalist, 18th century European concept, that "uncivilized" has a pejorative meaning. But I would not suspect a Communist to stick to very nationalist, 18th century European concepts, would I?

Or unless you stick to a very chauvinist, European 19th century concept, that "uncivilized" peoples are worse than "civilized" ones. From sticking to this point of view - that "uncivilised" is worse than "civilised" - there is a short way to Fascism and Nazism, and to the concept of superior and inferior peoples.

As I wrote, what we denote under the name "civilisation", can be measured because it consists of objective facts.

Just like it can be examined basing on objective facts if a person is ill or in good health - for example.

Of course you might claim that being ill or in good health is not an empirical phenomenon, because the categorical distinction between "ill" and "healthy" people had not yet been developed.

Also the categorical distinction between "living" and "dying" person had not yet been developed.

In fact, we are all dying persons - each of us starts to die in the moment when we are born (or even when they are sired - but since Communists do not recognize a fetus as a human being, I will better stick to previous version - "when we are born").

So you might be "technically correct" - just like saying that we are all ill persons and that we are all dying everyday, are "technically correct" statements.

The problem is, that your point is ridiculous.

===================

PS:

And an ill person is not worse than a person in good health. Live of each human being has equal worth, which is above all.

Moreover, live of 1 human being has the same value as live of any number of human beings - this is the highest value which is priceless / invaluable.

These are derived from Natural Law, which you - Communists - despise so much, recognizing only the existence of state-sponsored positive law.

 

[Traitorfish]

Domen, what's it like being from the 19th century?

 

[Domen]

Domen, what's it like being from the 19th century?

Ask yourself - Communism is a 19th century ideology.

BTW - which part of my post above are you getting at?

If you are getting at to natural law - then I guess you believe the Holocaust was legal?

After all, the Holocaust was not illegal from the point of view of positive law (both international law & domestic law of the German Reich).

Anti-genocidal regulations were introduced to the system of international positive law after 1945.

There was no basis for convicting some of the top Nazi war criminals other than rules of so called natural law.

 

[Domen]

A family is an empirically observed social grouping. A nation is not. It exists only as an ideological fiction.

A nation - unlike family - is not an empirically observed social grouping? Rolling on the floor laughing.

Then why all these people wearing clothes of similar colours are gathering in our stadiums to support their national teams?

Maybe each of these groupings are one big family? Or maybe what I see is fictional?

 

[Domen]

View Post
Exactly. Tolerance is rooted in biblical values which this nation was founded upon.

Could you explain to me where in the Bible you will find outlines of: A) constitutional government, B) separation of powers, and C) popular sovereignty, which from my admittedly less than boundless understanding of the American Revolution are the closest you would get to "founding principles" for the United States?

You cannot find:

A) constitutional government,
B) separation of powers and
C) popular sovereignity

In the Bible. But you can find tolerance in the Bible.

But if A), B) and C) - instead of tolerance and other actual values - are the "founding principles" of the USA, then you have really poor founding principles.

Constitutional government, separation of powers & popular sovereignity aren't democratic values. They aren't any values (maybe except the last one - popular sovereignity, but only if we interpret "popular" as 100% of citizens), they are just tools which are supposed to help to guarantee the observance of values, such as tolerance. To "found" your nation upon tools - rather than upon values the observance of which is guaranteed by tools - isn't a good idea.

The existence of tools in itself is a good idea. But tools without precised purpose of using them (without values which are to be guaranteed by these tools) are useless. We can imagine a country which has constitutional government, separation of powers and popular sovereignity - but neither tolerance nor other democratic values are observed in this country. So a country with democratic tools but no democratic values to protect with use of those tools.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ask yourself - Communism is a 19th century ideology.

No, it was very much a 20th century ideology- the Bolsheviks didn't adopt the label "Communist" until 1918, and the Communist International wasn't founded until the following year, dates which are not only 20th century in a strictly chronological sense, but also in the sense of stratigraphical periodisation in that they sit on the near side of the the First World War and (not coincidentally!) the Russian Revolution. Its rise and fall are in a great many ways what characterise the 20th century as a period of human activity.

Not that it really matters, because I'm not a Communist, and I never have been. I'm merely a communist, which is related only etymologically.

BTW - which part of my post above are you getting at?

Pretty much the entire position you're occupying here. This sputtering indignation that somebody might challenge your ideological bastions of Nation and Civilisation, as if expressing scepticism as to their authenticity is something unimaginably radical, indeed, nihilistic, rather than a position (broadly) shared by even the even the crustiest of scholars. The only people who have any time for these ideas, in my experience, are those who've never really given it much thought.

If you are getting at to natural law - then I guess you believe the Holocaust was legal?

After all, the Holocaust was not illegal from the point of view of positive law (both international law & domestic law of the German Reich).

Anti-genocidal regulations were introduced to the system of international positive law after 1945.

There was no basis for convicting some of the top Nazi war criminals other than rules of so called natural law.

I didn't actually see that edit, and as much as I disagree with natural law theories, I don't see them as being particularly archaic. That was the one bit of your post that actually makes much sense, or, at least, it makes sense apart from the "Communist" bit.

A nation - unlike family - is not an empirically observed social grouping? Rolling on the floor laughing.

Then why all these people wearing clothes of similar colours are gathering in our stadiums to support their national teams?

Maybe each of these groupings are one big family? Or maybe what I see is fictional?

If I go into a church, I will see a large number of people sincerely addressing God, therefore, God exists?

 

[Formaldehyde]

In the Bible. But you can find tolerance in the Bible.

But if A), B) and C) - instead of tolerance and other actual values - are the "founding principles" of the USA, then you have really poor founding principles.

You don't need the Bible to know that tolerance is a positive attribute in any free and open democratic society. You could even say that many of those who claim to be adherents of the Bible completely missed that particular aspect of the religion in so many ways.

Are you one of those who think that atheists and agnostics can't possibly have morals?

 

[red_elk]

If I go into a church, I will see a large number of people sincerely addressing God, therefore, God exists?

Interesting. God may or may not exist as <real world entity>, but it definitely exists as <abstract concept>, influencing people's minds and real world through them. There might be parallels with nations and civilizations. Just thinking.

 

[holy king]

somebody should just ban eastern europe.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

holy king just won the thread

A nation - unlike family - is not an empirically observed social grouping? Rolling on the floor laughing.

Then why all these people wearing clothes of similar colours are gathering in our stadiums to support their national teams?

Maybe each of these groupings are one big family? Or maybe what I see is fictional?

I'm a huge football fan so I'm used to standing in the north stand of Olympiastadioni and wearing my Jari Litmanen shirt and shouting profanities to the referee and the opposing team until my throat is sore. And no, I'm not rooting for the nation of Finland, I'm cheering for the national football team of Finland, just like all the other guys in the stands. If my team wins, it doesn't mean that my nation is somehow better than the other nation, it means that my national football team is superior to the other one. Sports events between national teams aren't such extensions of patriotism like they used to be (except maybe in Eastern Europe), and even if they were, it wouldn't prove the existence of social grouping called "a nation." National teams have more to do with the concept of people: immigrants will continue to support the national teams of their people, not the team of the nation they're living in.

 

[MobBoss]

somebody should just ban eastern europe.

They did. It didnt take.

 

[red_elk]

somebody should just ban eastern europe.

Why you hate Poland?

 

[kochman]

somebody should just ban eastern europe.

And send all the females to Florida.