Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
First of all I am NOT a patriot, nor a nationalist. Why? Because I feel that such things simply divide and weaken us as a group. Patriotism is only considered a virtue as it makes you willing to blindly follow where your countries leaders go. This is not a virtue, it is a vice. I AM an idealist and for an ideal I believe in I will fight, but the idea that my country is better than anyone elses is not such an ideal. The idea that for some intangible reason I am superior to a frenchman or an american or a swede is one I find abhorrent, I am not. In any given area I may be better or worse than another individual, but that cannot be defined in such wide sweeping strokes as country by country. I believe in freedom of choice, but I believe that also means a wilingness to accept ideas that are not your own and more importantly that you don't agree with. There are limits of course, there are things that are just wrong, and I would oppose, but if something comes down to a difference of opinion I would not put it into that category. I live in a democratic capitalist society, I'm happy with that, I wouldn't want to live in another kind of society, however that doesn't mean that I believe communists are evil or wrong, just different, it doesn't mean that I think that all dictators are evil, they're not, just different. Again this is not saying that those that are should not be opposed, but at the same time I am saying that ANY government that commits crimes should be opposed just the same whether dictatorial, democratic, theocratic or anything else.
What are your views?
I would agree, that I am similar, there will be Germans, Frenchmen etc out there, better than me in alot of areas for example. And so, I accept that.
However, I feel, that your view on what a patriot is, is somewhat....off a little.
To be a patriot is to be devoted to ones Country. To love ones Country, to be Loyal to ones country.
You seem to be saying that a patriot and a nationalist are the same...or at least thats the feeling a get from your topic.
Whilst similar in the love of ones country yes, but no, they are different.
You can still be a Patriot, and still be an idealist.
Want to chat? You can normally find me in the LO CHAT!
LO CHAT! JOIN US NOW AND BECOME A GOD OF BACON.
We were discussing patriotism yesterday during the fireworks show. My girlfriend is a deeply patriotic person, willing to die for her country and the whole deal. I'm really the most upatriotic person I know. I guess it's because I immigrated from here and never felt any real connection with the people in my native land either, but the well being of my country as a whole is secondary to the well being of my loved ones. I guess that makes me selfish, but I don't really care. If it ever came down to me chosing between the lives of millions of people I don't know or the lives of my family and freinds..yeah you other Americans are pretty much boned. I'd seel you all out if had to, nothing personal, just looking out for the people I love. Now I'd risk my own life to save innocent people I've never met, but that's simply because I really don't value my own life too much. I'd die for a kid or something I guess, if I had to, but only if it was a question of my life or thiers. If it was the kid or my girlfreind, the kid's out of luck. I really do like America. This country has been pretty good to us.I love how Americans as a culture embrace the self indelgent animal impulses that people of other nations consider crude or barbaric.I like the food here much better too .^_^ That doesn't mean I'd die for this or any other country though.
Last edited by Edicius; July 5th, 2005 at 20:48.
If you could elaborate on what you mean here I could try to offer some perspective.Originally Posted by Deadly Nightshade
Unrestricted freedom equals anarchy.
As far as patriotism goes, for some reason it comes pretty easy to me. Even though I'm second generation American I do love this country; not because of it's leaders, although I can greatly respect most of them; current administration included; but because of the opportunities it offers.
Last edited by Joker; July 6th, 2005 at 09:49.
Neither my wife nor I are fans of our current U.S. president. Now that was only for context and not to start a flaming war. My point is this: My wife recently heard something on the radio that angered her, and she said, "I'm not feeling too patriotic lately." I said that that wasn't true, that if she weren't patriotic then she wouldn't care enough to be angry.
Karantalsis, the term you're thinking of is "Jingoism." According to Merriam-Webster, jingoism is "extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy." So it's those super-patriots, people who wear flag-clothing, flag stickers on their automobiles, flags in their yard, and people who fly off the handle if you say anything against their nation. Sad to say, this close-minded, extreme mindset describes many, many Americans right now.
Being a patriot, generally good. Being a jingoist, generally bad.
Joker, I agree that we can't have unrestricted freedoms. To function as a civilization, we need agreenent on permissible behaviors. Your statement, I think, may confuse lawlessness with anarchy. True anarchists, and I do know a few, aren't hyper-postmodernists screaming moral relativism. They tend to be pacifists who favor collective living and who have studied anarchism (such as the works of Emma Goldman). I was surprised to learn that there's much more to it than the popular notion of "anything goes," which seems to be what the vast majority of people think anarchy is.
Despite what I just typed, I still think that anarchism isnt a viable means of organizing (or disorganizing) a society.
As for communism, on paper it looks quite good. Once it exits the realm of theory and becomes practiced, it fails miserably. So yes, I do consider capitalism far favorable to communism. True enough that capitalism has its many downfalls, but talk to anyone who's lived in a communist state, and you'll hear that they'd take a faulty capitalism over a rigid communism any day.
Yes, perhaps anarchy was a poor choice of words.Originally Posted by DavidVC04
But even 'lawlessness' is too mild of a word for 'unrestricted freedom'.
Maybe 'chaos' would be a more accurate description of the utter depravity that could ensue.
What I meant was that I do occasionally see news stories telling of Americans being punished in some way for being unpatriotic. I recall tales of students being suspended for not rising to the National Anthem and â€śFreedom of Speech Zonesâ€? designed to keep people who would oppose the President away from him.
I fail to see how either of those options could lead to anarchy- afterall people in other countries do not even know their national anthem and are capable of protesting in front of their leaders without trying to assassinate them. What makes Americans any different?
Oh sure, you're right. And I think enforced patriotism is simply inane. I teach and we recite the pledge each day. I never force students to say it, because democracy's are about, well, freedom of choice. But I do know of teachers who berate or punish students for not saying it, and do so in the context of the war on terror. That's ludicrous behavior in any society, especially one espousing personal freedom as its central tenant.Originally Posted by Deadly Nightshade
Last edited by DavidWC09; July 9th, 2005 at 01:43.
Honestly, that's the first I heard of either of these two instances you are speaking of and without some form of context to refer to, any response from me could only really be speculation.Originally Posted by Deadly Nightshade
Not that I'm opposed to offering speculation, I just prefer to deal in facts especially when it comes to political discussions.
So if you could point me towards some websites so I can read what you read I could better discuss the particulars here.
I will offer my speculations from here though:
What you seem to be referring to are actions that are taken by individual teachers or principals and in the matter you refer to regarding the President, possible judgement calls made by his head of security trying to limit potential threats to his safety.
There doesn't seem to be any 'governmental policy' or 'nationwide embrasure' of the instances you refer to, only actions taken by individuals or tiny groups of them imposing their opinions on other individuals.
In the cases you refer to concerning students this is unacceptable to most parents. We don't send our children to our schools to be indoctrinated by either political party, and I can point you to numerous websites giving evidence that both parties try anyway.
In the end it is up to parents to call the individual teachers and principals to the carpet for their actions though.
As for the references to the "Freedom of Speech" zones I will give the President and his security the benefit of the doubt here, we are after all at war, so if it was a judgement call I would be inclined to let it slide.
Given the instances that have occured where liberals have physically assaulted conservative speakers, I think his safety would override someones need to protest in person right now. Like it or not extremists exist in both parties, but it's only recently that liberal fanatics have chosen physical confrontation as a means of expression.
I don't subscribe to this website and quite frankly disagree with some of the things said here, I only post it because it discusses the matter I'm speaking of: physical assaults on conservatives...http://www.liberalmatrix.com/Politics_TF_05_05_27.html
That's the great thing about our governmental system, if you truly dislike a certain administration then just remember that the majority of America didn't when they went to the polls (leave Florida 2000 out of this because all evidence points towards a clear Bush victory and it was ratified by every credible media source and CBS also )
So even if your party finds itself out of office, you have only 4 years to wait before they get to try again.
As to those 2 things you spoke of leading to anarchy, they wouldn't. The anarchy comment was based on my assumption that you thought maybe freedom shouldn't be regulated or restricted at all. If that caused a slight misunderstanding then I apologize.
Last edited by Joker; July 9th, 2005 at 09:22.