Listen up...

[LastRites]

Anyone know what this is? And whats wrong with it?
(spelling, grammar and my English translation dont count)

* We believe that a Nation is the most important worldly value. After God, your duty is to your Nation.
* We believe that your moral ehtics should be based on your nations best interest.
* We believe that the national economy should be supported by general private ownership and to be restrained of being repurchased by foreign capital.
* We believe that our nation's inner politics should be governed only by the people who are part of this nation.

[King of all Buffets]

Anyone know what this is? And whats wrong with it?
(spelling, grammar and my English translation dont count)

* We believe that a Nation is the most important worldly value. After God, your duty is to your Nation.
* We believe that your moral ehtics should be based on your nations best interest.
* We believe that the national economy should be supported by general private ownership and to be restrained of being repurchased by foreign capital.
* We believe that our nation's inner politics should be governed only by the people who are part of this nation.

A nations manifesto from hundreds of years ago? :confused:

[ManoRevolver]

Anyone know what this is? And whats wrong with it?
(spelling, grammar and my English translation dont count)

* We believe that a Nation is the most important worldly value. After God, your duty is to your Nation.
* We believe that your moral ehtics should be based on your nations best interest.
* We believe that the national economy should be supported by general private ownership and to be restrained of being repurchased by foreign capital.
* We believe that our nation's inner politics should be governed only by the people who are part of this nation.

Rules before joining the Legion? :confused:

[Gut Check]

This is like that Libertarian quiz floating around the net. Question's so broad, Craig could become one.

[Loathe]

Anyone know what this is? And whats wrong with it?
(spelling, grammar and my English translation dont count)

* We believe that a Nation is the most important worldly value. After God, your duty is to your Nation.
* We believe that your moral ehtics should be based on your nations best interest.
* We believe that the national economy should be supported by general private ownership and to be restrained of being repurchased by foreign capital.
* We believe that our nation's inner politics should be governed only by the people who are part of this nation.

On the first, I would put my family and friends ahead of my nation. I prefer to think at a more local level.

I totally disagree on the second. The individual is what drives a nation, and the ethics should be based on the rights of the individual.

OK, I'm enough of a protectionist to agree with that.

And of course we agree on the last.

You're still way too centrist/socialist in your outlook.

[Gut Check]

I totally disagree on the second. The individual is what drives a nation, and the ethics should be based on the rights of the individual.

Fuckin' exactly. You rock. I love you.

[LastRites]

On the first, I would put my family and friends ahead of my nation. I prefer to think at a more local level.

I totally disagree on the second. The individual is what drives a nation, and the ethics should be based on the rights of the individual.

OK, I'm enough of a protectionist to agree with that.

And of course we agree on the last.

You're still way too centrist/socialist in your outlook.

Friends before your nation? Comon...your buddy who lives in Zimbabawe would come first before the United States of America?
As to family...your family, other families, even friends (providing they're legal residents, etc) is what makes up the nation. We're talking about the exact same thing here, just using different words.

As to your second point...no individual drives the nation. People as a whole do. Individualist ideals spell dictatorship. The ethics cannot be based on the individuals rights as rights dont exist without ethics being there in the first place. Morals shape people and the laws/rights that they live by.

But so far nobody guessed it right.

[Acari Rotter]

The only point on that list I would give the time of day to is #3.

Nations exist for individuals, not the other way around.

Friends before your nation? Comon...your buddy who lives in Zimbabawe would come first before the United States of America?

I would put a friend who lives in Zimbabwe higher up than some random asshole from my country. There are plenty of asshole Canadians. Many times I've gotten in the face of my fellow countrymen for messing with Koreans.

[LastRites]

I would put a friend who lives in Zimbabwe higher up than some random asshole from my country. There are plenty of asshole Canadians. Many times I've gotten in the face of my fellow countrymen for messing with Koreans.
So you'd rather play playstation and drink beer with your friends than defend or be involved in your nations interests?
If everyone thought like you, there'd be chaos. Or are you relying on someone else to do it for you?

[Acari Rotter]

So you'd rather play playstation and drink beer with your friends than defend or be involved in your nations interests?
If everyone thought like you, there'd be chaos. Or are you relying on someone else to do it for you?

If a Canadian is being a dick, I'm going to belt him. That is in defence of my country.

[LastRites]

If a Canadian is being a dick, I'm going to belt him. That is in defence of my country.
Youre going off topic here. This has nothing to do with choosing one individual over the other. This is about Loathe putting an x amount of friends first before his nation as a whole. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Would I put my friends before my nation's interests to better it for everyone (like in a war to defend your country)? - In a heartbeat.

[Acari Rotter]

Youre going off topic here. This has nothing to do with choosing one individual over the other. This is about Loathe putting an x amount of friends first before his nation as a whole. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Would I put my friends before my nation's interests to better it for everyone (like in a war to defend your country)? - In a heartbeat.

Well I'm married to a Korean, so yes I would put her before basically any Canadian, even if it were life or death, even if it were for national security.

If Canada and South Korea were hypothetically at war, I would sit that one out.

[LastRites]

Well I'm married to a Korean, so yes I would put her before basically any Canadian, even if it were life or death, even if it were for national security.
You dont get it do ya? Are you playing with me here or just dont understand what I wrote?

Your friends could be anyone...an illegal immigrant...a playstation buddy....dude who gives you free beer....a hooker....anything and anyone. Would you put them first, before your own nations best interests in which you live in and for? (doesnt matter which nation you choose)

Or do you value your personal friendships with individuals (not your family) more than your country?...as Loathe wrote.

[Acari Rotter]

I guess I have good taste in friends.

[LastRites]

I guess I have good taste in friends.
And are worthless to your nation be it Canada or Korea.

[Acari Rotter]

And are worthless to your nation be it Canada or Korea.

Says you. Canada and Korea aren't enemies. In fact, they are allies, and I do everything I can to keep it that way.

[LastRites]

Says you. Canada and Korea aren't enemies. In fact, they are allies, and I do everything I can to keep it that way.
What the fuck are you talking about man? Im not talking about a war between Korea and Canada... holy crap.

Here let me put it this way....Im going to simplify it as much as I can, I will use an example ok? So just bare with me here...

You're married to a Korean, have a Korean family and live in Korea. You hold Korean citizenship and feel like a Korean. Good. Now... Korea as a nation.... meaning all people decided that it was better for ALL OF KOREA that illegal immigrants leave their country for whatever justified reason. This will make a better future for Koreans as a whole and all Koreans agree.
Just happens that some of your drinking buddies are illegal immigrants from whocareswhere. Now do you:
* Say "fuck Korea and its interests" and protect your buddies from being kicked out?
* Want a better future for yourself and your kids as Koreans and do whats best for your nation?


I dont think I can explain this any simpler than this. But please think about this before replying.

[Acari Rotter]

What the fuck are you talking about man? Im not talking about a war between Korea and Canada... holy crap.

Here let me put it this way....Im going to simplify it as much as I can, I will use an example ok? So just bare with me here...

You're married to a Korean, have a Korean family and live in Korea. You hold Korean citizenship and feel like a Korean. Good. Now... Korea as a nation.... meaning all people decided that it was better for ALL OF KOREA that illegal immigrants leave their country for whatever justified reason. This will make a better future for Koreans as a whole and all Koreans agree.
Just happens that some of your drinking buddies are illegal immigrants from whocareswhere. Now do you:
* Say "fuck Korea and its interests" and protect your buddies from being kicked out?
* Want a better future for yourself and your kids as Koreans and do whats best for your nation?

I dont think I can explain this any simpler than this. But please think about this before replying.

I don't feel like a Korean at all. My citizenship and ethnicity are both 100% Canadian. One of South Korea's problems right now is they are too isolationist; they need to open the doors (and at the same time keep bad elements like pedophiles and sex tourists out). This country simply wouldn't run without illegal immigrants working in the factories, teaching English, and introducing outside culture.

If they decided to kick out all foreigners, I'd tell them to fuck off and take my wife with me to some other country. Any country that puts ethnicity race ahead of life is not worth living in. Likewise if we lived in Canada and they kicked my wife out, I'd move with her and tell Canada to fuck off.

I don't put anyone first based on what country they're from. That's the whole point. It matters what kind of person they are, not where they're from. I'm proud of my country but nation is not my most important worldly value.

[Oz.]

Bulgogi is good shit.:D

[Loathe]

What the fuck are you talking about man? Im not talking about a war between Korea and Canada... holy crap.

Here let me put it this way....Im going to simplify it as much as I can, I will use an example ok? So just bare with me here...

You're married to a Korean, have a Korean family and live in Korea. You hold Korean citizenship and feel like a Korean. Good. Now... Korea as a nation.... meaning all people decided that it was better for ALL OF KOREA that illegal immigrants leave their country for whatever justified reason. This will make a better future for Koreans as a whole and all Koreans agree.
Just happens that some of your drinking buddies are illegal immigrants from whocareswhere. Now do you:
* Say "fuck Korea and its interests" and protect your buddies from being kicked out?
* Want a better future for yourself and your kids as Koreans and do whats best for your nation?


I dont think I can explain this any simpler than this. But please think about this before replying.


I'm not friends with any illegal aliens, nor do I think I would be, as natioanlism does hold a place in my life, just not as high or as central of one as it does to you.

Stop trying to mess with the mans mind. Neither of us agree with you.

[Acari Rotter]

I think he thought I was a Korean. Nope, I've been an illegal alien for two years. Now I'm a little more legal.

And Oz., samgyupsaur kicks the ass clean off of bulgogi.

[LastRites]

I don't put anyone first based on what country they're from. That's the whole point. It matters what kind of person they are, not where they're from. I'm proud of my country but nation is not my most important worldly value.

Now you have answered my question.

[LastRites]

I'm not friends with any illegal aliens, nor do I think I would be, as natioanlism does hold a place in my life, just not as high or as central of one as it does to you.

Stop trying to mess with the mans mind. Neither of us agree with you.
I wasnt trying to mess with his mind...the dude couldnt answer a smiple question and kept beating around the bush and throwing completely different things into the scenario.
I just fail to understand how someone would choose a buddy over his own country. I dont get it...How can a personal preference or personal satisfaction of an individual be greater than a national matter/concern that involves all citizens.
Remember Im not talking about a government...but a nation.

[WBC]

I wasnt trying to mess with his mind...the dude couldnt answer a smiple question and kept beating around the bush and throwing completely different things into the scenario.
I just fail to understand how someone would choose a buddy over his own country. I dont get it...How can a personal preference or personal satisfaction of an individual be greater than a national matter/concern that involves all citizens.
Remember Im not talking about a government...but a nation.
because it reduces pressure and strain on the more selfish individuals by creating a philosophical respectibility to their self-centred aspirations.... they know it doesnt fly as a political philosophy... but it releases them from responsibility.... everyone with an ounce of wit knows that utilitarianism is the only way a nation can function.....

[tousunis]

LastRites just give it up....the guy appears to be too thick to acknowledge anything you have said.

[King of all Buffets]

because it reduces pressure and strain on the more selfish individuals by creating a philosophical respectibility to their self-centred aspirations.... they know it doesnt fly as a political philosophy... but it releases them from responsibility.... everyone with an ounce of wit knows that utilitarianism is the only way a nation can function.....

What if this issue was more personal like say your wife was going to be deported and for some extenuating reason you had to stay in the country. Would you let her leave with you newborn because or would you do what it take to keep her and your kid with you even though it meant that she was in the country illegally.

I agree with this idea in princple but when it effects you that closely I dont know that I would be so quick to choose nation over the Individual

[LastRites]

.... it releases them from responsibility....

Too fucking true. People dont care yet they want a slice of the cake. Selfish bastards. No wonder nations are being torn from the inside out by their own citizens. Its all going to hell.

[LastRites]

What if this issue was more personal like say your wife was going to be deported and for some extenuating reason you had to stay in the country. Would you let her leave with you newborn because or would you do what it take to keep her and your kid with you even though it meant that she was in the country illegally.

I agree with this idea in princple but when it effects you that closely I dont know that I would be so quick to choose nation over the Individual

I get what youre saying...I wasnt trying to make this whole thing as the "what if" question. Just a matter of principle/priority when it came to such issue.

[Tokyohoon]

* We believe that a Nation is the most important worldly value. After God, your duty is to your Nation.
* We believe that your moral ehtics should be based on your nations best interest.
* We believe that the national economy should be supported by general private ownership and to be restrained of being repurchased by foreign capital.
* We believe that our nation's inner politics should be governed only by the people who are part of this nation.

2 questions on moral duty, one on economics, and one on national security.

1. Your duty is first to yourself, second to your children, third to your spouse, fourth to your parents, fifth to your brothers and sisters, sixth to your friends, seventh to your god, eighth to your king and country, nineth to your employer, last to your fellow man. This is the way of the moral man.

2. The correct moral ethic is reflected above. You must take care of yourself above all else in order that you may fulfill your other duties. You must care for your children above all save yourself, for they are the future. You must care for your spouse above all save yourself and your children, as s/he will care for your children when you are unable. Next your parents, for they gave you life and will care for your family when you are unable. Your brothers and sisters follow, for they will also care for your parents and your family. Your friends are next, as a true friend will care for your family as if it were their own. All of the above enable you to contribute to the glory of your God, and reason to be thankful to your God. Following this, your duty is to your king and countrymen, and finally your fellow man from lands afar.

3. Limitation on foreign capital into your economy is ineffective as it does not allow the additional investment that foreign capital brings. Thailand is a perfect example of a country that does not allow foreign ownership - and thus receives very little foreign investment, and has a stagnant economy.

4. I do not know of any country that does not require citizenship as a prerequisite for holding a political (read: elected or appointed) position of power within the nation, and most require citizenship from birth for elite political positions.

[Packratt]

2 questions on moral duty, one on economics, and one on national security.

1. Your duty is first to yourself, second to your children, third to your spouse, fourth to your parents, fifth to your brothers and sisters, sixth to your friends, seventh to your god, eighth to your king and country, nineth to your employer, last to your fellow man. This is the way of the moral man.

Well, I could argue that there are cases in which this 'moral sequence' would be immoral.

Let us suppose that one's parents do really evil things, should this not demand that one let the moral obligation to one's fellow human take precidence over the obligation to one's parents?

What of one's own children then, I would die to protect my children and wife thus this, if such a situation that demanded such sacrifice arose, would abrogate my responsibility to self and replace it with my responsibility to my offspring and their caretaker.

This scale of moral obligation is not true in all cases or situations, at least not in my mind. To me, it is not an absolute table of morality.

In any case, one's obligation to nation still resides fairly low on my list at least, well under the responsibilities one has to one's self, one's family, and one's word.
(of course, in the case of a defensive war the defense of one's nation comes before the obligation of self because this is inclusive of the other obligations).


3. Limitation on foreign capital into your economy is ineffective as it does not allow the additional investment that foreign capital brings. Thailand is a perfect example of a country that does not allow foreign ownership - and thus receives very little foreign investment, and has a stagnant economy.

4. I do not know of any country that does not require citizenship as a prerequisite for holding a political (read: elected or appointed) position of power within the nation, and most require citizenship from birth for elite political positions.

Both of these, when combined, sort of lead into discussions of how wealth can influence a nation's political order, especially when foreign nationals can buy access and influence within the highest reaches of government. But, I suppose that would be an entirely different subject entirely.

[Acari Rotter]

I wasnt trying to mess with his mind...the dude couldnt answer a smiple question and kept beating around the bush and throwing completely different things into the scenario.
I just fail to understand how someone would choose a buddy over his own country. I dont get it...How can a personal preference or personal satisfaction of an individual be greater than a national matter/concern that involves all citizens.
Remember Im not talking about a government...but a nation.

We just have very different ideas of what one can do to make a nation great. I go out goodwill-ambassadoring every weekend with Americans and Koreans and Australians.

Last Rites, your whole argument "your nation or your friend?" is an artificial scenario. What nation are you loyal to anyway, Last Rites? One or two?

[LastRites]

Packratt and Hoon...now we're getting somewhere with this thread.

I think everyone fails to understand the difference and/or the similarity I am trying to make here. I tried to come up with this fragile question as best as I could without turing this into a "what if" or "friends vs nation".
I realize and understand what you people are trying to say but hear me out.
Your families, close friends, parents, children...even your boss....they ARE your nation. Unless they are illegal or live under a different flag. I see no reason why "friend vs nation" would even come up unless someone becomes a traitor to your country. (country not regime) In which case...then you would be faced with such decision making. But until then.....everyone should be on the same page so to speak. I also misinterpreted Loathe's answer to my question. I took it in a more of a street level way.
WBC mentioned a word which I was missing from my previous posts which could have been understood better. "Responsibility"
To rephrase the actual question:
You dont have to be any type of a Nationalist to understand that we as a nations citizens, have a responsibility (or duty) to defend it and do what is best for it. It is our home. Would we push away our nations (read family/friends/etc) needs for the sole purpose of self survival? (read selfishness)
That is the point my first post was trying to make. That after god comes "you+family+friends+other people. Looking at history (WW2) many posters say God&Country...to this day this phrase is being used all over the world. Has it changed to much that majority of people disregard their own people to such an extent that they would put their personal agenda's first before their fellow country and flag? Would they not sacrafice themselves to save all others? Maybe some soldiers would like to throw in their 2. cents on this one?

[Acari Rotter]

Your families, close friends, parents, children...even your boss....they ARE your nation.

This statement makes no sense. I work in a foreign country and my boss is Korean. How is he "my nation"? No sense at all.

So where did you get these four gems from, Last Rites?

[LastRites]

This statement makes no sense. I work in a foreign country and my boss is Korean. How is he "my nation"? No sense at all.

Dude...check your head. You are an immigrant to a foreign country. Of course he is not going to be your nation until you become one of them aka a Korean citizen. Then wouldnt you say that Korea is your nation? Holy fuck, please do some observation/thinking on your own...my patience is running out with you in this thread.

[Acari Rotter]

Dude...check your head. You are an immigrant to a foreign country. Of course he is not going to be your nation until you become one of them aka a Korean citizen. Then wouldnt you say that Korea is your nation? Holy fuck, please do some observation/thinking on your own...my patience is running out with you in this thread.

Well your ideological take on "nation" has nothing to offer me.

[Tokyohoon]

You just love to upset my apple cart, doncha Packy? :D

Well, I could argue that there are cases in which this 'moral sequence' would be immoral.

Let us suppose that one's parents do really evil things, should this not demand that one let the moral obligation to one's fellow human take precidence over the obligation to one's parents?

Would it not then be your moral duty to them to stop them from doing such things?


What of one's own children then, I would die to protect my children and wife thus this, if such a situation that demanded such sacrifice arose, would abrogate my responsibility to self and replace it with my responsibility to my offspring and their caretaker.

And you know that I would also make the same choice.

One Confucian answer would be that if the choice is such that you must choose between your life and the life of your child or spouse (or friend or family member), then (possibly through no fault of your own), you have already failed in your moral duty to them, and in so doing, yourself. Sacrificing yourself would, in this case, provide redemption.

You could also put forth an argument that you would still be upholding your duty to your self, in the form of your soul or afterlife, in that failure to make such sacrifice would doom your soul to hell if you believe in one, or a lower form of reincarnation.

I would, though, argue that it would be immoral for you to sacrifice yourself for a friend and cost your children their father.


This scale of moral obligation is not true in all cases or situations, at least not in my mind. To me, it is not an absolute table of morality.


This is why no system of morality can be absolute. The closest I have ever found is to "do no intentional harm unnecessarily", but even with that code of morals, what is "necessary" is a grey zone.

No system - be it moral, political, religious or philosophical - can account for the infinite varieties of the human social condition.


In any case, one's obligation to nation still resides fairly low on my list at least, well under the responsibilities one has to one's self, one's family, and one's word.
(of course, in the case of a defensive war the defense of one's nation comes before the obligation of self because this is inclusive of the other obligations).


I would actually argue that this is action in defense of oneself, in that it is a defense of all one holds dear.


Both of these, when combined, sort of lead into discussions of how wealth can influence a nation's political order, especially when foreign nationals can buy access and influence within the highest reaches of government. But, I suppose that would be an entirely different subject entirely.

Oh, naturally - and that is a LONG debate. Generally, though, I would support open foreign investment with restrictions on foreign ownership (or investment in) of certain classes of business - namely telecommunications, defense industry companies and other businesses vital to national security.

[Tokyohoon]

Dude...check your head. You are an immigrant to a foreign country. Of course he is not going to be your nation until you become one of them aka a Korean citizen. Then wouldnt you say that Korea is your nation? Holy fuck, please do some observation/thinking on your own...my patience is running out with you in this thread.

Actually, most of what he's saying is fairly spot on for his situation (and mine).

You're basically failing to address the situation we're in, which is that of an expatriated citizen. I believe you are also in the same situtation, no? I can't remember if you're a German or Canadian citizen.

[LastRites]

Actually, most of what he's saying is fairly spot on for his situation (and mine).

You're basically failing to address the situation we're in, which is that of an expatriated citizen. I believe you are also in the same situtation, no? I can't remember if you're a German or Canadian citizen.
I dont want to get into immigration on this one. Lets just say both of ya are living back in Canada and know nobody in Japan/Korea.
Think as a Canadian living here, having a Canadian wife.
I hold 3 different citizenships. Well.... 2 because German law says you're either a German citizen or not and since I live in Canada and hold Canadian citizenship that answers it. But Canadian and Polish law allows me to hold multiple citizenships.

[Acari Rotter]

Lets just say both of ya are living back in Canada and know nobody in Japan/Korea.



No, let's not. We like it here.

[LastRites]

No, let's not. We like it here.
How about you just stay the fuck away from this thread since you cant reply with something worth discussing.

[Packratt]

You just love to upset my apple cart, doncha Packy? :D

Applesauce is good stuff.

Would it not then be your moral duty to them to stop them from doing such things?

Let's say that one's parents still do not harm their children and hold to their obligation to physically support them, yet they do things to others that may be morally irreprehensible, perhaps like molesting other children or serial killing. Then it is not necessarily self protection but the protection of others and society in general that takes precedence. (though, arguments could be made that the protection of social stability is in fact a self serving pursuit)


And you know that I would also make the same choice.

One Confucian answer would be that if the choice is such that you must choose between your life and the life of your child or spouse (or friend or family member), then (possibly through no fault of your own), you have already failed in your moral duty to them, and in so doing, yourself. Sacrificing yourself would, in this case, provide redemption.

That would require a successful argument to the point that there are no such things as situations beyond one's control, (the self as god); or more to the point, that there is no such thing as an accident.

You could also put forth an argument that you would still be upholding your duty to your self, in the form of your soul or afterlife, in that failure to make such sacrifice would doom your soul to hell if you believe in one, or a lower form of reincarnation.

We can keep such intangibles out of the argument by suggesting that the defense of one's genetic self takes precedence over the protection of one's physical self. (perpetuation of species over self, a very natural biological drive)

I would, though, argue that it would be immoral for you to sacrifice yourself for a friend and cost your children their father.

I agree, though, it gets confusing when one has given one's word to such an effect. Of course, that may or may not be a moral failure depending on circumstance.

This is why no system of morality can be absolute. The closest I have ever found is to "do no intentional harm unnecessarily", but even with that code of morals, what is "necessary" is a grey zone.

No system - be it moral, political, religious or philosophical - can account for the infinite varieties of the human social condition.

I've found that "do the least harm" works well for me... but that isn't as simple as it sounds.

I would actually argue that this is action in defense of oneself, in that it is a defense of all one holds dear.

Yeah, defense of oneself is more than just the physical body, but also one's legacy, beliefs, and spirit or soul or whatnot.

Oh, naturally - and that is a LONG debate. Generally, though, I would support open foreign investment with restrictions on foreign ownership (or investment in) of certain classes of business - namely telecommunications, defense industry companies and other businesses vital to national security.

That gets complex as well. Even though that wasn't necessarily what I was talking about, (think lobbyists) it does come into play.

[Packratt]

Your families, close friends, parents, children...even your boss....they ARE your nation. Unless they are illegal or live under a different flag. I see no reason why "friend vs nation" would even come up unless someone becomes a traitor to your country. (country not regime) In which case...then you would be faced with such decision making. But until then.....everyone should be on the same page so to speak. I also misinterpreted Loathe's answer to my question. I took it in a more of a street level way.
WBC mentioned a word which I was missing from my previous posts which could have been understood better. "Responsibility"
To rephrase the actual question:
You dont have to be any type of a Nationalist to understand that we as a nations citizens, have a responsibility (or duty) to defend it and do what is best for it. It is our home. Would we push away our nations (read family/friends/etc) needs for the sole purpose of self survival? (read selfishness)
That is the point my first post was trying to make. That after god comes "you+family+friends+other people. Looking at history (WW2) many posters say God&Country...to this day this phrase is being used all over the world. Has it changed to much that majority of people disregard their own people to such an extent that they would put their personal agenda's first before their fellow country and flag? Would they not sacrafice themselves to save all others? Maybe some soldiers would like to throw in their 2. cents on this one?

Well, we can look at Hoon's argument for self-interest having moral precedence over all else. Usually the interest of one's nation coincide with one's self. (despite the arguments so far, governments and nations are concepts designed to appeal to self interest by way of mutual defence and commonality of interest, i.e. united we stand, divided we fall)

So,yes, in most situations the interests of the nation are the interests of the self and family...
Yet at times the interests of the nation may be antithetical to the interests of the self and family.

What takes precidence when the interests of one's country imperil one's family and self? Do you take the hemlock after giving it to your children or do you play at trechery to protect those who cannot protect themselves and for whom you are obligated to defend?

The defense of nation argument must appeal to a sense of self preservation (or preservation of all that one holds dear). Elsewise, is it still truly your nation that you are sacrificing yourself for?

[Tokyohoon]

I dont want to get into immigration on this one. Lets just say both of ya are living back in Canada and know nobody in Japan/Korea.
Think as a Canadian living here, having a Canadian wife.
I hold 3 different citizenships. Well.... 2 because German law says you're either a German citizen or not and since I live in Canada and hold Canadian citizenship that answers it. But Canadian and Polish law allows me to hold multiple citizenships.

Uh, no. No point in trying out a hypothetical because the reality of it is that I, and almsot everybody that I know and see on a regular basis is an expatriate citizen (or Japanese :) ).

Your system of morality is a failure if it can't address such a basic situation.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your three citizenships. Do you hold the priorities of Germany above those of Poland? Above those of Canada? For which nation do you beat the drum?

[Tokyohoon]

Applesauce is good stuff.

...and me with pork chops in the freezer. Dammit, I gotta buy apples on the way home now.


Let's say that one's parents still do not harm their children and hold to their obligation to physically support them, yet they do things to others that may be morally irreprehensible, perhaps like molesting other children or serial killing. Then it is not necessarily self protection but the protection of others and society in general that takes precedence. (though, arguments could be made that the protection of social stability is in fact a self serving pursuit)

Ah, in this case, you would most definitely have a moral responsibility to stop them, as their actions would imperil both their physical being and their metaphysical being.


That would require a successful argument to the point that there are no such things as situations beyond one's control, (the self as god); or more to the point, that there is no such thing as an accident.

What can I say, Confucious was an unforgiving sonofabitch.


We can keep such intangibles out of the argument by suggesting that the defense of one's genetic self takes precedence over the protection of one's physical self. (perpetuation of species over self, a very natural biological drive)

Agreed. As you say below, self is more than one's corporal being.


I agree, though, it gets confusing when one has given one's word to such an effect. Of course, that may or may not be a moral failure depending on circumstance.

I would say that giving one's word to value a friend over your own children is probably immoral - if the children came along after the fact, the friend should recognize that the situtation has changed. It gets more complicated when your friend also has children. The usual way this is worked out is an exchange of life in return for a pledge that one's children would be cared for.


I've found that "do the least harm" works well for me... but that isn't as simple as it sounds.

It never is.


Yeah, defense of oneself is more than just the physical body, but also one's legacy, beliefs, and spirit or soul or whatnot.

Exactly. A man is more than blood and bone.


That gets complex as well. Even though that wasn't necessarily what I was talking about, (think lobbyists) it does come into play.

Lobbyists. Yes. Now I remember, that's the life form on the wheel of reincarnation that falls in between a cockroach and an earthworm.

[LastRites]

Well, we can look at Hoon's argument for self-interest having moral precedence over all else. Usually the interest of one's nation coincide with one's self. (despite the arguments so far, governments and nations are concepts designed to appeal to self interest by way of mutual defence and commonality of interest, i.e. united we stand, divided we fall)

So,yes, in most situations the interests of the nation are the interests of the self and family...
Yet at times the interests of the nation may be antithetical to the interests of the self and family.

What takes precidence when the interests of one's country imperil one's family and self? Do you take the hemlock after giving it to your children or do you play at trechery to protect those who cannot protect themselves and for whom you are obligated to defend?

The defense of nation argument must appeal to a sense of self preservation (or preservation of all that one holds dear). Elsewise, is it still truly your nation that you are sacrificing yourself for?
That would fall under what one holds a nation as. How does one actually feel what he is and what he lives for. Does one think of it just as a flag and an anthem and a geographical point or does one feel morally and culturally as a member of (inser nation) here and thinks of himself as part of it...aka a brick in the wall. I tend to think there is more than a flag and an anthem to it all.

[Acari Rotter]

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your three citizenships. Do you hold the priorities of Germany above those of Poland? Above those of Canada? For which nation do you beat the drum?


Yeah, what would you do if, say, Germany invaded Poland and Canada declared war?

[Argyleskin]

Yeah, what would you do if, say, Germany invaded Poland and Canada declared war?

Suddenly find an attraction towards men, lose a finger, and suddenly have ovarian cancer?

(I had to, been lurking in here)

[LastRites]

Uh, no. No point in trying out a hypothetical because the reality of it is that I, and almsot everybody that I know and see on a regular basis is an expatriate citizen (or Japanese :) ).

Your system of morality is a failure if it can't address such a basic situation.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your three citizenships. Do you hold the priorities of Germany above those of Poland? Above those of Canada? For which nation do you beat the drum?

True. I dont really know how to approach your and Acari Rotter's situation in this thread. Something I havent looked at to tell you the truth. I was trying to make it simple...born& reside in one place.

As to my citizenships...I hold above the one I feel as. Spiritualy, my innerself is Polish. Yes I've lived in Germany and I now reside in Canada and like visiting a home, I take my shoes off, I do respect it, clean it up and protect where Im staying. But my inner me will be my inner me, cannot be changed. Unless I renounce and flip to the other side. In which case, Poland will see me as a traitor. And this is not about what if Canada went to war with Poland...its not about that. Its about who you are, what you feel. Would I have been a Canadian from a Canadian family born in Poland, Im sure Id be speaking the opposite.

[Packratt]

That would fall under what one holds a nation as. How does one actually feel what he is and what he lives for. Does one think of it just as a flag and an anthem and a geographical point or does one feel morally and culturally as a member of (inser nation) here and thinks of himself as part of it...aka a brick in the wall. I tend to think there is more than a flag and an anthem to it all.

Well, as much as you might not want to reply due to your current post count...

The idea of a nation is just that, an idea. It's not really a physical or constant thing, it's ever changing. Sometimes that nation, a representation of a set of ideals that once you pledged allegience to, might change into something that you no longer feel is worthy of support.

What if America ceased to be America? Can that happen? or is America always America no matter what it's form of government or national identity and ideals?

God and country... I think before we can discuss a set of moral precedences that we have to agree to what the terms actually mean.

[Acari Rotter]

True. I dont really know how to approach your and Acari Rotter's situation in this thread. Something I havent looked at to tell you the truth. I was trying to make it simple...born& reside in one place.

As to my citizenships...I hold above the one I feel as. Spiritualy, my innerself is Polish. Yes I've lived in Germany and I now reside in Canada and like visiting a home, I take my shoes off, I do respect it, clean it up and protect where Im staying. But my inner me will be my inner me, cannot be changed. Unless I renounce and flip to the other side. In which case, Poland will see me as a traitor. And this is not about what if Canada went to war with Poland...its not about that. Its about who you are, what you feel. Would I have been a Canadian from a Canadian family born in Poland, Im sure Id be speaking the opposite.

I see a major contradiction here. It looks to me like you're in the same boat as both me and Hoon.

[LastRites]

Well, as much as you might not want to reply due to your current post count...

The idea of a nation is just that, an idea. It's not really a physical or constant thing, it's ever changing. Sometimes that nation, a representation of a set of ideals that once you pledged allegience to, might change into something that you no longer feel is worthy of support.

What if America ceased to be America? Can that happen? or is America always America no matter what it's form of government or national identity and ideals?

God and country... I think before we can discuss a set of moral precedences that we have to agree to what the terms actually mean.
See... in my opinion an idea of a nation is not just an idea. Its a spiritual meaning as well. I may be wrong but I think that this may be hard for North Americans to understand with its short history and its mixed cultural structure. For someone from Europe to replace his flag, anthem, language and geography would kill the person inside. Unless he has absolut hatred of what he is.

[LastRites]

I see a major contradiction here. It looks to me like you're in the same boat as both me and Hoon.
Point it out. Dont let Hoon fight the battle himself.

[Packratt]

See... in my opinion an idea of a nation is not just an idea. Its a spiritual meaning as well. I may be wrong but I think that this may be hard for North Americans to understand with its short history and its mixed cultural structure. For someone from Europe to replace his flag, anthem, language and geography would kill the person inside. Unless he has absolut hatred of what he is.

Let me make sure I understand... You're suggesting that a nation is still the same nation no matter what else changes so long as the flag, anthem, language, and geography stay the same?

What if the method of governance changed? What if it's laws radically changed or it's economy or it's values? Is it still the same in spirit?

[Acari Rotter]

I'll highlight the parts that contradict other parts.

True. I dont really know how to approach your and Acari Rotter's situation in this thread. Something I havent looked at to tell you the truth. I was trying to make it simple...born& reside in one place.


So you don't understand me or Tokyohoon living in other countries, but you live in another country yourself?


As to my citizenships...I hold above the one I feel as. Spiritualy, my innerself is Polish. Yes I've lived in Germany and I now reside in Canada and like visiting a home, I take my shoes off, I do respect it, clean it up and protect where Im staying. But my inner me will be my inner me, cannot be changed. Unless I renounce and flip to the other side. In which case, Poland will see me as a traitor. And this is not about what if Canada went to war with Poland...its not about that. Its about who you are, what you feel. Would I have been a Canadian from a Canadian family born in Poland, Im sure Id be speaking the opposite.

You have citizenship with three countries?

See... in my opinion an idea of a nation is not just an idea. Its a spiritual meaning as well. I may be wrong but I think that this may be hard for North Americans to understand with its short history and its mixed cultural structure. For someone from Europe to replace his flag, anthem, language and geography would kill the person inside. Unless he has absolut hatred of what he is.

Once again: you have citizenship in three countries?

[LastRites]

Let me make sure I understand... You're suggesting that a nation is still the same nation no matter what else changes so long as the flag, anthem, language, and geography stay the same?

What if the method of governance changed? What if it's laws radically changed or it's economy or it's values? Is it still the same in spirit?

No, that is not what Im suggesting. What I am saying is that those things alone (flag, language, etc.) dont make you who you actually are, they do make up a huge part of you but do not complete you. There is still the innerself, not your morals but your spirit. (that is if you belive in one)
If you are an Italian...you could be speaking German, living in Thailand, have a French wife and have Chinese tattoo...you are still an Italian, should feel like one and have a duty to your Italian people unless of course, you renounce who you are and adopt a new you. Your nation can change...laws can change even your culture...but the value of your nation, cannot change.(try to understand this using history) It is no different than your mother....may not be fit, may not do the right things...but is still your mother. Im out of words at the moment to fully describe what I want to say.

[Oz.]

Let me make sure I understand... You're suggesting that a nation is still the same nation no matter what else changes so long as the flag, anthem, language, and geography stay the same?

What if the method of governance changed? What if it's laws radically changed or it's economy or it's values? Is it still the same in spirit?
You generally make an absurd amount of sense, but this is just absurd. Egypt? Anybody? Or more recently Seth Efreka? Complete fucking paradigm shifts- same nations...

[LastRites]

I'll highlight the parts that contradict other parts.

So you don't understand me or Tokyohoon living in other countries, but you live in another country yourself?

You have citizenship with three countries?

Once again: you have citizenship in three countries?
Are you stupid? Im not repeating myself. I asked you to point out my "contradictions" ...hoping you would somewhat explain what you mean by it....and you throw questions at me that I've answered earlier.

[Oz.]

No, that is not what Im suggesting. What I am saying is that those things alone (flag, language, etc.) dont make you who you actually are, they do make up a huge part of you but do not complete you. There is still the innerself, not your morals but your spirit. (that is if you belive in one)
If you are an Italian...you could be speaking German, living in Thailand, have a French wife and have Chinese tattoo...you are still an Italian, should feel like one and have a duty to your Italian people unless of course, you renounce who you are and adopt a new you. Your nation can change...laws can change even your culture...but the value of your nation, cannot change.(try to understand this using history) It is no different than your mother....may not be fit, may not do the right things...but is still your mother. Im out of words at the moment to fully describe what I want to say.
So when Italy invades France ('cause lets face it France isn't invading anywhere), this hypothetical Italian will be fighting his son (because obviously the boy's mother is his mother so he must defend her honour and country) and this is morally proper? For nations neither of them have much to do with from Thailand?

There are shades of grey in this and I think you know it. Trying to simplify for the sake of argument doesn't work because life isn't simple.

[Packratt]

You generally make an absurd amount of sense, but this is just absurd. Egypt? Anybody? Or more recently Seth Efreka? Complete fucking paradigm shifts- same nations...

Perhaps it's a cultural gap, as Lastrites alluded to earlier, maybe not... but this is how I view it.

My nation, America, is more a representation of ideals than it is a physical country to me. These ideals are it's foundation, it's identity, without them it would cease to be America in spirit. Without these things, the flag and everything else would represent something entirely different even if they still looked the same and kept the same names.

For instance, the constitution is usually considered to be the cornerstone of our nation, it is essentially a significant portion of our heritige, our shared identity. If, for whatever reason, America ceased to value the constitution and adopted a form of governance and set of laws that were antithetical to the ideas set forth in that document it would cease to be America in my eyes.

[LastRites]

So when Italy invades France ('cause lets face it France isn't invading anywhere), this hypothetical Italian will be fighting his son (because obviously the boy's mother is his mother so he must defend her honour and country) and this is morally proper? For nations neither of them have much to do with from Thailand?

There are shades of grey in this and I think you know it. Trying to simplify for the sake of argument doesn't work because life isn't simple.

That is what I am actually trying to find out from you people in my posts in this thread. In my opening post, I have asked what was wrong with this...and I am just trying to understand where people stand on this issue or how they see it.


* We believe that a Nation is the most important worldly value. After God, your duty is to your Nation.
* We believe that your moral ehtics should be based on your nations best interest.

Taking these two points above and your response....can anyone hold their nation as a priority if you dont believe that the moral ethics should be based on their nations best interest and vice versa. Because in my opinon to have pride in your country one or both of the two points above equal patriotism. And we have people on this board who call themselves "patriots" or Irish-Americans, German-Americans, etc. But I dont want to get into the definition of these terms just yet.
In a hypothetical question such as yours if you had to choose between who you were born and who you are now....would you choose how you feel, how you want or how you should feel like....and can we tell the difference between them speaking stictly in terms of nation/country. Because shades of grey exist and life isnt that simple as you put it....we must make choices and cant have everything and all. We cant be members of every race, every nation, speaking the same tounge, etc. ;)

[Oz.]

Perhaps it's a cultural gap, as Lastrites alluded to earlier, maybe not... but this is how I view it.

My nation, America, is more a representation of ideals than it is a physical country to me. These ideals are it's foundation, it's identity, without them it would cease to be America in spirit. Without these things, the flag and everything else would represent something entirely different even if they still looked the same and kept the same names.

For instance, the constitution is usually considered to be the cornerstone of our nation, it is essentially a significant portion of our heritige, our shared identity. If, for whatever reason, America ceased to value the constitution and adopted a form of governance and set of laws that were antithetical to the ideas set forth in that document it would cease to be America in my eyes.
Fair enough. That is how America defines itself. That's not how all countries define themselves. Italy for, example, has all the consistency of a headless chicken when it comes to ideology. Yet there is undoubtedly an essential Italian spirit. Different peoples value different things. That doesn't mean they are any less attached to an idea of nation. They just have a different idea of nation. That was my point.

[LastRites]

Fair enough. That is how America defines itself. That's not how all countries define themselves. Italy for, example, has all the consistency of a headless chicken when it comes to ideology. Yet there is undoubtedly an essential Italian spirit. Different peoples value different things. That doesn't mean they are any less attached to an idea of nation. They just have a different idea of nation. That was my point.
Excellent post.

[Oz.]

That is what I am actually trying to find out from you people in my posts in this thread. In my opening post, I have asked what was wrong with this...and I am just trying to understand where people stand on this issue or how they see it.


Taking these two points above and your response....can anyone hold their nation as a priority if you dont believe that the moral ethics should be based on their nations best interest and vice versa. Because in my opinon to have pride in your country one or both of the two points above equal patriotism. And we have people on this board who call themselves "patriots" or Irish-Americans, German-Americans, etc. But I dont want to get into the definition of these terms just yet.
In a hypothetical question such as yours if you had to choose between who you were born and who you are now....would you choose how you feel, how you want or how you should feel like....and can we tell the difference between them speaking stictly in terms of nation/country. Because shades of grey exist and life isnt that simple as you put it....we must make choices and cant have everything and all. We cant be members of every race, every nation, speaking the same tounge, etc. ;)
I'm stumped here. I'm assuming you don't have kids (or at least ones you're not contesting the paternity of:p ). You honestly believe that to be patriotic means to put nation before EVERYTHING else? Is that right? I'm not getting personal but it seems ridiculous that you would put the interests of a nation you no longer inhabit before those of your own offspring (who would assumedly be Canuck)... Is that where you stand?

[Packratt]

Fair enough. That is how America defines itself. That's not how all countries define themselves. Italy for, example, has all the consistency of a headless chicken when it comes to ideology. Yet there is undoubtedly an essential Italian spirit. Different peoples value different things. That doesn't mean they are any less attached to an idea of nation. They just have a different idea of nation. That was my point.

I think it would be more exact to say that this is how I define America, other Americans may have their own definition. Not that either definition is more or less valid than the other.

I don't know if I agree with your assertion that there is an 'essential Italian spirit' though. Could you describe it to me so I can understand where you're coming from with this idea?

[Oz.]

I think it would be more exact to say that this is how I define America, other Americans may have their own definition. Not that either definition is more or less valid than the other.

I don't know if I agree with your assertion that there is an 'essential Italian spirit' though. Could you describe it to me so I can understand where you're coming from with this idea?
Alright. Sarcasm doesn't work too well on the internet, so I'll assume you're not just taking the piss, or asking for a Grappa recipe....

I've worked with Italians extensively over the last decade. Some settling here, some very much passing through. They do share values and exhibit a peculiar approach to life that is culturally transmitted. I'm about to generalise hugely, but bear with me. Italians have a sense of values that transcend any idea of politics. Foods that have been staples for milennia (and the precise ways in which they should be eaten), an emphasis on emotional expression, recurring architectural themes, a srong sense of extended family... Shit like that. I'm not Italian so I can't accurately describe what it is, but I can get a sense. You get the gist I hope...

There are emphases on particular facets of life that describe nations more accurately than explicit pledges of allegiance...

[Packratt]

Alright. Sarcasm doesn't work too well on the internet, so I'll assume you're not just taking the piss, or asking for a Grappa recipe....

I've worked with Italians extensively over the last decade. Some settling here, some very much passing through. They do share values and exhibit a peculiar approach to life that is culturally transmitted. I'm about to generalise hugely, but bear with me. Italians have a sense of values that transcend any idea of politics. Foods that have been staples for milennia (and the precise ways in which they should be eaten), an emphasis on emotional expression, recurring architectural themes, a srong sense of extended family... Shit like that. I'm not Italian so I can't accurately describe what it is, but I can get a sense. You get the gist I hope...

There are emphases on particular facets of life that describe nations more accurately than explicit pledges of allegiance...

Of course, what you're talking about is the basis for nationalism, the formation of an identity based on nation in which there are commonalities of culture, beliefs, etc...

I still suggest that it is possible for this supposed 'essential national spirit' to change over time. Everything changes, even the identifiable traits of a nation's personality or it's distinguishing characteristics. To which point, some of the people change with it, others maintain their "old ways" and you get what, in essence, is a cultural split.

I suppose the more pertinent question here would be whether or not one's nationality, (or heritage), controls one's own 'essential spirit' or whether we are all our own captains and free to choose who we are, so to speak.

[LastRites]

I'm stumped here. I'm assuming you don't have kids (or at least ones you're not contesting the paternity of:p ). You honestly believe that to be patriotic means to put nation before EVERYTHING else? Is that right? I'm not getting personal but it seems ridiculous that you would put the interests of a nation you no longer inhabit before those of your own offspring (who would assumedly be Canuck)... Is that where you stand?
Huge part of your duty to the Nation is made up of having a family, raising good children in a traditional way, etc. etc. so thats not what Im saying. If it wasnt for families and the way they are kept/raised....nations would not exist...there would be no need. I think what people are failing to see is that your family IS your nation. Your fellow American is not your blood family...but in the long run as someone said it earlier...your children..your cousin...your friends...your co-worker...your fellow citizen...you neighbouring citizen...and so on. Where do you draw the line? - If we're speaking in terms of a nation its pretty clear. What sparked this...is that people put "friendships" with strangers before love to their own.
See...this is where it doesnt work the same way in North America as it does in Europe. It looses its inner spirit due to different cultures...or it creates its own.

[Acari Rotter]

Huge part of your duty to the Nation is made up of having a family, raising good children in a traditional way, etc. etc. so thats not what Im saying. If it wasnt for families and the way they are kept/raised....nations would not exist...there would be no need. I think what people are failing to see is that your family IS your nation. Your fellow American is not your blood family...but in the long run as someone said it earlier...your children..your cousin...your friends...your co-worker...your fellow citizen...you neighbouring citizen...and so on. Where do you draw the line? - If we're speaking in terms of a nation its pretty clear. What sparked this...is that people put "friendships" with strangers before love to their own.
See...this is where it doesnt work the same way in North America as it does in Europe. It looses its inner spirit due to different cultures...or it creates its own.

I live in a country where family actually means something more than just a politicised issue to guilt people into voting for religions politicians. So I'm doing something awful by marrying a non-Canadian, and planning to have kids who might not have Canadian citizenship. I hope for your sake you find a nice Polish woman with German citizenship who's living in Canada. Otherwise you can't get married.


Your fellow American is not your blood family...but in the long run as someone said it earlier...your children..your cousin...your friends...your co-worker...your fellow citizen...you neighbouring citizen...and so on.


Yes, that was you who said it. And me who pointed out that all of those people you listed are from different nationalities than I am (except fellow citizens).

[LastRites]

I live in a country where family actually means something more than just a politicised issue to guilt people into voting for religions politicians.
No idea what you mean, what inspired you to say this.
So I'm doing something awful by marrying a non-Canadian, and planning to have kids who might not have Canadian citizenship. I hope for your sake you find a nice Polish woman with German citizenship who's living in Canada. Otherwise you can't get married.
You marrying a non-Canadian is not aweful, dont get all wet thinking I think so...but in terms such as this topic is about, it can be seen as something not right. Thats why Im trying to discuss this topic without doing what you do aka jumping into conclusions as to what I think. Everytopic I discuss here I am looking at from a neutral point of view or from a third party. Not one single post here reflects my personal views...except the Fawad thread. (He is my hero)
Yes, that was you who said it. And me who pointed out that all of those people you listed are from different nationalities than I am (except fellow citizens).
No it wasnt me who said it...it was Hoon in post #29.

[Acari Rotter]

No idea what you mean, what inspired you to say this.



I mean that family is not a big deal in the US and Canada. You will never understand how important family can be to people until you move to a country where it really is an important value. The only time family is important over there is around election time.

[WBC]

What if this issue was more personal like say your wife was going to be deported and for some extenuating reason you had to stay in the country. Would you let her leave with you newborn because or would you do what it take to keep her and your kid with you even though it meant that she was in the country illegally.

I agree with this idea in princple but when it effects you that closely I dont know that I would be so quick to choose nation over the Individual
distinction between Nationalism - love for Nation.... and Patriotism - loyalty to country, which to my mind includes government.... I have no loyalty to the British or Irish governments.... one has been fucking us for centuries, the other left us to rot..... fuck them... and their laws.....

on your specific point.... where I was raised and where I live, they would take my family over my stone cold corpse.... simple as that.... shit they cant even get armoured cop jeeps into the estates we live in... on the legal point, if she became illegal, I would make sure that status was changed quick..... knowing people in low and high places is the key to survival....

I dont see following the corrupt laws of a rotational 'democracy' as Nationalism or loyalty.... they have laws which de-regulated everything here.... prices are up, taxes are up, property is more expensive, wages are down for everyone below management level.... our waters and air are being polluted because business owns the government... none of these things point to a government with anyone but their own best interests at heart... this is what happens when a government attempts to implement the debunked falsehoods of laissez-faire individualism as a state philosophy.... bear in mind that the laissez-faire experiment was tested first in Chile under Pinochets dictatorship.... the country went bankrupt, people died.... this is the system being lauded by the West now as the way forward.... profit over people.... thats not Nationalism.... allowing foreign companies to pollute the waters of my Nation, not Nationalism.... selling out public utilities to foreign companies who care for nothing but profit, not Nationalism....

they can mask this shit as liberated individualism, where the government 'frees' the people to make their own way.... bullshit.... its the government delegating its responsibility, and ceasing to serve the purpose for which it exists yet sucking the nation dry and expecting young men to fight and die for a Nation which is disengaging from their lives..... business and selfish individuals dont give a fuck about the Nation, simple as that... hence the idea that a right-wing conservative Nationalist is a misnomer....

[Blue Blood]

distinction between Nationalism - love for Nation.... and Patriotism - loyalty to country, which to my mind includes government.... I have no loyalty to the British or Irish governments.... one has been fucking us for centuries, the other left us to rot..... fuck them... and their laws.....

on your specific point.... where I was raised and where I live, they would take my family over my stone cold corpse.... simple as that.... shit they cant even get armoured cop jeeps into the estates we live in... on the legal point, if she became illegal, I would make sure that status was changed quick..... knowing people in low and high places is the key to survival....

I dont see following the corrupt laws of a rotational 'democracy' as Nationalism or loyalty.... they have laws which de-regulated everything here.... prices are up, taxes are up, property is more expensive, wages are down for everyone below management level.... our waters and air are being polluted because business owns the government... none of these things point to a government with anyone but their own best interests at heart... this is what happens when a government attempts to implement the debunked falsehoods of laissez-faire individualism as a state philosophy.... bear in mind that the laissez-faire experiment was tested first in Chile under Pinochets dictatorship.... the country went bankrupt, people died.... this is the system being lauded by the West now as the way forward.... profit over people.... thats not Nationalism.... allowing foreign companies to pollute the waters of my Nation, not Nationalism.... selling out public utilities to foreign companies who care for nothing but profit, not Nationalism....

they can mask this shit as liberated individualism, where the government 'frees' the people to make their own way.... bullshit.... its the government delegating its responsibility, and ceasing to serve the purpose for which it exists yet sucking the nation dry and expecting young men to fight and die for a Nation which is disengaging from their lives..... business and selfish individuals dont give a fuck about the Nation, simple as that... hence the idea that a right-wing conservative Nationalist is a misnomer....
Fucking 'A WBC...Start up a party and let me know,eh!

[WBC]

Fucking 'A WBC...Start up a party and let me know,eh!
haha... I'd 'disappear' in a week....

[Blue Blood]

haha... I'd 'disappear' in a week....
Yeah,politics are a bit more serious abroad than they are here..well,try saying that to GLR..

[WBC]

Yeah,politics are a bit more serious abroad than they are here..well,try saying that to GLR..
meh.... I think, judging from the better halfs' reactions to our news and general attitude here, we're just more cynical.... when we hear government-sanctioned shit the reaction tends to be 'aye, fuck off'..... we're a jaded people....

[Oz.]

distinction between Nationalism - love for Nation.... and Patriotism - loyalty to country, which to my mind includes government.... I have no loyalty to the British or Irish governments.... one has been fucking us for centuries, the other left us to rot..... fuck them... and their laws.....

on your specific point.... where I was raised and where I live, they would take my family over my stone cold corpse.... simple as that.... shit they cant even get armoured cop jeeps into the estates we live in... on the legal point, if she became illegal, I would make sure that status was changed quick..... knowing people in low and high places is the key to survival....

I dont see following the corrupt laws of a rotational 'democracy' as Nationalism or loyalty.... they have laws which de-regulated everything here.... prices are up, taxes are up, property is more expensive, wages are down for everyone below management level.... our waters and air are being polluted because business owns the government... none of these things point to a government with anyone but their own best interests at heart... this is what happens when a government attempts to implement the debunked falsehoods of laissez-faire individualism as a state philosophy.... bear in mind that the laissez-faire experiment was tested first in Chile under Pinochets dictatorship.... the country went bankrupt, people died.... this is the system being lauded by the West now as the way forward.... profit over people.... thats not Nationalism.... allowing foreign companies to pollute the waters of my Nation, not Nationalism.... selling out public utilities to foreign companies who care for nothing but profit, not Nationalism....

they can mask this shit as liberated individualism, where the government 'frees' the people to make their own way.... bullshit.... its the government delegating its responsibility, and ceasing to serve the purpose for which it exists yet sucking the nation dry and expecting young men to fight and die for a Nation which is disengaging from their lives..... business and selfish individuals dont give a fuck about the Nation, simple as that... hence the idea that a right-wing conservative Nationalist is a misnomer....
Spectacular post.

[LeftWingScum]

i can understand bigotry, i can understand imperialism, i can understand using workers as tools to get wealthy, i can understand war to install governments we prosper off of...i will never, ever understand the fetish that THE most important thing is nation. it's just fucking crazy talk.

[militarymite]

i can understand bigotry, i can understand imperialism, i can understand using workers as tools to get wealthy, i can understand war to install governments we prosper off of...i will never, ever understand the fetish that THE most important thing is nation. it's just fucking crazy talk.
It gives people the feeling that they stand for something.

[LastRites]

i will never, ever understand the fetish that THE most important thing is nation. it's just fucking crazy talk.
So what is military service?
People making personal sacrafices for the good of....?

[tousunis]

"I'm not racist, but...."

"I don't hate (insert race here), I just hate (insert stereotypical depiction of said race here)."

What a crock of shit.

[RuneDK]

i will never, ever understand the fetish that THE most important thing is nation.

Simply said: It's a matter of duty and pride. Your country has given you everything you've got and it's your duty to do whatever it takes(not a c18 reference!) to make your country the best in the world.

[siobahn]

"I'm not racist, but...."

"I don't hate (insert race here), I just hate (insert stereotypical depiction of said race here)."

What a crock of shit.which post are you referring to?

and... wtf?

stereotypes exist for a reason, you know. a person could say they don't hate all blacks, but hate drug dealing/smoking lazy welfare collecting negros... or that they don't hate chinese, but hate those are are dirty, stinky with 16 kids and refuse to integrate into society. i don't see anything about it that automatically makes that person racist.

[Skingirlsteady]

The only point on that list I would give the time of day to is #3.

Nations exist for individuals, not the other way around.


I would put a friend who lives in Zimbabwe higher up than some random asshole from my country. There are plenty of asshole Canadians. Many times I've gotten in the face of my fellow countrymen for messing with Koreans.

I don't get this "Nations exist for individuals, not the other way around" thing-- PEOPLE created a nation, therefore people must protect the nation. a nation is not a self-governing, breathing, live thing.. people give it life by taking care of it (kind of like a pet, bad analogy, whatever). So I guess if you want a good government that is under control, and you want a functioning nation, you're gonna have to live for the nation.

[tousunis]

which post are you referring to?

and... wtf?

stereotypes exist for a reason, you know. a person could say they don't hate all blacks, but hate drug dealing/smoking lazy welfare collecting negros... or that they don't hate chinese, but hate those are are dirty, stinky with 16 kids and refuse to integrate into society. i don't see anything about it that automatically makes that person racist.

Stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple. Did you know there are drug dealing/smoking lazy welfare collecting white people too? Ohhh of course not, how could I say such a thing? Did you know there are whites that are dirty stinky anti-society fucks with 16 kids too...of course not...cause you're a bigot so just come out and admit it. Anyone who uses the "I'm not racist but..." or the "I don't hate (race), I just hate (stereotype of race)" is a fucking racist, and I really don't care how much you try and sugar coat it just because you're too afraid to admit it.

[Skingirlsteady]

Stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple. Did you know there are drug dealing/smoking lazy welfare collecting white people too? Ohhh of course not, how could I say such a thing? Did you know there are whites that are dirty stinky anti-society fucks with 16 kids too...of course not...cause you're a bigot so just come out and admit it. Anyone who uses the "I'm not racist but..." or the "I don't hate (race), I just hate (stereotype of race)" is a fucking racist, and I really don't care how much you try and sugar coat it just because you're too afraid to admit it.


I agree with the sugar-coating part and saying "I'm not racist but..."

However, I do not agree with the "stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple." THey exist because they are mostly true or at least partially true and applicable to a wide range of people. You don't know what hate is if you think that stereotypes come from HATE.

[weknowhowtolive]

I agree with the sugar-coating part and saying "I'm not racist but..."

However, I do not agree with the "stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple." THey exist because they are mostly true or at least partially true and applicable to a wide range of people. You don't know what hate is if you think that stereotypes come from HATE.Like...asian boys playing cs.

[Skingirlsteady]

Like...asian boys playing cs.

Exactly, my little brother loves CS. He even bought the special "expensive" headset for better sound quality when he shoots his gun, and collected money from his friends to make a server/team or whatever. :rolleyes::biggrin:

[weknowhowtolive]

Exactly, my little brother loves CS. He even bought the special "expensive" headset for better sound quality when he shoots his gun, and collected money from his friends to make a server/team or whatever. :rolleyes::biggrin:You say whatever like you cant speak 1337 right along with the big dogs.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/246468/2/istockphoto_246468_asian_student_on_the_computer.j pg

[tousunis]

I agree with the sugar-coating part and saying "I'm not racist but..."

However, I do not agree with the "stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple." THey exist because they are mostly true or at least partially true and applicable to a wide range of people. You don't know what hate is if you think that stereotypes come from HATE.

When someone stereotypes an entire race of people in a negative way, to me that is hate and racism. Hate and a general disrespect.

[Skingirlsteady]

When someone stereotypes an entire race of people in a negative way, to me that is hate and racism. Hate and a general disrespect.

Yeah a peace loving pc-fag like you WOULD think that was "hate", try "loosely based on facts" instead.

Hate is me hating your avatar because it's wannabe artsy/deep.

[tousunis]

Yeah a peace loving pc-fag like you WOULD think that was "hate", try "loosely based on facts" instead.

Hate is me hating your avatar because it's wannabe artsy/deep.

Peace loving because I don't believe in racism? HA! You can stereotype anyone from a particular race based on something one of their people did, and considering everything has been done by everyone these days no matter what race they are, your "loosely based on facts" statement is a crock of shit. Speaking of crocks of shit, so is your "wannabe artsy/deep" statement as well.

[LastRites]

So what is military service?
People making personal sacrafices for the good of....?
Anyone, maybe some soldiers woule like to throw in their .2 cents?

[Oz.]

Stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple. Did you know there are drug dealing/smoking lazy welfare collecting white people too? Ohhh of course not, how could I say such a thing? Did you know there are whites that are dirty stinky anti-society fucks with 16 kids too...of course not...cause you're a bigot so just come out and admit it. Anyone who uses the "I'm not racist but..." or the "I don't hate (race), I just hate (stereotype of race)" is a fucking racist, and I really don't care how much you try and sugar coat it just because you're too afraid to admit it.
No, stereotypes exist because human psychology functions on heuristics. Rules of thumb exist on all levels, they make navigating the world easier. Racism is a form of this mechanism that arises from psychological rigidity, but it is also perfectly natural. Humans need basic rules of thumb, and not all are negative. A siren sounding automatically inspires alertness and an adrenaline surge in most people, for example. This is a positive example. The fact that the sight of a certain race also elicits this response is not necessarily hatred, it's just dysfunctional learning.

You are spot on with the "I'm not racist but.." stuff. Your blanket statements about stereotypes, however, are misled.

[Tokyohoon]

The fact that the sight of a certain race also elicits this response is not necessarily hatred, it's just dysfunctional learning.

That is, quite possibly, the best way I've ever heard it described.

[Oz.]

That is, quite possibly, the best way I've ever heard it described.
Yeah I was happy with that one...

[tousunis]

No, stereotypes exist because human psychology functions on heuristics. Rules of thumb exist on all levels, they make navigating the world easier. Racism is a form of this mechanism that arises from psychological rigidity, but it is also perfectly natural. Humans need basic rules of thumb, and not all are negative. A siren sounding automatically inspires alertness and an adrenaline surge in most people, for example. This is a positive example. The fact that the sight of a certain race also elicits this response is not necessarily hatred, it's just dysfunctional learning.

You are spot on with the "I'm not racist but.." stuff. Your blanket statements about stereotypes, however, are misled.

Some good points there Oz, however I was referring to the racist-driven stereotypes that people use....I'll give a couple of examples:

All jews are greedy.

All blacks rob banks.

All muslims are terrorists.

I was just trying to explain that the way in which I see it is when you put down an entire group of people because of certain actions a particular person within that group (or race) took part in, it's not because it is scientifically accurate that all people within that group or race are naturally driven to do the same....it's because someone with an overall racist mindset would use such a thing in order to fuel their self-righteous beliefs.

[Oz.]

Some good points there Oz, however I was referring to the racist-driven stereotypes that people use....I'll give a couple of examples:

All jews are greedy.

All blacks rob banks.

All muslims are terrorists.

I was just trying to explain that the way in which I see it is when you put down an entire group of people because of certain actions a particular person within that group (or race) took part in, it's not because it is scientifically accurate that all people within that group or race are naturally driven to do the same....it's because someone with an overall racist mindset would use such a thing in order to fuel their self-righteous beliefs.
I get your point. It's just not what you initially said. That's all.

[circlestorm]

Anyone, maybe some soldiers woule like to throw in their .2 cents?

Can't quite claim full soldier status,but i was in the TA for four years,just came out in May,served with the Kings & Cheshire Regiment.

I signed up to protect my country,to feel like i was doing my bit,because i wanted a job after i finished college that felt like i was making a difference and learning a trade. So i worked for the family buisness part time and the TA the rest of the time.

[siobahn]

Stereotypes exist because of hate, pure and simple. Did you know there are drug dealing/smoking lazy welfare collecting white people too? Ohhh of course not, how could I say such a thing? Did you know there are whites that are dirty stinky anti-society fucks with 16 kids too...of course not...cause you're a bigot so just come out and admit it. Anyone who uses the "I'm not racist but..." or the "I don't hate (race), I just hate (stereotype of race)" is a fucking racist, and I really don't care how much you try and sugar coat it just because you're too afraid to admit it.i'm not afraid to admit anything. i'm a racialist and sometimes i feel a little more inclined to the racist side. call me a racist, i don't mind the association one bit. i am not however a bigot, given that it is:

big‧ot  /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

if that were the case, i would probably not
-live in non-white neighbourhoods for my entire life
-enjoy arguing with people with different views
etc.

now, you missed my point. people might indulge stereotypes because of hate (or, as in my case, because they feel they have legitimate reasons, and hate has nothing to do with it). but that's not why they exist, they don't come from a vacuum or because a bunch of angry whites like it that way. they exist because some people of certain races do act that way and do support said stereotypes with their behaviour, or did at some point in time.

i grew up in a neighbourhood where whites were a very small minority, nearly everyone (of any race) was on welfare, and there were lots and lots of blacks that dealt drugs, were in gangs, smoked crack, etc. so if i wanted to distinguish these people from the decent hard-working blacks that i met later on, what the hell is wrong with saying "i don't have a problem with blacks in general, but i do have a problem with those that do this"? racism has nothing to do with it. see my second paragraph to oz below.

oh yeah and i still don't know which post you were initially responding to.

The fact that the sight of a certain race also elicits this response is not necessarily hatred, it's just dysfunctional learning...what if that is the experience that one has had? if 90% of a person's encounters with blacks, for example, are negative, wouldn't it only be natural to have a negative response? not saying this is my experience or trying to justify racism, i just don't see what's dysfunctional about it.

You are spot on with the "I'm not racist but.." stuff.i partly answered that above (even though i don't think this kid's smart enough or willing to understand it). i guess this goes back to experience too, what people have seen to some extent, but also simply the experience of being a certain race. for the most part, people are more likely to make generalities about other races because they're not part of them... just the same way that a white kid, if raised in a black home and community, would easily talk about "i don't like whites who do this" and so on.

I was referring to the racist-driven stereotypes that people use....I'll give a couple of examples:

All jews are greedy.

All blacks rob banks.

All muslims are terrorists.you weren't talking about saying 'all of these people are like this', you were talking about saying, for example, 'some muslims are good people, not all of them are terrorists'. differentiating between the good and the bad while applying a stereotype. do you see the difference?

[Packratt]

i'm not afraid to admit anything. i'm a racialist and sometimes i feel a little more inclined to the racist side. call me a racist, i don't mind the association one bit. i am not however a bigot, given that it is:

big‧ot  /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

if that were the case, i would probably not
-live in non-white neighbourhoods for my entire life
-enjoy arguing with people with different views
etc.

now, you missed my point. people might indulge stereotypes because of hate (or, as in my case, because they feel they have legitimate reasons, and hate has nothing to do with it). but that's not why they exist, they don't come from a vacuum or because a bunch of angry whites like it that way. they exist because some people of certain races do act that way and do support said stereotypes with their behaviour, or did at some point in time.

i grew up in a neighbourhood where whites were a very small minority, nearly everyone (of any race) was on welfare, and there were lots and lots of blacks that dealt drugs, were in gangs, smoked crack, etc. so if i wanted to distinguish these people from the decent hard-working blacks that i met later on, what the hell is wrong with saying "i don't have a problem with blacks in general, but i do have a problem with those that do this"? racism has nothing to do with it. see my second paragraph to oz below.

oh yeah and i still don't know which post you were initially responding to.

what if that is the experience that one has had? if 90% of a person's encounters with blacks, for example, are negative, wouldn't it only be natural to have a negative response? not saying this is my experience or trying to justify racism, i just don't see what's dysfunctional about it.

i partly answered that above (even though i don't think this kid's smart enough or willing to understand it). i guess this goes back to experience too, what people have seen to some extent, but also simply the experience of being a certain race. for the most part, people are more likely to make generalities about other races because they're not part of them... just the same way that a white kid, if raised in a black home and community, would easily talk about "i don't like whites who do this" and so on.

you weren't talking about saying 'all of these people are like this', you were talking about saying, for example, 'some muslims are good people, not all of them are terrorists'. differentiating between the good and the bad while applying a stereotype. do you see the difference?

Not that I think anything I say is going to change the way you think, just as nothing you say can change my perspective...

But I think it's pretty funny that many of the drug dealers I knew were white. However, I simply refer to people who deal drugs as durg dealers and find that the racial identifier is unecessary.

After all, what's the difference between white drug dealers and black drug dealers? When you use the racial qualifier, you are, in essence, insisting that there is a distinction that is somehow worth noting.

All told... I see no difference.

[siobahn]

I simply refer to people who deal drugs as durg dealers and find that the racial identifier is unecessary.

After all, what's the difference between white drug dealers and black drug dealers? When you use the racial qualifier, you are, in essence, insisting that there is a distinction that is somehow worth noting.i don't use the racial qualifier as a rule, a drug dealer is a drug dealer. i was responding to tousunis' comment about stereotyping. his initial logic (er, so to speak..) was that applying a stereotype while talking about a certain race, saying for example 'i don't mind blacks, except for those who deal drugs' is racism in itself.

again, it all goes back to experience. most of the punks i have met are dirty lazy fucks, so i say, "i don't mind punks, except for those that are dirty lazy fucks". granted, sometimes people make these generalizations when they might be unwarrented, but that's not what we're talking about. sometimes people apply a stereotype when that has not been their experience (for many reasons, not the least of which is ignorance), but that is irrelevant to the discussion. the issue is the generalizations themselves, which i don't see anything inherently racist about. and again, the reason i wouldn't say the same about whites is simply because it would seem odd given that i am white and have grown up with whites... kind of like talking about oneself in the third person.

[tousunis]

they exist because some people of certain races do act that way and do support said stereotypes with their behaviour, or did at some point in time.

You made absolutely no point with this statement. Some people of certain races act that way? Some people of EVERY race have acted in a manner that would portray them as fulfilling a stereotype no matter what race they are. I.e. greedy white lawyers, bank-robbing chinamen, etc. You can fulfill a stereotype of a race that isn't even your own, so yeah, like I said....your statement made no point whatsoever.

what if that is the experience that one has had? if 90% of a person's encounters with blacks, for example, are negative, wouldn't it only be natural to have a negative response? not saying this is my experience or trying to justify racism, i just don't see what's dysfunctional about it.

I would say get the fuck out of whatever environment or lifestyle you are living by...and I don't know where you're going with this "what if" statement you're trying to throw at me...from my own personal experience I've met an equal amount of good and bad blacks, just as I have any other race.

i partly answered that above (even though i don't think this kid's smart enough or willing to understand it).

So you've essentially made no points so far, and now you're trying to insult my intelligence? I think you're the one who doesn't get it.

people are more likely to make generalities about other races because they're not part of them...

I agree 100%.

just the same way that a white kid, if raised in a black home and community, would easily talk about "i don't like whites who do this" and so on.

The same statement could be made for ANY race, and it's a pretty pathetic statement because no matter what the person says there will always be a member of another race that will or has done the same thing.

you weren't talking about saying 'all of these people are like this', you were talking about saying, for example, 'some muslims are good people, not all of them are terrorists'. differentiating between the good and the bad while applying a stereotype. do you see the difference?

Of course I see the difference, that was my entire point. Stereotypes are innacurate and depict the actions of an entire race based on the actions that some of the people within that race have done in the past. That is what a stereotype is, it's a general label placed on every single member of a race by a person or group of people who will use that label just to fuel their hatred and misguided beliefs. I.e. racial hatred.

[siobahn]

You made absolutely no point with this statement. Some people of certain races act that way? Some people of EVERY race have acted in a manner that would portray them as fulfilling a stereotype no matter what race they are. I.e. greedy white lawyers, bank-robbing chinamen, etc. You can fulfill a stereotype of a race that isn't even your own, so yeah, like I said....your statement made no point whatsoever.you said stereotypes existed because of hate. i say they exist because of the actions of people of the given race, religious group, etc. not saying that they are always warrented, or that perhaps there aren't others who perhaps "deserve" to be stereotyped more. but they exist because of actions of the group in question. i can't make this any more simple damnit.

I would say get the fuck out of whatever environment or lifestyle you are living by...and I don't know where you're going with this "what if" statement you're trying to throw at me...from my own personal experience I've met an equal amount of good and bad blacks, just as I have any other race.well, i wasn't throwing it at you, i was throwing it at someone who has the intellectual capability to understand it, and not responding to you anyway. an equal amount? have you written this down so you know it was exactly the same in every case? fuck equal.. but this isn't related to anything i was saying, so i'm not going to bother addressing it.

So you've essentially made no points so far, and now you're trying to insult my intelligence?i don't need to insult your intelligence, you do that well enough with your posts.

I agree 100%.then you understand why someone would say 'i don't mind , except for those that...' isn't racist? because that's the whole goddamn point. (i gotta stop before i start spitting at the screen)

The same statement could be made for ANY race, and it's a pretty pathetic statement because no matter what the person says there will always be a member of another race that will or has done the same thing....who for whatever reason, that person doesn't associate with said behaviour.

i mean, are you one of those PC tards that goes around telling people who complain about black gangsters that 'there are a lot of white gangstes too'.. and do not feel right unless this qualification has been made? so what are you for? what is your goal? equality?

Of course I see the difference, that was my entire point. Stereotypes are innacurate and depict the actions of an entire race based on the actions that some of the people within that race have done in the past. That is what a stereotype is, it's a general label placed on every single member of a race by a person or group of people who will use that label just to fuel their hatred and misguided beliefs. I.e. racial hatred.again, there isn't any hatred being fueled when a person says 'i don't mind blacks, except for those that..'

and once again, people might indulge stereotypes for different reasons. but you have to yet to prove that using the above sort of statement [I]in itself is racist.

[LeftWingScum]

Simply said: It's a matter of duty and pride. Your country has given you everything you've got and it's your duty to do whatever it takes(not a c18 reference!) to make your country the best in the world.

your nation isn't a living thing worthy of being defended. your nation is only the PEOPLE in it. there is a portion of the people in my country i would defend and a portion i wish dropped dead tomorrow.

i'm going to have to agree with what one person said...many things are used by people as something to latch onto for lack of anything legitimate to latch onto (or "believe in"); this is one of them.

[LeftWingScum]

So what is military service?
People making personal sacrafices for the good of....?

an economic option for most. the only time your military is defending the nation is when they are under attack physically. where is that happening in the world right now?

[tousunis]

you said stereotypes existed because of hate. i say they exist because of the actions of people of the given race, religious group, etc.

Yeah and you still fail to grasp the concept that people from every race have done the exact same actions that other races are stereotyped for.

perhaps there aren't others who perhaps "deserve" to be stereotyped more. but they exist because of actions of the group in question. i can't make this any more simple damnit.

And I can't make it any more simple that what I'm trying to say is an entire race of people does not deserve to be put down because of the actions of some people within that race.

then you understand why someone would say 'i don't mind , except for those that...' isn't racist? because that's the whole goddamn point.

I believe that saying "I dont mind blacks, but I hate ******s" is racist and makes no fucking sense whatsoever. As with "I dont mind blacks, except for those that rape women." Why do you have to single out blacks? Doesn't this apply to any fucking race?

i mean, are you one of those PC tards that goes around telling people who complain about black gangsters that 'there are a lot of white gangstes too'.. and do not feel right unless this qualification has been made? so what are you for? what is your goal? equality?

My goal of this arguement is to try and make you understand that everyone deserves to be treated equally until they otherwise show they don't deserve it...and that goes for any race.

again, there isn't any hatred being fueled when a person says 'i don't mind blacks, except for those that..'

Yes there is, its racial hate. You can say "I don't mind (insert any race here), except for those that..." and it could be ANY race and ANY reason, but because you choose to target a specific race with the statement it shows me that you're too ignorant to realize that this statement can and does apply to any race.

and once again, people might indulge stereotypes for different reasons. but you have to yet to prove that using the above sort of statement [I]in itself is racist.

And with this post I'm done arguing with you over this. You aren't going to change my beliefs and I am not going to change yours, I accept that, although you might think I am a PC fucktard because I don't believe in racism, I dont think you need to result to trying to start a flame war with me because I called you out on your racialistic views. So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a PC tard? HA.

[LastRites]

an economic option for most. the only time your military is defending the nation is when they are under attack physically. where is that happening in the world right now?
Are you telling me that most of the soldiers in the world (not just in the US) are in the military for economic reasons? You gotta be kidding me.
But you totally missed the point. We're not arguing why soldiers join the military...its why they find so important to do so....or why does military/army exist in the first place. If you dont find your nation important...why bother joining to defind it?

[Oz.]

now, you missed my point. people might indulge stereotypes because of hate (or, as in my case, because they feel they have legitimate reasons, and hate has nothing to do with it). but that's not why they exist, they don't come from a vacuum or because a bunch of angry whites like it that way. they exist because some people of certain races do act that way and do support said stereotypes with their behaviour, or did at some point in time.

True. Or because people are taught a certain rule of thumb, whether or not it is based in fact. Stereotypes can be and often are based in fact. It's the application of those stereotypes that doesn't always work. But just because all the blacks in the Evergreen Terrace Projects in Springfield are dodgy, that doesn't mean all the blacks in Springfield are dodgy. It certainly doesn't mean that all blacks all over the country are dodgy. Yet that is the exact illogic that propagates racism.

Don't get me wrong. I admit to certain prejudices myself. But that doesn't then lead to the leap of logic that says all whites are great. I know my prejudices are just my brain being lazy.


i grew up in a neighbourhood where whites were a very small minority, nearly everyone (of any race) was on welfare, and there were lots and lots of blacks that dealt drugs, were in gangs, smoked crack, etc. so if i wanted to distinguish these people from the decent hard-working blacks that i met later on, what the hell is wrong with saying "i don't have a problem with blacks in general, but i do have a problem with those that do this"? racism has nothing to do with it. see my second paragraph to oz below.

what if that is the experience that one has had? if 90% of a person's encounters with blacks, for example, are negative, wouldn't it only be natural to have a negative response? not saying this is my experience or trying to justify racism, i just don't see what's dysfunctional about it.
In your case it is a form of survival mechanism. I get that. Just as any white living in Zimbabwe or parts of Jo'berg right now would be retarded not to be racially aware. But that leads to an automatic negative reaction. One that generalises to all blacks, even in situations where it is actually a disadvantage instead of an advantage.

That's where the dysfunction comes in. Whenever you generalise about a whole race based on one tiny sample, you set yourself up for a fall.

i partly answered that above (even though i don't think this kid's smart enough or willing to understand it). i guess this goes back to experience too, what people have seen to some extent, but also simply the experience of being a certain race. for the most part, people are more likely to make generalities about other races because they're not part of them... just the same way that a white kid, if raised in a black home and community, would easily talk about "i don't like whites who do this" and so on.

[siobahn]

Yeah and you still fail to grasp the concept that people from every race have done the exact same actions that other races are stereotyped for. argh.. i covered this when i said
not saying that they are always warrented, or that perhaps there aren't others who perhaps "deserve" to be stereotyped more.you're not going to get me to admit that stereotypes are never true and that every race is equal in their good/bad behaviour or whatnot. that's simply not the case.

And I can't make it any more simple that what I'm trying to say is an entire race of people does not deserve to be put down because of the actions of some people within that race.i never said they did.. that's not what i was saying at all.

again, for the 4857349th time, it's not about the validity of the stereotypes. it's about their origin and the fact that they exist.

I believe that saying "I dont mind blacks, but I hate ******s" is racist and makes no fucking sense whatsoever. As with "I dont mind blacks, except for those that rape women." Why do you have to single out blacks? Doesn't this apply to any fucking race?well, since you never referenced which quote you were initially referring to, i don't know what you were talking about. but the phrase you used (what i was arguing with) was:
"I don't hate (insert race here), I just hate (insert stereotypical depiction of said race here)."****** is not a stereotypical depiction, it's a derogatory term. please try to remember wtf you're talking about.

why single out blacks, i already answered this one too:
i guess this goes back to experience too, what people have seen to some extent, but also simply the experience of being a certain race. for the