No, it's a silly idea.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
patriotism is a way to stir up love for your fellw countrymen and in turn hatred toward everyone else. I have, always been, always will be a citizen of the world.
No....Patriotism is loving you country and wanting what is best for it, what you describe is nationalism. In that sense I am, even if I am sickened by it right now.patriotism is a way to stir up love for your fellw countrymen and in turn hatred toward everyone else. I have, always been, always will be a citizen of the world.
BossPerson
lol no Patriotism is an idiotic concept.scorch-62How is loving your country and wanting it to prosper idiotic?
Patriotism, PAH! Anything that people of my country can do, other nations are capable of doing just as well. I don't even like to identify myself as being of a particular nation because, if we are to consider what my country actually is supposed to represent (which it really doesn't), I am nothing like that despite being born here. LordXelNagawhat country?
I would even say I am nationalist (not american)HolyRomanEmperoBased on this and the comment you made on the nicknames thread, i don't think you'll last too long here...
[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"]I would even say I am nationalist (not american)Stavrogin_Based on this and the comment you made on the nicknames thread, i don't think you'll last too long here... You don't even know what country I am talking about.
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"]I would even say I am nationalist (not american)HolyRomanEmperoBased on this and the comment you made on the nicknames thread, i don't think you'll last too long here... You don't even know what country I am talking about. Doesn't really matter...
[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Based on this and the comment you made on the nicknames thread, i don't think you'll last too long here...Stavrogin_You don't even know what country I am talking about. Doesn't really matter... So let's say it was Iran it wouldn't matter? Or any other muslim country?
So let's say it was Iran it wouldn't matter? Or any other muslim country?HolyRomanEmpero
It would reinforce his point, if anything.
[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"]So let's say it was Iran it wouldn't matter? Or any other muslim country?airshocker
It would reinforce his point, if anything.
why?I think that the United States is the worst country in the world, except for every other one. I think that the "American People" in general are the most generous group of people (nation-wise) on the planet.I thinkwe have plenty of problems, but (as naive as this sounds) we will navigate our way through it (at least fortheforseeable future). I also think we have had plenty of successes along the way, and those are worth celebrating/contemplating. I guess, to answer the question, I consider myself patriotic.
"Sort of" sums up my feelings pretty well. Talk s*** about my country and I'll get defensive, just like you would if the situation was reversed. So many people focus on everything that's bad, and as far as the good stuff - and there's a ton of it - they take that totally for granted. They seem to assume everyplace else in the world is A) completely innocent of everything our country is guilty of and B) every bit as nice a place to live as here.
Wrong.
Nah, I think its kind of stupid really. Being proud of being born on a certain piece of land by pure chance is a bit weird.
i would fight to protect freedoms, but i would not fight to protect the state in its current incarnation. i love the people of this nation, not the rulers.
Within reason. yes.
In the sense of wanting the best for my country and for it to be safe.
Not patriotic in the sense that we should all be afraid of each others shadows and every enemy that comes along is somehow the next big existential threat to the countries well being.
i would fight to protect freedoms, but i would not fight to protect the state in its current incarnation. i love the people of this nation, not the rulers.
Within reason. yes.
In the sense of wanting the best for my country and for it to be safe.
Not patriotic in the sense that we should all be afraid of each others shadows and every enemy that comes along is somehow the next big existential threat to the countries well being.
SaudiFury
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
Within reason. yes.
In the sense of wanting the best for my country and for it to be safe.
Not patriotic in the sense that we should all be afraid of each others shadows and every enemy that comes along is somehow the next big existential threat to the countries well being.
LuxInferior
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
because what is good for me, and what i see as good for my country, may or may not be good for others and their county? that it is worse for the world as a whole and my county to force my way into other nations to overthrow their governments and prop up a puppet government more corrupt than the prior that will either fall when we leave or we will have to keep going back to "protect" our allies.... from their own population?[QUOTE="LuxInferior"]
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
Within reason. yes.
In the sense of wanting the best for my country and for it to be safe.
Not patriotic in the sense that we should all be afraid of each others shadows and every enemy that comes along is somehow the next big existential threat to the countries well being.
surrealnumber5
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
because what is good for me, and what i see as good for my country, may or may not be good for others and their county? that it is worse for the world as a whole and my county to force my way into other nations to overthrow their governments and prop up a puppet government more corrupt than the prior that will either fall when we leave or we will have to keep going back to "protect" our allies.... from their own population?With X-million Mexican citizens entering the United States illegally (presumably to seek out a better life), insane corruption, drug lords wreaking havoc.... wouldn't it be in Mexico's interest and better for 'the world' if the United States annexed Mexico?[QUOTE="LuxInferior"]
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
Within reason. yes.
In the sense of wanting the best for my country and for it to be safe.
Not patriotic in the sense that we should all be afraid of each others shadows and every enemy that comes along is somehow the next big existential threat to the countries well being.
surrealnumber5
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
because what is good for me, and what i see as good for my country, may or may not be good for others and their county? that it is worse for the world as a whole and my county to force my way into other nations to overthrow their governments and prop up a puppet government more corrupt than the prior that will either fall when we leave or we will have to keep going back to "protect" our allies.... from their own population?Yeah, I guess I just don't agree with making one nation suffer for the good of another. Why would you want that, when you could want whats best for the world though? I'm not saying that its as realistic a target to achieve atall, but surely thats the best possible outcome you could ask for?
because what is good for me, and what i see as good for my country, may or may not be good for others and their county? that it is worse for the world as a whole and my county to force my way into other nations to overthrow their governments and prop up a puppet government more corrupt than the prior that will either fall when we leave or we will have to keep going back to "protect" our allies.... from their own population?With X-million Mexican citizens entering the United States illegally (presumably to seek out a better life), insane corruption, drug lords wreaking havoc.... wouldn't it be in Mexico's interest and better for 'the world' if the United States annexed Mexico? mexico's problems stem from a combination of our prohibition and success, if we should annex mexico because we created a huge black market, we should annex canadia because of our anti-clearcutting laws...[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="LuxInferior"]
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
Planet_Pluto
because what is good for me, and what i see as good for my country, may or may not be good for others and their county? that it is worse for the world as a whole and my county to force my way into other nations to overthrow their governments and prop up a puppet government more corrupt than the prior that will either fall when we leave or we will have to keep going back to "protect" our allies.... from their own population?[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="LuxInferior"]
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
LuxInferior
Yeah, I guess I just don't agree with making one nation suffer for the good of another. Why would you want that, when you could want whats best for the world though? I'm not saying that its as realistic a target to achieve atall, but surely thats the best possible outcome you could ask for?
governments no matter how evil get their power from the people, only the people can successfully reform their nation, and it may or may not be in my countries interest for them to do so, its best for outside countries to keep their nose out of other countries internal affairs. i would hate for china to bomb new york to help the protesters the same way we did in Libya[QUOTE="LuxInferior"]
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] because what is good for me, and what i see as good for my country, may or may not be good for others and their county? that it is worse for the world as a whole and my county to force my way into other nations to overthrow their governments and prop up a puppet government more corrupt than the prior that will either fall when we leave or we will have to keep going back to "protect" our allies.... from their own population?
Yeah, I guess I just don't agree with making one nation suffer for the good of another. Why would you want that, when you could want whats best for the world though? I'm not saying that its as realistic a target to achieve atall, but surely thats the best possible outcome you could ask for?
governments no matter how evil get their power from the people, only the people can successfully reform their nation, and it may or may not be in my countries interest for them to do so, its best for outside countries to keep their nose out of other countries internal affairs. i would hate for china to bomb new york to help the protesters the same way we did in Libya 2 completely different situations really[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]governments no matter how evil get their power from the people, only the people can successfully reform their nation, and it may or may not be in my countries interest for them to do so, its best for outside countries to keep their nose out of other countries internal affairs. i would hate for china to bomb new york to help the protesters the same way we did in Libya 2 completely different situations really not really. you may want to think one group is "better " than the other but both groups are against the status quo, and it would be a third party that is unknowing of the protest and protesters bombing the host nation.[QUOTE="LuxInferior"]
Yeah, I guess I just don't agree with making one nation suffer for the good of another. Why would you want that, when you could want whats best for the world though? I'm not saying that its as realistic a target to achieve atall, but surely thats the best possible outcome you could ask for?
HolyRomanEmpero
[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] governments no matter how evil get their power from the people, only the people can successfully reform their nation, and it may or may not be in my countries interest for them to do so, its best for outside countries to keep their nose out of other countries internal affairs. i would hate for china to bomb new york to help the protesters the same way we did in Libya
2 completely different situations really not really. you may want to think one group is "better " than the other but both groups are against the status quo, and it would be a third party that is unknowing of the protest and protesters bombing the host nation. Libya is/was a brutal dictatorship, there protests was met with tanks, bombs etc and the protesters(which represented quiete a big part of libyan society from what I know) requested outside help. Nothing of this is true in the US. Worth mentioning also is that the OWS is just a bunch of douchebags.[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]Patriotism, PAH! Anything that people of my country can do, other nations are capable of doing just as well. I don't even like to identify myself as being of a particular nation because, if we are to consider what my country actually is supposed to represent (which it really doesn't), I am nothing like that despite being born here. HolyRomanEmperowhat country? Australia.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]not really. you may want to think one group is "better " than the other but both groups are against the status quo, and it would be a third party that is unknowing of the protest and protesters bombing the host nation. Libya is/was a brutal dictatorship, there protests was met with tanks, bombs etc and the protesters(which represented quiete a big part of libyan society from what I know) requested outside help. Nothing of this is true in the US. Worth mentioning also is that the OWS is just a bunch of douchebags. i bet kadaffi would have said the same thing about his protesters, and there have been plenty of accounts of abusive police actions. youre arguing semantics and even justifying actions based on how much you agree and like a group or the other way around. i get it, you like the Islamic brotherhood or whatever and you also like the current crony fascist system we have in the states, but you dislike the OWS hippies and the fascist dictatorship of Libya.[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"] 2 completely different situations reallyHolyRomanEmpero
Libya is/was a brutal dictatorship, there protests was met with tanks, bombs etc and the protesters(which represented quiete a big part of libyan society from what I know) requested outside help. Nothing of this is true in the US. Worth mentioning also is that the OWS is just a bunch of douchebags. i bet kadaffi would have said the same thing about his protesters, and there have been plenty of accounts of abusive police actions. youre arguing semantics and even justifying actions based on how much you agree and like a group or the other way around. i get it, you like the Islamic brotherhood or whatever and you also like the current crony fascist system we have in the states, but you dislike the OWS hippies and the fascist dictatorship of Libya. I bet, the difference is Ghaddafi didn't tolerate them and killed them in fact. The OWS are allowed to protest as long as they do so within the law(I think? I'm not from US). And abusive police actions aren't comparable to killing thousands. You step outside the law that even gives you right to protest, don't come crying later cause of a little tear gas. In Libya they couldn't even protest in the first place. The only thing I dislike are OWS hippies.[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] not really. you may want to think one group is "better " than the other but both groups are against the status quo, and it would be a third party that is unknowing of the protest and protesters bombing the host nation.
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i bet kadaffi would have said the same thing about his protesters, and there have been plenty of accounts of abusive police actions. youre arguing semantics and even justifying actions based on how much you agree and like a group or the other way around. i get it, you like the Islamic brotherhood or whatever and you also like the current crony fascist system we have in the states, but you dislike the OWS hippies and the fascist dictatorship of Libya. I bet, the difference is Ghaddafi didn't tolerate them and killed them in fact. The OWS are allowed to protest as long as they do so within the law(I think? I'm not from US). And abusive police actions aren't comparable to killing thousands. You step outside the law that even gives you right to protest, don't come crying later cause of a little tear gas. In Libya they couldn't even protest in the first place. The only thing I dislike are OWS hippies. economic fascism is no better than the classic authoritarian fascist state. being oppressed by the purse strings and having state backed monopoly system is better than Libya was(is), but it is still oppression, it is still authoritarian it is still not what this country was founded on. there is no less of a valid point arguing for economic liberty than there is social, but i see all liberties as intertwined so i am extremely bias on this subject. but we are getting away from my main point that china interjecting into US and their local politics is wrong and nearly anyone would agree, but when the US does it few seem to have a problem with it, when they are the same damn thing, only those raising the stink agree with one party and disagrees with the other offending party for the same act.[QUOTE="HolyRomanEmpero"] Libya is/was a brutal dictatorship, there protests was met with tanks, bombs etc and the protesters(which represented quiete a big part of libyan society from what I know) requested outside help. Nothing of this is true in the US. Worth mentioning also is that the OWS is just a bunch of douchebags.HolyRomanEmpero
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
Within reason. yes.
In the sense of wanting the best for my country and for it to be safe.
Not patriotic in the sense that we should all be afraid of each others shadows and every enemy that comes along is somehow the next big existential threat to the countries well being.
LuxInferior
I respect that, but I was just wondering why you would only want whats best for your country, why not whats best for the world as a whole? This is what I have a hard time understanding.
mmm well we were talking about patriotism here, which is a form of nationalism. Basically a sense of pride for ones country. That would then mean you would want the best for your home country in the same sense that you would want the best for yourself and your children and so on. That doesn't mean that i neglect the interest of the world either. Just it cannot take the over riding measure. For instance I call Saudi Arabia and the United States both home, and i do love both of them. but imagine if i were to take Saudi laws and impose them on the US or America's laws and impose them on Saudi. in both cases the people would lose their ****. Both countries have different origins, different backgrounds, and move forward at different speeds. In simpler terms, just because the way my house runs is great doesn't mean it would work for every house and family in the neighborhood. you might be wondering what happens if the two countries affairs get into a conflict, which side do i take? Generally for the most part i stay neutral, realizing the fact that these are two separate countries with sometimes similar or completely different agendas.the damage being done against the well-being of the ows protesters is nothing compared to damage (killing, torture, rape) being done to arab protesters. If nypd and national guard started killing hundreds, thousands of ows protesters though, then i wouldnt mind britain, france, stepping in (but that would never happen,)
With X-million Mexican citizens entering the United States illegally (presumably to seek out a better life), insane corruption, drug lords wreaking havoc.... wouldn't it be in Mexico's interest and better for 'the world' if the United States annexed Mexico?Planet_Pluto
I really hope you are being sarcastic when you say it would be in Mexico's interest to accept annexation, without, at the very least, considering other options that don't involve a total revocation of sovereignty.
emphasis because wat on earth
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]With X-million Mexican citizens entering the United States illegally (presumably to seek out a better life), insane corruption, drug lords wreaking havoc.... wouldn't it be in Mexico's interest and better for 'the world' if the United States annexed Mexico?T_P_O
I really hope you are being sarcastic when you say it would be in Mexico's interest to accept annexation, without, at the very least, considering other options that don't involve a total revocation of sovereignty.
emphasis because wat on earth
Yes, I was being sarchastic.But on a more serious note, I think some people are a little bit naive when they talk about "what is good for the world." In orderfor one nation to be "good" towards or for others requiresa partnership on both sides. Sort of like when people say that the US should unilaterally disarm/dispose of all of our neclear weapons. Just because we do it, does not mean other, less well intentioned nations would do the same.
Now, I'm not saying that the US (or any nation) shouldn't be "good neighbors," but we shouldn't try to view the world through rose colored glasses.
EDIT: Regarding my previous somewhat joking post, I didn't mean to imply that we would seek Mexico's permission or seek their blessing. If we wanted to do what was best for Mexico, we would take over. There are microchasms of that happening here in the States. "They" don't like people being fat, so some areas ban restaurants from using transfats and are seeking to dictate how much salt can be used in prepared meals. What about the sovereignty of the individual business owner? Some school districts ban parents from preparing their childrens' lunches. What about the sovereignty of parents?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment