|
| | lame duck
 
Last Seen:
11/17/2008 4:24 PM
Posts: 1,795
Visits: 4,325
|
| | |
| | 
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
Today @ 2:40 PM
Posts: 5,295
Visits: 27,181
|
| jerm (8/15/2008)
I disagree. But then, I guess I have more faith in humanity than you do!  Most liberals do. What evidence to you have that humanity is generally good? The last 7000 years? The last 500? The last 100? The last 10? No, the evidence points to the fact that humanity is generally rotten unless we are taught or forced to be "good"... and even then it doesn't always work.
Actually I am not sure what it has to do with being liberal. It more has to do with "God's Kingdom on Earth", which is a concept I am sure you are familiar with. Humanity has come a long way in the past 7000 years don't ya think?  You say humanity has to be taught or forced. A good mix of both have been involved throughout the course of history, and no doubt our learning is not over. I know we won't see this in my lifetime, but I have a strong feeling, call it faith if you want to, that humanity will be closer on the day that I die than it was on the day I was born. What say you?
I do not pretend that things are all peachy keen, and it ("God's Kingdom on Earth") may all be a myth, but it is definitely something worth striving for, IMO.
jerm (8/15/2008)
No, of course not. I wish GWB felt the same way!  So, what liberties have you lost during Evil Booshmeister's been in office? Still, I generally agree that the move has been towards less freedom, though this has not been exclusive to Bushy.
Of course it has not been exclusive to Bush, and I am not sure why you call him "evil" I do not think he is evil. But as you say, the move have been towards less freedom. Surely he has, in part, rested on the precedence of those who came before him in cutting back on liberties, but that is not an excuse for his actions. I do not dismiss out of hand what others have done before him, but I do not let him off the hook for following their lead.
jerm (8/15/2008)
Well, they are not, but the latter does not require Nationalism as a motivating factor. I do not worship at the altar of Nationalism. I do not require it, it doesn't get me out of bed each day, that is what I am saying. Patriotic, yes, you betcha. But nationalistic, no, never! Perhaps we are battling a war of semantics. Nationalism| 1. | national spirit or aspirations. |
| 2. | devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism. |
| 3. | excessive patriotism; chauvinism. |
| 4. | the desire for national advancement or independence. |
| 5. | the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. |
| 6. | an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. |
| 7. | a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. |
Patriotism is one definition of Nationalism. I am not saying that we should worship at the alter of nationalism. I am only saying that a degree of nationalism is not a bad thing and in fact can be a force for good as long as the nation one is nationalistic tois a good one.
Find it a bit funny that you say "patriotism is one definition of Nationalism," when the very next definition on your list says "extreme patriotism! 
jerm (8/15/2008)
Nothing, sir, nothing at all. But you know, good intentions pave the road to hell, you know this, right? You respond to my parentheses? 
Of course I responded to your parentheses. You wouldn't have said it if you didn't mean it. |
--
HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Edited: 8/19/2008 10:11 PM by Locus Coeruleus |  |  |
| |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 1:58 PM
Posts: 4,390
Visits: 10,911
|
| | The thing with "God's Kingdom on Earth" is that almost any religion I can think of that believes in this also believes that it won't happen until God himself establishes it. Until then, and I don't want to get into a theological debate, we can't delude ourselves in to thinking that evil will cease to exist someday. Humanity's goodness comes and goes in waves it would seem. I think we have come a long way from about 200 years ago and a big chunk of that has occured in the last century, nay, the last 50 years! Was the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or Mao China "better" than the Roman Empire? Than the Egyptians? The Persians? The only difference I can see is that the "good guys" can give the "baddies" a serious *** whoopin'. The problem is that (from a theological perspective again) man is free to choose. This means many will choose evil and lead many away with them. Unfortunately, most of the time, the best way to fight evil is to... well fight it. Addit: The reason we've got it so good recently is precisely because mankind has chosen to fight it. What if we didn't unite to fight Nazi Germany? What if we didn't fight Soviet expansion? We sit back in our nice cushy homes with the ability to criticise some of our more nefarious actions during the cold war but what if we didn't do some of those things? Is it possible that things may have ended up much worse? At any rate, my point is that the reason we can sit back and say how much progress the world has made is precisely because good people chose to fight the bad. If you did not have a sense of nationalism, why on earth would you die for your country? I'd submit that the success we are seeing in Iraq is directly due, in part, to a sense of nationalism (the patriotism kind) among those serving. We don't even have a draft. Of course it has not been exclusive to Bush, and I am not sure why you call him "evil" I do not think he is evil. But as you say, the move have been towards less freedom. Surely he has, in part, rested on the precedence of those who came before him in cutting back on liberties, but that is not an excuse for his actions. I do not dismiss out of hand what others have done before him, but I do not let him off the hook for following their lead. I'd agree to a degree but you never answered my actual question . Find it a bit funny that you say "patriotism is one definition of Nationalism," when the very next definition on your list says "extreme patriotism! Actually it says excessive patriotism but I digress  . You're right, that is another definition. That doesn't mean the number 2 definition is incorrect. Hence the "war on semantics." Of course I responded to your parentheses. You wouldn't have said it if you didn't mean it. Yeah, but that was a side thought to my actual point.  |
--
-A government that is powerful enough to do anything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us. -Fred Thompson
-There are two races of people, the decent and the indecent. - Victor Frankel
-They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin
Consequences
Edited: 8/20/2008 12:10 AM by jerm |  | |
| |
|
|
