patriotism

[Coito ergo sum]

@Feck

While I agree with the sentiment, you have to recognize that your family, your friends, your loved ones live in your country (mostly) and it is that which you are protecting.

I'm no patriot by any means as I could not give a shit about land and where I was born - but I do care about the people.

I guess I would ask, "protecting" from what?

Being killed, for one thing.

Caring about people isn't what I would classify as "patriotic".

Patriotism a love, devotion or loyalty to one's country, and part of one's country is one's "people" (e.g. the British people, the French people, the Italian people, the Malawian people, the Brazilian people, the Indonesian people, etc.).

[Feck]

see post above

"the idea that someone is better or worse because of an accident of birth"

as stupid as being a christian or muslim or whatever because of where you happen to be born. Why are you in search of an absolute before you die? I could probably chuck one out for you, how bout, "child rape is wrong". Maybe there is another side to the coin? If so throw it back at me. If not, there you go, your welcome.

The child is 13, and is the last remaining woman on Earth. Without her being impregnated, the entire human species will go extinct. Yet, she is selfish and won't consent. Is it wrong to save the human race by forcing sex?

Does this girl "owe" anything to the human race. I think not.

No, but does the rightness of an action depend on what is "owed" by one person to another, or a group? Whether something is owed depends on the legal system in a given jurisdiction, or the moral/ethical opinion of a given individual.

If a female tiger becomes the last surviving female of the species, would we only save the species if she consented willingly to mate with a remaining male? I doubt it. We'd probably suggest that the survival of an entire species of animal is worth forcibly impregnating the one remaining female.

Ergo, I would argue that humans are no less valuable than tigers, and saving the human species by forcibly impregnating the last remaining female may be the right thing to do at the time.

As far fetched as the example is, it may well show that even the claim "child rape is wrong" is not absolute.

Well when we get to the last humin that might be an option ! but it's a straw man at the moment .It might justify artificial insemination under anaesthetic but it would not justify child rape .

[sandinista]

by Gawdzilla » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:19 pm

sandinista wrote:Caring about people isn't what I would classify as "patriotic".


Can't argue with special definitions. Have a nice life.

nothing special about it, just saying I care for the vast majority of people in my country and in other countries, I am by no means a patriot, in any sense. Thanks, have a nice life yourself, I think I just made it better by giving you an absolute you can take to the bank.

[sandinista]

@Feck

While I agree with the sentiment, you have to recognize that your family, your friends, your loved ones live in your country (mostly) and it is that which you are protecting.

I'm no patriot by any means as I could not give a shit about land and where I was born - but I do care about the people.

I guess I would ask, "protecting" from what?

Being killed, for one thing.

How is protecting someone from being killed in any sense patriotic?

[Coito ergo sum]

...also...the human race doesn't need to, or deserve to be saved, especially if it means raping a young girl.

Well, that is your value judgment of the human race, and not one that I share. I think the human race does need to be saved, and deserves to be saved.

I would suggest that forcing a male to provide sperm would be a better option than allowing a species to go extinct, by way of example.

But, that's the thing about value judgments and morality. There is no absolute right or wrong about it. One's opinion is one's opinion.

[Coito ergo sum]

@Feck

While I agree with the sentiment, you have to recognize that your family, your friends, your loved ones live in your country (mostly) and it is that which you are protecting.

I'm no patriot by any means as I could not give a shit about land and where I was born - but I do care about the people.

I guess I would ask, "protecting" from what?

Being killed, for one thing.

How is protecting someone from being killed in any sense patriotic?

If you are protecting your countrymen from being killed, then that would be a patriotic act. It's not the only patriotic act, but it can be a patriotic act. If one throws oneself on a grenade to protect one's countrymen, then that may be an expression of love, devotion and loyalty to one's own country.

Patriotism is not a thing that exists in and of itself. It's an emotion or a sentiment, which is created in the human brain and applied to a situation.

Protecting someone else's life may not be patriotic, or it may be patriotic. That all depends on the state of mind of the individual doing the act. If he or she does it out of a sense of devotion, loyalty or love of one's fellow countrymen, then it's patriotic by definition, since patriotism is love, devotion or loyalty to one's country (part of which is the people that make up the country - no people = no country).

[sandinista]

...also...the human race doesn't need to, or deserve to be saved, especially if it means raping a young girl.

Well, that is your value judgment of the human race, and not one that I share. I think the human race does need to be saved, and deserves to be saved.

I would suggest that forcing a male to provide sperm would be a better option than allowing a species to go extinct, by way of example.

But, that's the thing about value judgments and morality. There is no absolute right or wrong about it. One's opinion is one's opinion.

your example is still not valid. In fact, in the very sense that the only example you could come up with is so far fetched that proves in and of itself the very real absolute of the statement.

[Coito ergo sum]

by Gawdzilla » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:19 pm

sandinista wrote:Caring about people isn't what I would classify as "patriotic".


Can't argue with special definitions. Have a nice life.

nothing special about it, just saying I care for the vast majority of people in my country and in other countries,

Patriotism does not require one to not care for the people of other countries.

I am by no means a patriot, in any sense.

You have no love, devotion or loyalty to your country at all?

That's weird. You said you care for the vast majority of people in your country, but then you say you don't have any patriotism. If you didn't have any patriotism, however, you'd not have any care for the vast majority of people in your country.

Patriotism, you should note, does not require that you not care for people in other countries. You can be both patriotic, and humanist in general.

[Clinton Huxley]

The "Pale Blue Dot" photo rendered all concepts of patriotism contemptible and ludicrous. Flag-wavers and scoundrels, you couldn't slide a credit card between 'em.

[Coito ergo sum]

...also...the human race doesn't need to, or deserve to be saved, especially if it means raping a young girl.

Well, that is your value judgment of the human race, and not one that I share. I think the human race does need to be saved, and deserves to be saved.

I would suggest that forcing a male to provide sperm would be a better option than allowing a species to go extinct, by way of example.

But, that's the thing about value judgments and morality. There is no absolute right or wrong about it. One's opinion is one's opinion.

your example is still not valid. In fact, in the very sense that the only example you could come up with is so far fetched that proves in and of itself the very real absolute of the statement.

No, it's certainly valid. I mean, it is not a very likely example, but I don't need to come up with very likely examples to show that your statement is not absolute. I just need to come up with one that is even remotely possible. And, it is.

I might change it to something that may have likely happened in our hunter-gatherer past. Perhaps in the days when human clans were small family groups, and maintaining 20 or so people in the group was necessary to ensure survival of newborns into the next generation required that little choice be given in the decision to procreate. We may not understand that today, in that we do not live at the subsistence level, hunting and gathering, always a hair away from the death of the entire clan. However, it was probably very likely that disease or other calamities caused the death of several clan females at once, putting the clan at risk of its own extinction, unless a remaining female was "married" off to a fertile male of the clan. Is it absolutely wrong?

Think of the different morals. Marriage was common, a few thousand years ago, when a girl turned 12 or had puberty. Therefore, sex with 12 and 13 year old girls and boys at the time, which today would be considered rape in almost every country in the world, was commonplace. Were those "rapes" absolutely wrong?

[Coito ergo sum]

The "Pale Blue Dot" photo rendered all concepts of patriotism contemptible and ludicrous. Flag-wavers and scoundrels, you couldn't slide a credit card between 'em.

Well, then work toward a day when your country drops its borders, and opens its doors to all comers. And, push for your country to eliminate its military altogether.

[charlou]

Sweeping generalizations again. "X is always bad". Prove it.

"Prove God doesn't exist"

[Clinton Huxley]

The "Pale Blue Dot" photo rendered all concepts of patriotism contemptible and ludicrous. Flag-wavers and scoundrels, you couldn't slide a credit card between 'em.

Well, then work toward a day when your country drops its borders, and opens its doors to all comers. And, push for your country to eliminate its military altogether.

Never! Let us define our loyalties based on arbitrary geographical boundaries for all time!

[charlou]

Impregnation of the last female on earth would not require rape. We have advanced somewhat in impregnation technology since the days of yore.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sweeping generalizations again. "X is always bad". Prove it.

"Prove God doesn't exist"

"X is always bad" is a positive assertion, once someone fills in X. So, clearly, one would have the burden of proving that assertion. One need only define what they mean by "bad" and then demonstrate how that is always the case. Someone seeking to disprove the fact that X is always bad need only also define what they mean by "bad" and provide one example of X not being bad.

One can prove that God doesn't exist by defining God. If God is a being that lives atop Mt. Olympus, for example, or at the top of Mt. Fuji, then one need only go to the top of those mountains, or show satellite photos of those areas, and wallah, proof of that God's nonexistence.

We would also need to define the parameters of "proof." Proof in the scientific sense that there is no god comes from the fact that god fails every test that we can run on whether he, she or it exists. The Christian god, for example, was said to answer prayers. Whenever there has been a test run on the efficacy of prayers, however, they are shown not to work, or even be detrimental. So, we can say that the failure of prayers to work is a proof of the nonexistence of the god to whom those prayers were directed.

Once we agree on what proof means and what god means, then we can, in fact, proceed to prove or disprove that god.