Cato Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 While nationalism can be exploited and used nefarioulsy, the emotion and impetus I prefer is patriotism.The nationalist says "my country is the best in the world, the rest can FRO." The patriots says "What can I do to make my country better" The distinction exists only in theory. The "emotion" aspect makes it particularly dangerous; it means, that people are highly manipulable, for they turn off their critical thinking. The past 150 years have shown repeatedly, how easily such emotions can be turned into full-fledged nationalism. For example jbg's concept of national pride, An appendix of England? A dependency of the U.S.? Have you no pride in your country? requires outright denying certain facts. One example: the "freedom fries" vs. "french fries" issue. France and many other countries have been opposing the UN sanctioned invason of Iraq in 2003. American "patriots" turned this into a nationalistic issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Your moniker "bush..." is apt, at least from the intellectual aspect. Whereas "Cato" evokes reference to the Cato Institute, a very American libertarian / classical liberal organization, or OJ Simpson's / Green Hornet's sidekick (Kato). Yes, I am enjoying all the consequences of nationalism, like wars, hate, exploitation. murder,... ...among many others that you again...conveniently...ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) No, it isn't. Canadians, for the most part, aren't flag wavers. They're proud, they're happy, but they're usually quite quiet about it. Perhaps, but my sample of n = 1 Canadian neighbor does not support this notion, as she flies the Mapleleaf 24/7. Edited August 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I fly the flag too. That isn't really what we're talking about. I am a patriot though, and I admit it freely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I fly the flag too. That isn't really what we're talking about. I am a patriot though, and I admit it freely. Then perhaps you meant to post that not all Canadians are flag wavers, as certainly many are. All Americans are not flag wavers either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 There is certainly a higher proportion of flag wavers (not people who fly the flag) and outright patriots in the US and you know that just as well as I do. Also, nowhere did I say that it's a bad thing. Turn off your defense mode for a minute or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 There is certainly a higher proportion of flag wavers (not people who fly the flag) and outright patriots in the US and you know that just as well as I do. Also, nowhere did I say that it's a bad thing. Turn off your defense mode for a minute or two. No I don't....can you demonstrate this conclusion with facts? For instance, are Canadians not "patriotic flag wavers" when it comes to their health care "system"? Your defense mode is working quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cato Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Whereas "Cato" evokes reference to the Cato Institute, a very American libertarian / classical liberal organization, or OJ Simpson's / Green Hornet's sidekick (Kato) You could have saved it, for I did not have any illusion regarding your education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 You could have saved it, for I did not have any illusion regarding your education. I don't save anything when it comes to elitist jokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 For instance, are Canadians not "patriotic flag wavers" when it comes to their health care "system"? Nope, they always want to make it better. They don't have illusions that it's perfect, or super. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Nope, they always want to make it better. They don't have illusions that it's perfect, or super. That isn't the point...are not a large proportion of Canadians ardent "flag wavers" when it comes to their health care system, to the point of using it for the very definition of what it means to be Canadian? ....see related thread in the "federal politics" area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I wonder if you are really denying the quite obvious and publically expressed feeling of many Americans, that electing a (semi)black person for President was a unique event. In case you are denying that, you should take a look at the list of past US Presidents and Vice Presidents with their pictures and then come back here and tell about the other black Presidents or Vice Presidents.However, if the event itself was unique, then why would someone be racist for simply mentioning and acknowledging the uniqueness of that event? why is it unique... BECAUSE OF RACE... HELLOOOOOoOOOOO! RACE IS THE FACTOR THAT MAKES HIS ELECTION somehow ... SPECIAL... america didn't vote for Obama REGARDLESS OF RACE... but PRECISELY BECAUSE OF IT. Why is this not registering with you people? Voting for someone BECAUSE OF RACE IS... RACISM Just as NOT voting for someone because of race is RACISM... Using race as a criteria for anything is RACIST. IF RACE WASN'T A FACTOR .. no one would have said this was a historic election... they would have said... here's the 44th president... meet the new boos same as the old one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 why is it unique... BECAUSE OF RACE... HELLOOOOOoOOOOO! RACE IS THE FACTOR THAT MAKES HIS ELECTION somehow ... SPECIAL... america didn't vote for Obama REGARDLESS OF RACE... but PRECISELY BECAUSE OF IT. Why is this not registering with you people? Voting for someone BECAUSE OF RACE IS... RACISM Just as NOT voting for someone because of race is RACISM... Using race as a criteria for anything is RACIST. IF RACE WASN'T A FACTOR .. no one would have said this was a historic election... they would have said... here's the 44th president... meet the new boos same as the old one... Let's admire the logic here. Barack Obama is the first US Black President, so people who voted for him did so because he is Black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Let's admire the logic here. Barack Obama is the first US Black President, so people who voted for him did so because he is Black. HAHAA look at your logic... people want to have CHANGE, they want that Ah HA historical moment (of having the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT) ... but don,t you dare suggest that that has anything to do with race... 96% of the black electorate VOTED FOR OBAMA (of course, I know you'll be disingenuous and say that they did'nt vote for him because of his race ... but we both know you're just playing dumb) a survey by the New York Times I seem to remember claimed to have ascertained by polling that 80% or more of blacks actually stipulated that Obama's race was a factor in voting for him (which shouldn't surprise anyone). Don't you remember all those MSNBC news segments implying that not voting for obama is the same as racism? all the celebrity hooplah (unprecedented in presidential elections)? Jay Z producing a rap biddy EXPRESSLY for Obama.. with such obvious lyrics as: "no more White lies: my president is BLACK" and young jeezy saying: "moving "whitey" out of the white house"... "keep it moving bi*ch my president is black" to UNANIMOUS and ROARING APPLAUSE here: peep it: I mean how naive does one have to be (or willfully obtuse) to deny that Obama's race IS CENTRAL for his popularity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 HAHAA look at your logic... people want to have CHANGE, they want that Ah HA historical moment (of having the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT) ... but don,t you dare suggest that that has anything to do with race... 96% of the black electorate VOTED FOR OBAMA (of course, I know you'll be disingenuous and say that they did'nt vote for him because of his race ... but we both know you're just playing dumb) a survey by the New York Times I seem to remember claimed to have ascertained by polling that 80% or more of blacks actually stipulated that Obama's race was a factor in voting for him (which shouldn't surprise anyone). Don't you remember all those MSNBC news segments implying that not voting for obama is the same as racism? all the celebrity hooplah (unprecedented in presidential elections)? Jay Z producing a rap biddy EXPRESSLY for Obama.. with such obvious lyrics as: "no more White lies: my president is BLACK" and young jeezy saying: "moving "whitey" out of the white house"... "keep it moving bi*ch my president is black" to UNANIMOUS and ROARING APPLAUSE here: peep it: I mean how naive does one have to be (or willfully obtuse) to deny that Obama's race IS CENTRAL for his popularity... There is no denying that some people voted for Obama because of his skin colour... And there is no denying that people voted against him because of his skin colour. You would have voted against him if you had been an american, PRIMARILY because of his skin colour. So do yourself a favour and stop being an hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Reenlisting Gates and Crowley By Abraham Cooper associate dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center We at the Simon Wiesenthal Center have a unique take on the Sgt. Crowley-Professor Gates episode. We may be the only folks in America who knew them both before that fateful 911 call that cast them both in a national debate about racism and racial profiling that eventually led to the White House. ... Events in Cambridge involving Gates and Crowley have shown us how far we still have to go on these issues. We believe these matters are too important to leave to politicians and too explosives to place in the hands of demagogues. So we are inviting Prof. Gates and Sgt Crowley back to the Museum of Tolerance to help us create the next real "teaching moment" for our nation. Stay tuned. Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance. This looks interesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cato Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 are not a large proportion of Canadians ardent "flag wavers" when it comes to their health care system, to the point of using it for the very definition of what it means to be Canadian? One spin-off of patriotism with huge negative impact is the loss of critical thinking; this is particularly characteristic to the left-leaning crowd, who are anyway inclined to save thinking in favour of ideology. Canada has the best education system in the world. Canada has the best judicial system in the world. Canada has the best penitentary system in the world. And, of course, Canada has the best health care system in the world. At least that was true a few months ago; but then opponents of the planned mixed system in the US have declared, that the best health care system in the world is that of the US. Alabama’s Senator Richard Shelby: the best health care system the world has ever known Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell: America has the finest health care in the world now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 There is no denying that some people voted for Obama because of his skin colour... And there is no denying that people voted against him because of his skin colour. You would have voted against him if you had been an american, PRIMARILY because of his skin colour. So do yourself a favour and stop being an hypocrite. no, If Obama would have been a viable candidate that would have been fiscally responsible and anti-big government and anti-taxation and anti socialism... I personally (where I a US citizen) would have voted for him... Presidents are merely frontmen of administrations, mouth pieces if you will... the common blunder of voting for a person is not a mistake I make. Incidentally, I would vote for a black candidate over any white candidate that is overly religious for instance. When I consider a president, I look at the evidence, I must look at his record. If i'm looking for a ditch-digger or accountant, I do the same. I look ONLY at the record and the evidence... I don't take account of his race... I wouldn't sacrifice performance for race EVER. What liberals do, is first look if a candidate is part of an aggrieved sacrosanct minority segment... "oh is the person black? perhaps I should hire him in the interests of diversity"... "or to prove that I am a tolerant egalitarian"... its actually been made a policy program.... called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. That's right leftists (who are supposed to be racial egalitarians) are the ones who put together a system of racial remuneration (who give advantages to people based on race) ! That's what happened with this election... people voting for someone BECAUSE of his race to prove that they aren't racists... which of course is simply lunacy. And you yourself have defended affirmative action in these pages too canadien... so howabout YOU stop being a hypocrite... admit that you're about as racially blind as a klansman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Reenlisting Gates and CrowleyBy Abraham Cooper associate dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center We at the Simon Wiesenthal Center have a unique take on the Sgt. Crowley-Professor Gates episode. We may be the only folks in America who knew them both before that fateful 911 call that cast them both in a national debate about racism and racial profiling that eventually led to the White House. ... Events in Cambridge involving Gates and Crowley have shown us how far we still have to go on these issues. We believe these matters are too important to leave to politicians and too explosives to place in the hands of demagogues. So we are inviting Prof. Gates and Sgt Crowley back to the Museum of Tolerance to help us create the next real "teaching moment" for our nation. Stay tuned. Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance. This looks interesting! how revolting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 no, If Obama would have been a viable candidate that would have been fiscally responsible and anti-big government and anti-taxation and anti socialism... I personally (where I a US citizen) would have voted for him... Sooo... you're finally admitting that skin colour has nothing to do with a person's qualities or personality? And you yourself have defended affirmative action in these pages too canadien... so howabout YOU stop being a hypocrite... admit that you're about as racially blind as a klansman. Considering that I have not said a thing about it. Usual lictor intellectual dishonesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Sooo... you're finally admitting that skin colour has nothing to do with a person's qualities or personality? no on an individual basis race may or may not be a way to determine a person's skills or abilities... its a rare occurrence (but it happens) that some blacks may have extremely high IQ's (i'm talking Prometheus society high 170+ or way beyond the 99th percentile )... but AS A WHOLE blacks do exhibit different rates compared to other racial groupings... that's simply a fact. And I never said that "skin color" had a causal effect on intelligence... I did say that RACE does in fact generally determine types and degrees of intelligence and certain physical aptitudes... the problem is that when you generalize you have to go with what IS LIKELY... "A generalization of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria." On the whole blacks generally will exhibit lower IQ's... that's what you can't accept... Edited August 1, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 no on an individual basis race may or may not be a way to determine a person's skills or abilities... its a rare occurrence (but it happens) that some blacks may have extremely high IQ's (i'm talking Prometheus society high 170+ or way beyond the 99th percentile )... but AS A WHOLE blacks do exhibit different rates compared to other racial groupings... that's simply a fact. And I never said that "skin color" had a causal effect on intelligence... I did say that RACE does in fact generally determine types and degrees of intelligence and certain physical aptitudes... the problem is that when you generalize you have to go with what IS LIKELY... "A generalization of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria." On the whole blacks generally will exhibit lower IQ's... that's what you can't accept... The problem is with generalisation is that it ignores a basic fact - that not two human beings are the same. Nice though to see that you revert to the old baseless argument that I.Q. is linked to intelligence and intelligence to race. You have never see fit to explain why the Utes and the Aztecs, close parents genetically speaking, created vastly different societies. Or why the difference in IQ scores between American Blacks and Whites actually decreased after desegregation of schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 The problem is with generalisation is that it ignores a basic fact - that not two human beings are the same.Nice though to see that you revert to the old baseless argument that I.Q. is linked to intelligence and intelligence to race. You have never see fit to explain why the Utes and the Aztecs, close parents genetically speaking, created vastly different societies. Or why the difference in IQ scores between American Blacks and Whites actually decreased after desegregation of schools. exactly no two humans are the same... just as no two dogs (even of the same race) are identical. There is no such thing under the sun as "equality"... instead there is an immutable iron law of INEQUALITY. There are similarities however. Genes within single a population tend to be "MORE SIMILAR". That's what race is: CLUSTERS OF SIMILAR GENES... SIMILAR DNA. If we were all the same and had the same genes: we'd all be alike in traits... or at the very least traits would occur haphazardly everywhere... so two black as tar africans could be able to copulate and engender a blonde asian kid.... The Aztecs where astonishing astronomers and architects, whether they are genetically "the same cline or race" as the Utes has not been verified ... from photographs they appear to be Blackfoot and genetically distinct from the Azteks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 The problem is with generalisation is that it ignores a basic fact - that not two human beings are the same. ahahah sorta like the statement that "ALL GENERLIZATIONS ARE FALSE" think about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 exactly no two humans are the same... just as no two dogs (even of the same race) are identical. There is no such thing under the sun as "equality"... instead there is an immutable iron law of INEQUALITY. There are similarities however. Genes within single a population tend to be "MORE SIMILAR". That's what race is: CLUSTERS OF SIMILAR GENES... SIMILAR DNA. The "difference means unequality" non-sense is so ridiculous it shows just by writing it. But since you talk about similarities. Human beings are all... human beings. That's similarity enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.