You seem to be interpreting what people are saying in this thread. If you can manage that, then perhaps other people can manage to interpret the rather blunt language of third parties.I just don't get how y'all can take a lousy bumper sticker so literally??? You say it was "implied", yet YOU are the one to make that judgement, NOT the man who put it on his bumper. Big difference. And yet YOU are judging him for what YOU think he intended. Wow!
I wonder, guys, should I begin to take all of the bumper stickers I see as literally as y'all are taking this one? Like, if I see a sticker "I love my Cocker Spaniels", should I call the cops and turn him in for dog abuse??
And, oh, my goodness, what if I see a gray, wrinkled up old fart driving a car with a sticker that says, "I love my Granddaughter" ...definitely child sexual abuse and he should be turned in to the cops immediately ...unless I get a good clean shot of my own, right?
Baron Max
Unqualified nationalism - good or bad?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Max, you mention little girls in your posts too often. Please stop, it weakens what little credibility you have.
Well, that's odd, James, ...others have been responding to my comments, so it's obvious that some people are interested in what I say.
Or is that, James, an indication of your personal vendetta against me because of the Uganda-gay rights thread ...where you're losing the argument?
Baron Max
Well, yeah, that's exactly what seems to be going on here in this thread. Anyone can argue in any direction taht they choose because of a few words on a silly bumper sticker! So, Doreen, if they can interprete the bumper sticker however they wish, then I can also interpret it and what they say, right? Right? Huh?
Baron Max
Originally Posted by Baron Max: " "I love my Granddaughter" ...definitely child sexual abuse...."
But it hit close enough to home that it's stopped people from making any further idiotic posts about stupid bumper stickers, didn't it? Must have held some credibility, huh?
By the way, what's "credibility"? Is that some kind of alcoholic booze? Is it of any value? Hopefully not a lot of people have "credibility" else it won't be very valuable, huh? ...LOL!
Baron Max
But it hit close enough to home that it's stopped people from making any further idiotic posts about stupid bumper stickers, didn't it? Must have held some credibility, huh?
By the way, what's "credibility"? Is that some kind of alcoholic booze? Is it of any value? Hopefully not a lot of people have "credibility" else it won't be very valuable, huh? ...LOL!
Baron Max
No, Max, it was just plain stupid.
No Max, the sticker was interpreted the way it was intended to be.
And you know how the bumper sticker was "intended"?? By whom? By the man who designed the sticker? Or the man who printed it? Or by the millions who probably read the sticker? Oooh, you're good, Phlog!
Or maybe you know the intent the many thousands who bought it and stuck it to their bumpers? You know what each one of those thousands "intended" with the sticker?
Please tell me, Phlog, how do you know that? And if you're really that good, can you know what everyone on Earth "intends" at any one moment in time about any issue? Oooooooh, you're good, Phlog!
Baron Max
I find the elision from "love" to "approve of the faults of" to be a spurious leap of logic. And, likewise, the imputation that those who advertize "love of country" are unthinking, uncritical nationalists is pretty blatantly off base. It's basically one big straw-man argument. Which is typical of the sort of echo-chamber discourse so frequently evident in the op-ed section of The Age.
Given that both of the ideologies you cite are defined by privileging an in-group at the expense of an out-group, that's either a vacuous approval or a very thin definition of "harm."
Since it was delivered with a straight face, the more troubling implication here is the idea that only certain nationalisms or ethnocentricisms are actually harmful, and that the other - "good," "harmless" - nationalisms and ethnocentricisms are perfectly okay, and deserving of respect, even from the relevant out-groups.
One can feel the pull of the next step in such a discourse, which is the politicized attacks on "enemy" nationalisms and ethnocentricisms - on the spurious criterion that they are "harmful" - and the implied exoneration of allied nationalisms and ethnocentricisms.
Ugly stuff.
I don't know where the author of that article gets his ideas about love, but he's way off base.
Do you have any family, or even any pets? Do you love them? Does that mean that you approve of everything they do? Of course not. It means you don't give up on them, no matter what they do. You may disapprove, you may be extremely angry at them, but you dont give up on them because they are important to you.
Loving your country is the same. You don't betray it, you don't give up on it, even when you don't approve of what it's doing. I love my country, although I most certainly do not approve of much of what the Obama administration does.
Patriotism does not imply unthinking approval of every action taken by your nation.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That's the problem with Max. He started off with some really good comments and was contributing to the discussion. Then he reverted back to his self-appointed role as the Jester. It's like he catches himself being serious and says, "Omigod, I'm out of character! I can't let them see me like this! They'll figure out that I'm only pretending to be a hick!"
Max says plenty of stuff that's so stupid it's not just stupid, it's stoopid. It's a real shame.
Love your cartoon. One of the cornerstones of libertarian politics is, "Peaceful people have the right to migrate freely." The European occupiers were not peaceful so the Indians would have been within their rights to expel them, if only they had the technology. The Africans, Latin Americans and others who come to these shores now, looking for jobs so they can send money back to their families, are peaceful.
Unfortunately most people who call themselves libertarians are really right-conservatives who appreciate our other platform planks such freedom of religion, gun rights and minimal taxes, but are not true social libertarians, so they find convoluted ways to justify restrictions on immigration.
The single factor that correlates most closely with the probability of a man being poor is the country he lives in. The easiest and most peaceful way to end poverty is to invite people who want to work to live in the countries where their work will be fairly compensated. This will increase the GDP of the entire planet and leave the despots in the Third World with no power base.
Like all ostensibly absolute statements, that one has its limits. You give up on your spouse if she starts murdering people for their money.
Would you not have given up on your fatherland if it was Germany in 1944? If we had had eight more years of the Bush Dynasty I would very seriously have contemplated emigration. Obviously to a certain extent that would have been for my own safety, as he steadfastly strove to piss off one-sixth of the earth's population. But if someone you love is so stoopid that they endanger their safety as well as your own, at some point you simply have to write them off and leave them to their own fate.
Sure, most people would. But how many women stay with a man despite the fact that he beats the crap out of her repeatedly.
That aside, the "love" for a spouse these days seems pretty shallow in many cases with couples spliting up at the first sign of trouble or even boredom. Consider instead the love for a child. Even if your child was a murderer, wouldn't you still love them? Even the guy whose brother was the unibomber still had feelings for his brother.
Not to really dispute your larger point, there are limits to everything.
Easy to give the "right" answer in hindsight, but what percentage of the millions of Germans did so, when they were in exactly that situation? Sure, plenty of them presumably gave up on the Reich, but how many gave up on German nationalism itself? Certainly, German national identity is still with us, as are the Italian and Japanese strains. Nationalism is durable like that.
Its called freedom of thought and expression, in bigger words.
? The question wasn't whether you approve of someone's right to be a nationalist or whatever and say so, but whether you approve of the actual nationalism or whatever.
And I reiterate. Anyone is entitled to embrace any ideology, so long as they do not inflict harm on anyone else if they do not share it. e.g. its 60 years today that India is a republic and people are singing Vande Mataram with pride. And thats alright even though there are lots of things still wrong with the country.
Last edited:
Do you think it's better being vague? It's actually always that with you isn't it?
You'll pick apart someone else's opinion, but never dare to offer one yourself.
You aren't clever Max, you are weak. Too weak to hold an opinion.