quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
What a hypocrite. You accuse me of not reading your posts in full, and then you post arrant garbage like this. You know I advocate no such thing.
quote:I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid.
If that's not advocating killing of selected children, please clarify.
I wish he'd gotten killed in a traffic accident. I wish a house had fallen on him. I wish that anything had happened to prevent him from reaching adulthood.
If I had a time machine, I'd go back and kill Adolf Hitler when he was a kid, too.
But all of that is because I know how Barghuti and Hitler turned out. And I don't believe you if you claim you didn't realize that's what I meant.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think it's pretty clear that by 'selected children' she means 'children we are certain will become murderers of innocent civilians' later on in life.
Actually, "selected children" was Bob's invention. I had nothing to do with that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since there is no way to know that for certain without a time machine...
When someone says, "If only someone had killed Hitler when he was a kid," do you think they're seriously advocating murdering selected children?
quote:It has a lot to do with the Israel issue because it's an opinion I've heard expressed before with relation to Israel: that Israel and Palestinians are morally equivalent, because they both target civilians.
I see.
I'm not sure I even know what it means to say that one socially made-up agglomeration of people is morally equivalent to another such agglomeration. Individual people are guilty for what they do themselves, and one person may be as bad or as good as another. Beyond that I'm not sure what the question is supposed to mean.
There's no such thing as Israel or Palestine, except insofar as we pretend there is. Nations and tribes are useful fictions -- except when they become dangerous. If either the Israelis or the Palestinians would look at it this way, their problems might easily be corrected. But of course they're so far from looking at it this way that what I'm saying would sound like gibberish to them.
Some Israelis are ruthless, some Palestinians are cruel and fanatical. On average the latter have probably killed more innocents. But this is overshadowed for me by something most of them have in common. So many on both sides are so lost in the madness of nationalism (or better: tribalism) that I find it hard to sympathize with either side.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There's no such thing as Israel or Palestine, except insofar as we pretend there is.
Just because you don't recognize something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means that you don't recognize it.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Nations and tribes are useful fictions -- except when they become dangerous. If either the Israelis or the Palestinians would look at it this way, their problems might easily be corrected. But of course they're so far from looking at it this way that what I'm saying would sound like gibberish to them.
Actually, it is gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Some Israelis are ruthless, some Palestinians are cruel and fanatical. On average the latter have probably killed more innocents.
It isn't a matter of numbers. It's a matter of intent, and it's a matter of reasons. Their intent is to kill innocents. Ours never is. They kill in order to gain land and to drive us out. We kill, when we do, in order to stop them from killing us.
You are blind, Destineer. The fact that you can't see the vast chasm between these two positions is a kind of moral blindness which, unlike physical blindness, is something you should be deeply ashamed of.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pain, loss and deprivation, there should be classes where these things are taught as subjects through experience. It takes the abstraction and armchair out of philosophers like this.
Lisa do not think this is a group representative of the United States, believe me, in the real world my positions are moderate.
That things are artifacts of Human creation makes them more significant to we as man, not less, these are the choices we have made, the things we are responsible for.
quote: Just because you don't recognize something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means that you don't recognize it.
That's not an argument. It's just a statement of a view that you hold for no good reason. (Unless you have purely religious reasons, which would give those who share your beliefs reason to agree but won't persuade me.)
I say to you that nations and tribes are nothing but social constructs. The one-line proof: if we didn't act as if there were such things, there wouldn't be such things.
What part of that do you disagree with? Why?
quote:It isn't a matter of numbers. It's a matter of intent, and it's a matter of reasons. Their intent is to kill innocents. Ours never is. They kill in order to gain land and to drive us out. We kill, when we do, in order to stop them from killing us.
OK, and if you could prove that were the only way to stop them you'd have a point.
But there are other ways. To mention an obvious one, which I don't recommend, but just bring up to make my point: you could abandon Israel.
Another example that would work if the Israelis and Palestinians saw that their tribes were a fiction: Israel could become a secular nation, home to both groups equally.
Not gonna happen. My main point is that it's too bad that it won't happen.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That things are artifacts of Human creation makes them more significant to we as man, not less, these are the choices we have made, the things we are responsible for.
Plus they provide a great reason for otherwise needless killing!
I'm not saying that nations don't have their uses. Why else would we build them? But they're not ends in themselves. They're there for a reason: to improve people's lives. When they don't serve that purpose, we should be willing to abandon them.
quote:Pain, loss and deprivation, there should be classes where these things are taught as subjects through experience. It takes the abstraction and armchair out of philosophers like this.
Some would say that while pain and loss can be great teachers, they can also warp a mind into something unable to see the truth. In the limit, this is called post-traumatic stress disorder.
So far it seems to me that the pain and loss of many Israelis and Palestineans has warped them, not taught them.
(Notice I say "many Israelis and Palestineans." As always, I judge individual people, not fictional tribes.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to be fair, many Israelis do seem to have learned from their pain. That seems to be what happened to Sharon, later in his life.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because you don't recognize something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means that you don't recognize it.
That's not an argument. It's just a statement of a view that you hold for no good reason.
And that differs from your arbitrary claim exactly how?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: (Unless you have purely religious reasons, which would give those who share your beliefs reason to agree but won't persuade me.)
I'm sorry, are you suddenly the determining factor here? Some people are so completely over the top that when I dispute their statements, it's not for the sake of convincing them. Because I won't waste my time on someone whose mind is so utterly closed and biased. I dispute their statements for the sake of readers who might not be as closed.
You make a foolish statement denying the existence of the State of Israel, and then expect me to back up my rejection of that sort of nonsense?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I say to you that nations and tribes are nothing but social constructs. The one-line proof: if we didn't act as if there were such things, there wouldn't be such things.
That's dumb. In the first place, social constructs are, indeed, real. If we didn't act as though there were laws, there wouldn't be laws. But that doesn't change the fact that there are laws.
And some laws are more than just social constructs. If we didn't act as though murder was wrong, that wouldn't change the fact that it's wrong.
You can recognize facts of reality or not. That doesn't change their reality.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What part of that do you disagree with? Why?
quote:It isn't a matter of numbers. It's a matter of intent, and it's a matter of reasons. Their intent is to kill innocents. Ours never is. They kill in order to gain land and to drive us out. We kill, when we do, in order to stop them from killing us.
OK, and if you could prove that were the only way to stop them you'd have a point.
Who says we have to prove it to you? You're sitting in your ivory tower pontificating about stuff that's about as real to you as Frodo and Mary Poppins. Go ahead and theorize to your heart's content. Meanwhile, we'll do what we need to.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: But there are other ways. To mention an obvious one, which I don't recommend, but just bring up to make my point: you could abandon Israel.
You're assuming that our goal is different than it is. How would abandoning Israel make it possible for us to live in peace in Israel?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Another example that would work if the Israelis and Palestinians saw that their tribes were a fiction: Israel could become a secular nation, home to both groups equally.
Not gonna happen. My main point is that it's too bad that it won't happen.
<yawn> Can I tell you how incredibly tiring and tiresome it gets to hear the same crap for 2500 years? And the wonder of it is that you think you're being original.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: And to be fair, many Israelis do seem to have learned from their pain. That seems to be what happened to Sharon, later in his life.
Please. Sharon wasn't who you think he was. He never did anything that wasn't for his personal gain or aggrandizement. The whole withdrawal from Gaza last year was staged purely to keep himself from being indicted (and convicted, most likely) on corruption charges.
posted
"There are certainly Arabic nations." That is nonsensical, there is either one or none.
"I'll thank you for not labeling my beef with him as an 'ad-hominem attack'" Actualy, the fact that you "have beef with me" is indicitive of the fact that you are arguing ad hominem and not ad argumentum.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course I realized that's what you meant. I was merely highlighting the statement you made. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. In the context of a discussion about the deaths of current Palestinian children, you raised that as an example. The inference is pretty clear, is it not, that if you had some way of deciding which children were future terrorists you would be in favor of eliminating them now before they had the chance?
I've never liked the Hitler/time travel thing because if it is possible to go back in time to affect Hitler's life, why not do something other than kill him. What if he'd become a successful artist and poet rather than a monstrous dictator, for example. I mean, as long as we're going to spin ludicrous fantasies and use them in an argument about real-life people, we could just as easily go back in time and make Hitler into a rabbi or a Catholic saint as well.
The question isn't moot, or as easily dismissed as you and Rakeesh seem to think. I know what you meant, but there's an obvious implication to it as well. And I think it's unfair of you to call me a hypocrite when you've actually said the thing I pointed to. If you don't like the implications of it, then take it back or clarify what you've said.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below).
Mr. Encyclopedia saves the day! As I've indicated at least twice now in this thread, the problem I have with your statement is in its substance, not in the speaker. Although I won't pretend I'm very fond of the speaker, but then I have very little indication of what sort of person he is. All I know, really, is that I dislike many of the positions you take.
What exactly is 'ad argumentum'? I don't speak Latin, but it appears to mean 'argument from' or 'argument to/against'. Against what?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's dumb. In the first place, social constructs are, indeed, real. If we didn't act as though there were laws, there wouldn't be laws. But that doesn't change the fact that there are laws.
And some laws are more than just social constructs. If we didn't act as though murder was wrong, that wouldn't change the fact that it's wrong.
Having extracted the two lines of actual argument from your post, let me address them.
I agree that the moral law is not socially constructed. Also that nations are in some sense "made real" by our agreement that there are nations. (Sherlock Holmes and the Dallas Stars are also "real" socially-constructed things in the same way.)
But something that's independent of our social conventions, like the moral law, can't depend on something that is socially constructed, like a nation. Because then the moral law would itself depend on our social conventions.
Sure, Israel exists, just like the Dallas Stars exist. But the existence of a socially-constructed thing like a hockey team or a nation won't make a whit of difference to what the moral law dictates.
Now, a socially-constructed thing can serve a moral purpose. The United States has, at times, served the moral good by advancing the cause of freedom. That's what makes the US worth defending -- not the fact that it's my nation.
Does Israel serve a moral purpose? All things considered, surely it does, and is therefore worth defending -- within limits. If Israel can only be defended through ruthless action, action so ruthless that it would undermine the moral purpose that gives the nation a reason to be there in the first place, then we are better off without it.
In particular, your own suggestion,
quote:I do not think it would be immoral to bomb the entirety of Gaza back into the stone age right now. If I were in charge, we'd carpet bomb the hell out of them until they cried uncle.
would undermine the moral purpose that gives Israel a reason to exist.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. If there ever was a justification for carpet-bombing civilian population centers, it disappeared with the advent of widely available (for nations such as Israel and the 'First World') smart weapons. It would be a deliberate and primary targeting of civilians to punish the other side for violent politics. Seems like the definition for terrorism to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I say to you that nations and tribes are nothing but social constructs. The one-line proof: if we didn't act as if there were such things, there wouldn't be such things.
What part of that do you disagree with? Why?
With the unstated assumption that it's possible for the world to act as if there weren't such things on a continuing and ongoing basis.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:With the unstated assumption that it's possible for the world to act as if there weren't such things on a continuing and ongoing basis.
Whether or not the world could act as if there were no nations, period, the world could certainly act as if there were no Israel.*
Indeed, this is the stated position of many an Arab nation!
*(This is enough to show that even if the idea of "nationhood" is not socially constructed, any particular nation is. But come on, Dag. By all accounts there was a time in our distant past when there were neither nations nor tribes, only families.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Of course I realized that's what you meant. I was merely highlighting the statement you made. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.
Who said I didn't mean it? I didn't mean the obnoxious misinterpretation (malinterpretation, rather) that you came up with, but I absolutely meant what I said.
And you didn't "merely highlight". You claimed that I said something I didn't. Be honest enough to admit that. I'm careful with my words, Bob. Read what I say; not what you choose to read into what I say.
But you've basically admitted that you wrote what you did for the effect. That you knew I wasn't saying what you malinterpreted me as saying, but claimed I was anyway. Maybe that passes for honest discourse in some circles, but I think it's disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I've never liked the Hitler/time travel thing because if it is possible to go back in time to affect Hitler's life, why not do something other than kill him. What if he'd become a successful artist and poet rather than a monstrous dictator, for example.
Not my problem. This isn't "Touched by an Angel". Time travel isn't an option, but I promise you that if it were, I wouldn't waste my time trying to "redeem" Adolf Hitler. Or Yasir Arafat.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The question isn't moot, or as easily dismissed as you and Rakeesh seem to think. I know what you meant, but there's an obvious implication to it as well. And I think it's unfair of you to call me a hypocrite when you've actually said the thing I pointed to.
You didn't point. You pointed and then added your commentary, claiming that your malinterpretation was what I actually said. Without even quoting my words (the first time around) you wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
That's not "pointing" at all. I never said that, and you knew I never said it. And you knew that what I did say didn't even imply it. You were (and are) playing rhetorical games and trying to score points. And you're doing it damned dishonestly.
What I actually did say was:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I guess I don't have the same absolute believe in a child's life being the most sacred thing in the world that you do. Sorry. I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid. That way, he wouldn't ever have had the opportunity to become the monster he's become.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "There are certainly Arabic nations." That is nonsensical, there is either one or none.
You don't get to decide that. Libyans and Iraqis and Jordanians consider themselves separate nations. There is such an ideology as "Pan-Arabism", according to which everyone who is a native Arabic speaker is an Arab. But that has nothing to do with the existence of separate Arab nations.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since it's come up, I certainly would try to clean Hitler up. But...if things didn't look like they were turning out alright, I'd open the bleach bottle.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm sure such a warm and friendly people as the palistinians are not the ones causing the conflict Israel.
I don't think there are any one "ones" causing the conflict in Israel. That's what makes it so complicated.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I don't think any anthropologist would say that Syrians were of a different nation than Iraqis (although some Iraqis are, of course, Kurds rather than Arabs.) The fact that Iraq and Syrua are different states bears no relationship to the fact that they are inhabited by the same nation, which is also presen in Israel, which is why I claimed that Israel is not a nation-state.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I apologize for misrepresenting your stance. I thought the implications of what you were saying were fairly obvious. I was wrong. When you spoke hypothetically of killing a child based on hindsight, I assumed that you were also saying that the situation in which you hypothetically had knowledge about a current human being the same willingness to kill would hold true.
I can see now how that wouldn't necessarily be the case, but I didn't think you held the one opinion and not the other.
If understand you correctly, then, you would kill Hitler because you have certain knowledge of how he did turn out. But, were you given certain knowledge that a Palestinian child would eventually turn into a terrorist, you still would not kill that child.
quote:*(This is enough to show that even if the idea of "nationhood" is not socially constructed, any particular nation is.
But the effort of treating an entity as a non-nation seems to be something only done by nations and largely because of the existence of that nation.
quote:But come on, Dag. By all accounts there was a time in our distant past when there were neither nations nor tribes, only families.)
I was under the impression you were talking in the present tense.
I believe that if nations were originally a social construct, it's still possible for them to be real and NOT merely a social construct now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that if nations were originally a social construct, it's still possible for them to be real and NOT merely a social construct now.
Something is a "social construct" if it was constructed by society. Nothing ever loses that status.
Anyway, I don't understand your view. Do you think it's impossible -- physically impossible, contrary to the laws of nature -- for everyone on earth to stop acting as if Israel were a nation?
If you agree with me that this is possible, do you think Israel would continue to exist even if no one recognized that it was a nation?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Some people are so completely over the top that when I dispute their statements, it's not for the sake of convincing them. Because I won't waste my time on someone whose mind is so utterly closed and biased. I dispute their statements for the sake of readers who might not be as closed.
I have to say when I read this I actually burst out laughing... Let me advise anyone new to this topic to make sure your rabies shots are up-to-date. We don't want anyone developing lockjaw in the middle of an argument <cough> I mean discussion.
On a separate note though, I'm curious why I still haven't seen this point brought up at all: While it does not justify the actions of Palestinian terrorist groups why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that in their eyes it could be as easy to say that anyone living in Israel is willingly placing themselves in the role of a combatant. Afterall, it was only ~60 years ago that this land was siezed from the Palestinians, so anyone there could concievably be seen as a forced occupier or at least someone willingly supporting those who are forcibly occupying formerly Palestinian lands.
Does this justify Hamas targetting schoolchildren and whatnot? Absolutely not. Is this the same kind of justification starLisa is using to advocate carpet-bombing Gaza? I think so.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something is a "social construct" if it was constructed by society. Nothing ever loses that status.
Not if the thing then evolves beyond what the social construct version originally was.
quote:Anyway, I don't understand your view. Do you think it's impossible -- physically impossible, contrary to the laws of nature -- for everyone on earth to stop acting as if Israel were a nation?
No. But I consider that a useless definition of impossible for purposes of this discussion. If that's the definition you're using, then your one sentence proof that nations are a social construct proves no such thing.
quote:If you agree with me that this is possible, do you think Israel would continue to exist even if no one recognized that it was a nation?
Too many terms with multiple meanings, starting with "Israel." I'll assume you don't mean "recognize" as in diplomacy and "nation" as in "state." If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll reevaluate.
However, if everyone - including the people w/in Israel - stopped recognizing that it was a nation, then whatever resulted, even if still called "Israel," would not be what is meant by the term now.
Edit: I realized I left off the reason this means it's not a social construct: part of "nation" is self-identity of a group of people. However, part of it is something more than self-identity.
Your test is, at best, only half-complete. You asked if everyone could stop recognizing nations and proffered that as proof. However, if everyone simply decided to recognize a particular nation, that would not create the nation.
Self-identity is necessary, not sufficient, and it is not something that can be merely chosen. There is more to it than that.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If understand you correctly, then, you would kill Hitler because you have certain knowledge of how he did turn out. But, were you given certain knowledge that a Palestinian child would eventually turn into a terrorist, you still would not kill that child.
Define "certain knowledge". Did I come back from 15 years in the future in a time machine? If not, how are you defining "certain"?
As I define "certain", I'd kill him dead. I don't know of any way on earth to attain certainty of that sort except in retrospect, by which time it's too late. So no, I can't think of any situation on earth in which I'd intentionally kill a child (or an adult, for that matter) for something that he might wind up doing. I don't even see the "child" issue as pertaining. I've mentioned my friend Radwan here before, I believe. He was an Ashafist (Fatah supporter, back when everyone realized that Fatah was a terrorist group), and I was a Kachnik, and everyone expected us to be at one another's throat. But we weren't. Even knowing that one of us might one day have to kill the other, and knowing that neither of us would hesitate for a second should it be necessary, we were still able to be friends. The Middle East is not America. But thanks for the apology.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: On a separate note though, I'm curious why I still haven't seen this point brought up at all: While it does not justify the actions of Palestinian terrorist groups why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that in their eyes it could be as easy to say that anyone living in Israel is willingly placing themselves in the role of a combatant. Afterall, it was only ~60 years ago that this land was siezed from the Palestinians,
Israel was never siezed from Palestinians. That's a bunch of garbage propaganda that they like to use.
Up until 1948, "Palestinian" without a modifier was generally used to describe Jews living in that area. As opposed to Arab Palestinians, where the modifier "Arab" was added for clarification.
Most Arab Palestinians lived in the 78% of Palestine to the East of the Jordan River (the part now called Jordan). Most Jewish Palestinians lived in the 22% of Palestine to the West of the Jordan River. Nothing was seized from anyone. Most of the land we lived in was bought and paid for, and most of the rest was taken when the Arabs tried to exterminate us in 1948. Add to that the land that we took when they tried -- again -- to exterminate us in 1967, and then subtract the vast majority of that, which we gave back to Egypt.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" as if Israel were a nation" It isn't. Talk of "the nation of Israel" usualy predates the creation of the state of Israel. There is a Jewish nation and an Arab nation both of which live in Israel and in many other places, like New York.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius, you're using one particularly narrow meaning of the word "nation." Which is fine if that's how you want to use it, but please don't correct people who are using it differently but correctly.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So no, I can't think of any situation on earth in which I'd intentionally kill a child (or an adult, for that matter) for something that he might wind up doing.
quote: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorize someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.... The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
quote:However, if everyone simply decided to recognize a particular nation, that would not create the nation.
Why not?
Seems to me like that's just what it is to create a nation. A certain group of people treat each other as countrymen. Everyone else treats them, collectively, as an ally or an enemy or whatever.
What more must we add to the mix to get a nation?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think recognition is all that's required for a group to treat each other as countrymen and for everyone else to treat them differently? It's something beyond choice.
When the nation starts acting together a nation exists. That's more than the sum of a bunch of individual actions. It's the creation of a new entity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorize someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.... The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
Wikipedia
Very good. You feel free to use the word "nation" when you want to discuss those concepts.
Destineer and I are having a very nice discussion about something else, and we're also using the word "nation" to discuss it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think recognition is all that's required for a group to treat each other as countrymen and for everyone else to treat them differently? It's something beyond choice.
I feel like I still don't understand what you're trying to get at. What I've been meaning by "recognizing" a nation is just that people behave in a certain way. Since we can control our behavior, we can control whether the nation exists or not.
quote:When the nation starts acting together a nation exists. That's more than the sum of a bunch of individual actions.
I don't see why you think it is. Could all the individual actions be exactly the same, and yet the nation not be "acting together"? That is, is the nation's acting together something distinct from my acting a certain way, and your acting a certain way, and GW Bush acting a certain way, and so on for every American?
I don't see how it could be. Because if I act the way I'm acting right now, and you act the way you're acting, and Bush does the same, etc, then the nation must be acting together. I can't imagine a possibility in which all of the people are acting the same way we are now, but the nation is somehow acting differently. So the nation's acting together is really nothing but the sum of the individual actions of its members.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel like I still don't understand what you're trying to get at.
I don't think I've explained it well, but I'm not sure I can do better in the time I have.
quote:What I've been meaning by "recognizing" a nation is just that people behave in a certain way. Since we can control our behavior, we can control whether the nation exists or not.
Is your contention that anything that is solely the product of either voluntary behavior or instinctive (non-consciously chosen?) behavior that could be voluntarily overcome is a social construct? I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying any more.
quote:don't see why you think it is. Could all the individual actions be exactly the same, and yet the nation not be "acting together"? That is, is the nation's acting together something distinct from my acting a certain way, and your acting a certain way, and GW Bush acting a certain way, and so on for every American?
This will only hint at the distinction I'm trying to draw:
Suppose 100 people standing in a public square decide, without consultation and truly simultaneously to mob a speaker. Were they acting as a group? And here, I mean not even unconsciously joined decision-making - assume each person would have acted were he the only person there and had no input from the others when deciding to act.
Is it as much of a group act than a group who hears there already recognized leader yell, "Let's get 'im, boys!" before they charge the stage?
I know these don't counter your example - part of how Americans act is in choosing our leader and making group decisions. But it's getting at something underneath that. I think.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: " as if Israel were a nation" It isn't. Talk of "the nation of Israel" usualy predates the creation of the state of Israel. There is a Jewish nation and an Arab nation both of which live in Israel and in many other places, like New York.
We were a nation back when we all lived in Israel, and we never stopped being a nation, nor did our land ever stop being our home, in all the centuries that we were prevented from returning there.
The fact that armed squatters entered while we were prevented by force from returning does not grant them any rights to our home. They are, and have been, invaders in our home. Israel is, indeed, a nation-state. The existence of Jews outside of Israel does not in any way contradict that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So no, I can't think of any situation on earth in which I'd intentionally kill a child (or an adult, for that matter) for something that he might wind up doing.
And thank you.
Don't thank me, Bob. I didn't say it for you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, is it really so necessary to be so aggressive and kick over quite so many fences as all that? I certainly understand being upset enough to want to, but that does not make it a good thing to spit in someone's face like that online.
And anyway, you did say thanks for the apology.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We were a nation back when we all lived in Israel, and we never stopped being a nation, nor did our land ever stop being our home, in all the centuries that we were prevented from returning there." What romantic-nationialist bull, under that logic, I have the right to reclaim my fatherland in Central Europe along with my Celtic brothers. Judaism survived becouse the Romans were too stupid to realize that kicking the Jews out of Judea was the best possible thing for them. Even were this not so, one cannot pretend 2000 years of history never happaned. The fact is that Israel is currently 18% Arabic and thus not a nation-state as I understand the term. Iceland is a nation-state, perhaps the only one that can claim that title now. Your assumption, rooted in outdated nationalist thaugt, is that nation-states are inherently better than other states. Is Switzerland less stable than Iceland becouse of its four lingustic groups? Did Britain fail becouse its citizens included both Celts and Anglo-Saxons? I think not.
Anyway, I never contradicted your claim as to Jews being a nation.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "We were a nation back when we all lived in Israel, and we never stopped being a nation, nor did our land ever stop being our home, in all the centuries that we were prevented from returning there." What romantic-nationialist bull, under that logic, I have the right to reclaim my fatherland in Central Europe along with my Celtic brothers.
Don't be a child. We have a continuity. We have never, not for one single day, failed to publically proclaim our intent to return to our land. Three times, every day, Jews around the world have been doing this for centuries. And you compare that to your distant connection to Central Europe?
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Judaism survived becouse the Romans were too stupid to realize that kicking the Jews out of Judea was the best possible thing for them.
Bite me. You don't get to decide that a horrible crime perpetrated against us was "good for us". That's disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Even were this not so, one cannot pretend 2000 years of history never happaned. The fact is that Israel is currently 18% Arabic and thus not a nation-state as I understand the term.
That speaks more to your lack of understanding than anything else. Israel is, indeed, a nation-state, and the fact that there are non-Jews living there makes not a whit of difference to that fact.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Iceland is a nation-state, perhaps the only one that can claim that title now. Your assumption, rooted in outdated nationalist thaugt,
Don't presume to tell me what my thought is or what it is grounded in. Children like you are so incredibly tiresome when you presume to know what other people are thinking.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't be a child. We have a continuity. We have never, not for one single day, failed to publically proclaim our intent to return to our land. Three times, every day, Jews around the world have been doing this for centuries. And you compare that to your distant connection to Central Europe?
It's only yours because the world felt bad after WW2 and carved it out for you, and have defended it for you, then gave you the tools to defend it for yourselves. That's a blatent way of putting it, but can you really dispute it? Saying something is yours is a state of mind, as far as land goes, it's only yours if you can take it, and hold it. History has no other requirements for the "owning" of land.
And Israel IS a state, a nation, nation-state, whatever. If there is some semantic difference between all of these names, well I don't know it, and quite frankly, does it even matter? They aren't going anywhere, and I don't think they should be.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
