100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Any ONE there????? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I know what you said. Your argument treats loyalty to one's home country as though it ought be the number one priority for loyalty. I disagree, and have given good reason why I do. I've yet to see good reason given for your assertions otherwise. You're just plain wrong prashant01. Everyone is not necessarily responsible for what happens in their home country. You're wrongfully presupposing that everyone has an influence regarding that. Nop Creative,you are wrong. Somehow everyone is responsible for the condition of their habitat.May be some people are just BREATHING & not even using water of homeland,still u know,they are polluting air & consuming oxygen..... ....I hope u got my point now.... So, because the German Jews breathed they are somehow responsible for the state of Germany during the third reich? I cannot continue this utterly ridiculous conversation. To each their own, I suppose. Yeah...u can't bcoz as far as I know, u r not a good listener. Anyway,I'm not upto personalizing this thread to any one or any particular society. A RESPONSIBLE person is one who gives response to something happening around. Motherland is one where we born & brought up,One shall always remember that whatever they need to live this life comes only from the society & we shall not start hating that society just for someone's bad turns to us. Those who dares,cares to clean the dirt & dust accumulated in society,despite of walking away by side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prashant you're not clear about what your saying. So you hate a person who hates your culture and motherland? Whether or not the person might be its citizen. I see, you are an Indian. And as you say there exist so many cultures and religion in it. So you think you are proud of it? Dont you think having only one religion and one culture would stabalize a nation? There might be a reason a reason he(the person you talking about) hates your country. So is this a bad thing? I don't think so. It is justified if there's a good reason. And i dont think its a good idea to judge a person on the basis of his ideas and views about his country. Thats totally sick you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prashant, this is one of those things that we call "culture shock". Sometimes going from an incredibly rich country to a horribly poor country can do this to humans; sometimes going from dirt poor country to a rich country can do it. But your culture shock is different in this instance. In your background loyalty to your motherland was unquestioned. Nobody questioned it. Not the richest and most influential, all the way down to the pariahs. In Western cultures the shock hits you, because here the loyalty is not that strongly expected. In all Westerns countries people can opt out of compulsory military service and perform voluntary slave labour for two years. It's called "doing conscientious refusal". In other times, one half of the country wants this, and the other half, that. They are the same nation, of the same blood, and yet one side wants the country to stay a kingdom, the other side, wants the country to become a republic. The two sides grab weapons and fight each other. This is called "rebellion" by the men on the king's side, by the rebellious ones, it's called "revolution". There is also the nation's own in-war, the civil war, in which no class struggle takes place, nobody wants to overthrow the establishment, but wants to establish rules of conduct in business which affect those who don't want that rule, and very adamantly don't want that rule. Then the two sides duke it out with weapons and armies. So if everyone is responsible for following a common goal, then civil war and revolutions would never happen. Yet they happen, ergo, it can't be expected of all members of any given society or country or nation to only fight on one united side of the country. Sorry wux,but love for mother land or at least not hating the mother land has nothing to do with COMMON GOAL. Fair enough. What is "love for the mother land" then, as you see it? What is the concept of "common goal"? I think they are really different, but I don't know at all then what you think is the love for the motherland. If love for the motherland is for the people of the nation, then Americal is not a nation. Which is actually true. In the traditional sense of the word, "nation" meant "from one common blood". European countries have it, and I believe it's very believed in Arabic/ Muslim countries. If love for the motherland is love for the nation, then revolutions and especially civil war should not happen. Because for love of a nation, the nation would strive to help its members each to have a good life. You want good to those you love, no? So if you love your nation, you want your nation to have each of its members to be happy, to have a good life on earth. This is ONE common good that love for a nation would indicate. There may be other elements of COMMON GOOD, which are not part of the love of the nation. Such, however, escape me. There may be temporary difficulties and inconveniences to some members, such as paying taxes or getting executed for murder. But executing murderers, although horrible for the murderer, still serves the common good, which is cutting down the number of potential murders. I know common good can exist outside, or for reasons different, from love of a nation; but a love of a nation most definitely dictates a common good to strive for. Civil wars and revolutions have happened in a large number of European nations. I do not know the history of Asian nations. Sorry, I don't. So I must ask you: have there been major rebellions in the regions where you were born and raised, at all, before 1700? I assume you come from South Asia or from the East Indies or the Pacific islands. Has India seen revolutions and rebellions and civil war before 1700 a.d.? If yes, then you see that COMMON GOOD is not applicable, therefore love of a nation is superceded by other considerations, so it is conceivable in the lands you grew up in too. However, if you realize that in the area where you grew up, there have been no records of large-scale war or revolution WITHIN the nation itself, then you will start to see that our cultures are different. In your culture or cultures of the area, love for your nation is has a unanimous buy-in by all members of the nation; but here in the West, it is a contentest ideal, and we see it more as a manipulative tool in the hands of the ruling class, than anything else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You too must be belonging to some nation,there too must be many systems that you don't like,many people those you really hate! so don't you love your nation at all? I love America. I hate the government. That's called patriotism. Love of government is something I tend to associate with Stockholm syndrome. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love of government is something I tend to associate with Stockholm syndrome. Its called Statism, and its a love of control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You too must be belonging to some nation,there too must be many systems that you don't like,many people those you really hate! so don't you love your nation at all? I love America. I hate the government. That's called patriotism. Love of government is something I tend to associate with Stockholm syndrome. Well said. |
|
|
|
|
