| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Chela 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 165
|
 Posted: November 24 2010 at 22:41 |
 John McIntyre wrote:
I voted no.
It's a pure accident of birth that we have the nationality we have.
My country won't die for me, so why should I die for my country?
The implication is that my country is at war with another. This means that my elected representatives (bloody politicians) have mucked it up, and expect me to compensate for their incompetance with my life. Not a chance.
I will never pick up a gun and kill someone, unless it's one of those (censored) politicians that got me into this mess in the first place. |
Yep.
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 23:34 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
But I don't believe you should kill anything you don't intend to eat.  
|
Don't made me remember, that was the rule at home when I got my first rifle.
I was forced to clean and eat two birds and a reptile I shoot....My sister always told my mother.
Iván.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 20:56 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I guess you are also ready to kill for your country, aren't you all who said "yes"? |
Depends on who I would have to kill. I wouldn't kill an innocent person for my country, but I would kill someone who was threatening me or my country, sure.
|
Exactly, I wouldn't kill an innocent people for anybody, but if somebody threatens the life of my family, enters with a gun in house or rises a weapon against my country, I would kill.
Iván |
But I don't believe you should kill anything you don't intend to eat.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 20:51 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I guess you are also ready to kill for your country, aren't you all who said "yes"? |
Depends on who I would have to kill. I wouldn't kill an innocent person for my country, but I would kill someone who was threatening me or my country, sure.
|
Exactly, I wouldn't kill an innocent people for anybody, but if somebody threatens the life of my family, enters with a gun in house or rises a weapon against my country, I would kill.
BTW: A country is not just a place where you were born, a country groups - A common culture
- Religion
- Family
- Way of life
- Affective ties
At least for me, my country is very important, despite the fuc**ng politicians.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 19 2010 at 23:35
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 20:38 |
The T wrote:
I guess you are also ready to kill for your country, aren't you all who said "yes"? |
Depends on who I would have to kill. I wouldn't kill an innocent person for my country, but I would kill someone who was threatening me or my country, sure.
|
|
|
|
John McIntyre
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 03 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Points: 91
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 18:21 |
I voted no.
It's a pure accident of birth that we have the nationality we have.
My country won't die for me, so why should I die for my country?
The implication is that my country is at war with another. This means that my elected representatives (bloody politicians) have mucked it up, and expect me to compensate for their incompetance with my life. Not a chance.
I will never pick up a gun and kill someone, unless it's one of those (censored) politicians that got me into this mess in the first place.
|
|
I am one of only about 1,800 people in the world with an original M400 Mellotron!
|
|
TheGazzardian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8667
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 17:58 |
I voted no, but this is a really loaded question and my brain could probably trail for hours coming up with circumstances where I would and would not do so. Suffice it to say though that I believe there's a bit more to a country than just the lines on the map - and while a lot of liberties most of us have are taken for granted if one of the countries that wasn't quite so giving was involved, then maybe.
But I voted no because I'm not really sure who's going to be coming after Canada these days. We were lucky to have been "created" long after the tribal wars that shaped Europe and so forth, so our geography doesn't quite have the same history. And our only neighbouring country is pretty friendly with us.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 17:18 |
|
I guess you are also ready to kill for your country, aren't you all who said "yes"?
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 17:02 |
|
I find it revealing that people 'cherry pick' those human constructs they point out as being imaginary and 'not real' e.g. countries, patriotism, sovereignty, allegiance etc while extolling the values of democracy, privacy, free speech, pluralism etc as if the latter were somehow inalienable rights that obeyed natural laws. All our values are man-made.
Most wars seem to be waged to allow us the right to condemn their stupidity.
Like many posters have stated already, yes (I like to think) I would die for my chosen values but would be fighting against those who don't even have a choice. (Those with nothing to lose are the fiercest adversaries)
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 16:15 |
There are lots of things that could come under "Die for your country?"
Would I volunteer in a disaster zone where riots might take my life? Maybe.
Would I go to the site of an infectious disease outbreak where obviously I could fall victim? Maybe. Both depend on how much I thought I was needed / could actually help?
Would I serve as a military doctor in a war zone? In very specific circumstances
Would I pick up a rifle and fight? No, that's not my role.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 15:40 |
|
Nope. And I'd rather not die for anyone elses country either.
|
|
What?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 15:36 |
Governments are all dysfunctional. Why not do it on a bigger scale?
Edited by Slartibartfast - November 19 2010 at 15:38
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
LateralMe
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 25 2010
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Status: Offline
Points: 115
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 15:17 |
|
Nope
|
|
A Flower!?
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 06:51 |
npjnpj wrote:
Ah, but in a global government there would be no reason for anybody to disagree.Under that government nobody would be poor or unhappy. Well, at least nobody important.
|
I'm assuming you're being ironic. At least I hope so, because the world you're describing is a fantasy. In fact it's a dystopian nightmare vision of hell.
Edited by Blacksword - November 19 2010 at 06:53
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 06:43 |
|
Ah, but in a global government there would be no reason for anybody to disagree.
Under that government nobody would be poor or unhappy. Well, at least nobody important.
Edited by npjnpj - November 19 2010 at 06:43
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 06:36 |
|
I'm quite suprised the amount of support the concept of global government gets. Not specifically here, but generally among people I know.
It's something that needs to be looked at from a pragmatic and intellectual perspective, not an idealistic socialist one. The current arrangement of nation states may seem flawed to some people, but currently, if someones life is threatened, or they are pursecuted in their nation of orign they have the option - if they can - of fleeing that nation and seeking assylum in another, more sympathetic to their plight. In a system of global government this individual would be an enemy of the world, and not able to seek assylum anywhere. Their only crime may be opposing the structure of global governance.
I'm amazed people have such faith in the goodwill and honesty of politicans they normally would trust as far as they could throw, to implement global government, and then trust them NOT to abuse this enormous level of unnacoutable power they will have vested in themselves. The idea is insane, idealistic and unworkable and must be agressively opposed at every turn.
Edited by Blacksword - November 19 2010 at 06:53
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Philamelian
Forum Groupie
Joined: May 01 2009
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 67
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 04:54 |
|
When you look at relations between modern governments in a broad sense it's not far different than the human clans in early ages. So it seems all the intellectual development has no benefit on this issue if you exclude the complexity of paperwork and organisations etc. State of belonging (to a human group, a cultural entity) , territory , food is still basic facts which is governing the relations of states and nations.
I find the word "nation" a bit exaggerated. It's filled with concepts which is changing from time to time.
I agree with the global government idea but it's like a dream far far away. And I think this should be something that human race should reach naturally but I am not sure if you leave human race in a test lab like world and wait for millions years it would come true.
I wouldn't want to loose my only real belonging, my life, for a territory on earth. I hope others (states, people, animals, aliens :) ) don't couse any threat on me as well.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 04:32 |
npjnpj wrote:
If you fight for your country, you're a mug. An you'll come home in one. |
With the greatest of respect, there are those (some on this forum) who may have fought for their country, or may have lost a friend or relative, in past or current conflicts who may consider this statement deeply offensive.
When it comes to principles, you cannot generalise in this way.
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 03:17 |
npjnpj wrote:
Seeing as I regard things like countries to be artificial constructs that only exist in people's minds and on paper, a political country isn't a thing worth fighting for. In reality it's NOT THERE! You are a subject of lifelong CONDITIONING.You'd just be told to defend one repression against the other. Grotesquely enough quite often somewhere very, very far away from home.In the end it's all about economic interests and power, and strangely enough, always someone elses.If you fight for your country, you're a mug. An you'll come home in one. |
I agree with some of what you are saying. But I think if you're country was being invaded by a power who wanted to impose a life of bread queues, soup kitchens curfews and regular beatings from the authorities, no internet, no independent news media, no free speech whatsoever, you might be inclined to at least object, don't you think?
The only way - in theory - to stop all wars would be to impose a global government, a global currency, and a global army, so there are no longer any opposing sides. Anyone who thinks that will work is insane. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe that. There would, if anything be an increase in conflict, as the global police force faught terrorists opposed to global governance; be they real terrorists or merely an invention of the global 'state' to keep their people in fear, under surveilance and in a state of curfew.
Edited by Blacksword - November 19 2010 at 03:18
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 02:34 |
|
Seeing as I regard things like countries to be artificial constructs that only exist in people's minds and on paper, a political country isn't a thing worth fighting for. In reality it's NOT THERE! You are a subject of lifelong CONDITIONING.
You'd just be told to defend one repression against the other. Grotesquely enough quite often somewhere very, very far away from home.
In the end it's all about economic interests and power, and strangely enough, always someone elses.
If you fight for your country, you're a mug. An you'll come home in one.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Would You Die For Your Country?
