Patriotism

BoulderHead

If patriotism is so very different from nationalism, as you have claimed, then why do I find in those links you provided, the following;

patriotism
n : love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: nationalism]

nationalism
n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]



synonymous

\Syn*on"y*mous\, a. [Gr. ?; sy`n with, together + ?, ?, name. See Syn-, and Name.] Having the character of a synonym; expressing the same thing; conveying the same, or approximately the same, idea. -- Syn*on\"y*mous*ly, adv.

These words consist of two propositions, which are not distinct in sense, but one and the same thing variously expressed; for wisdom and understanding are synonymous words here. --Tillotson.



*Oh, I hope this won't cause the patriots to take up arms, *

BoulderHead

Yes, I wish to acknowledge the mistake, my apologies. I must have thought you were capable of reading my mind, haha, but perhaps you were not. I would like soon to defend The Vonnegut definition, however, as I think it fits nicely enough with the ‘specific’ definition.

This is nonsense which I suspect can only make sense when argued from within an existing belief, and therefore circular.


Some other parts of your last post should be addressed in a forthcoming ‘Point 3’

BoulderHead

Really?


Considering Vonnegut’s age (born in 1922, served in WWII), he would not have had access to Dictionary.com definitions. It would, therefore, be prudent to examine some definitions which existed during his youth, since the meanings of words do in fact change over the course of time, even while many people do not.

================================
From my 1945 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary;

Country
1. A region or tract of land; a district.
2. The territory of a nation.
3. The land of a person’s birth or adoption, to which he owes his allegiance; fatherland.
4. The people of a state or district; the nation.
5. Rural regions, as opposed to a city or town.
6. Law. A jury; - so called because originally the jury was a body of men chosen from the country or neighborhood, a jury trial being called trial by the country, and the litigants being said to put themselves upon the, or their, country.


Nation
1. A people connected by supposed ties of blood generally manifested by community of language, religion, customs, etc.
2. Any aggregation of people having like institutions and customs and a sense of social homogeneity and mutual interest.
3. The body of inhabitants of a country united under a single independent government; a state.
4. A multitude; host.
5. One of a group of Indian tribes; as, the Six Nations.


State
7. The bodies that constitute the legislature of a country; estates.
8. A Political body, or body politic; any body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government, esp. one that is not subject to external control.
9. any of a number of commonwealths, or bodies politic, constituting a sovereign state (in sense 8) by their union, as in the United States.
10. Territory or government of a state (sense 8 or 9).
11. The entity collectively constituted the body politic, territory, and government of a state; as, the Department of State.

===========================

As I believe Njorl pointed out, there is a difference between a nation and state. There is also, I would add, a difference between both of those and the word ‘country’. Examining the definitions above it does not take an engineer to recognize what is most commonly meant by each of those words. Allow me now to narrow each down and if, after careful consideration, it is felt I have done a poor job, then please submit a more appropriate correction for consideration;

State; a body politic
Nation; a people
Country; a land

Looking hard at the definitions for country, five of the six directly speak to what we have at issue here, and of those five, no less than 80% of them deal with geography, or dirt, if you prefer. Want to love a land, or a people? I’m sure any nationalist would too, lol, but in any event, I'm forced to conclude that, indeed, a few things "even suggested allows for that interpretation", and even in Dictionary.com there a few things suggesting it.

*I’m feeling particularly patriotic/nationalistic tonight and want to sing*

This dirt is your dirt, this dirt is my dirt ~
This dirt was made for you and me…

I don’t care much for sacred cows, and ‘sing’ in their general direction (my sacred cat was another matter, but unfortunately he too had to be 'put down').

russ_watters

Please check that again. honestrosewater asked Adam to define patriotism and he did. I pointed out that the quotes he posted bear no resemblance to the definition he posted. I then I posted the definition of Nationalism and highlighted the difference because that is the obvious direction of such discussions. Again, the definition was already posted in post #6.
Huh? I highlighted the difference. If people wanted to say if they agree/disagree, that's fine. Ok...? [quote] You also state that a dictionary is not an unreasonable place to find a definition. The trouble, of course, is that the dictionary is totally silent when it comes to any mention of ideals, which means, in a nut shell, the specific definition is not what you claim it is! [quote] Well, you posted the definitions of "country" and "nation." Are you saying you see nothing in either of those definitions that would imply ideals? In any case you have already said you agree that patriotism is based on ideals. Huh? I'm following the dictionary definition. Part of the problem here may be the fact that the US is different from other countries in some ways. In a monarchy, for example, the king, quite literally is the country. Oaths of allegience are to the King (that doesn't leave a lot of room for principles, does it?). In the US (and in most democracies), the Constitution is king. And what is the Constitution if not a collection of priciples (ideals) arranged into a functioning government document. Most people think they are right in their opinions otherwise they wouldn't have those opinions. You like to argue tautologies, don't you?

That does not mean I won't defend my opinion if asked, nor does it mean I won't consider anyone else's opinion. [quote] Why would quibbling over ‘exact definition’ be a difficulty if patriotism has a ‘specific definition ???
Lately, it has gone from having a specific (exact?) definition to being “a difficult word to define…” Well, at least we’re making progress, right? It is. Its just more concise. Well gee, if you cut out the differences, then they look pretty similar! Yet annother tautology. Tiring. You're saying patriotism is not an ideal? Are you saying the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not based on ideals? Considering his age and his politics, it is unsurprising that Vonnegut misses the distinction: nationalism was the driving force behind global politics in the first half of the century and the distinction certainly got blurred. The change from that is why there hasn't been a 3rd world war.

That definition of "country" also reflects a nationalistic view - and again, considering when it was written, its unsurprising. Particularly, definition 3. "Fatherland" is a word the Nazis used to describe Germany. I have never once heard an American use that term to describe the chunk of land the US sits on or pledge allegience to the chunk of land. That part, specifically, does not apply to the US.

Today's definition contains a key difference in 1a: "A nation or state." Simple and to the point. But then, what is a nation or state...

In your 1945 definition of nation, it also sounds vaguely nationalistic. Definition 1 is close, but without the "blood" part (since the US is multicultural/ethnic). Definition 2, however, is straight to the point. That is were the Constitution and its ideals fit in. Like a lot of words, they mean different things in different context. Where applicable to patriotism, they are virtually identical. So where do the ideals of the Constituion and Declaration fit in there? IMO, you've pared down the definitions in such a way as to specifically exclude what makes the US the US and patriotism patriotism.

In any case, as I've pointed out before, you yourself agreed that patriotism is about ideals.

Maybe the next step is to ask a few political scientists what they think about the definitions of patriotism and nationalism (too bad I don't still have the papers I wrote on the subject...).

russ_watters

A little more on this (I'll set aside for now the fact you are contradicting an earlier statement you made...) Patriotism: love of country
Country: a nation
Nation: the government
Government: the Constitution
Constitution: the collection of ideals on which the US was founded

Therefore
Patriotism: love of the collection of ideals on which the US was founded.

If you prefer though:
Patriotism: love of country
country: a genre of music

Therefore,
patriotism: love of country music

I doubt you'll get a political science prof to buy that one though...

russ_watters

I think THIS may be of interest. I was actually looking for a political scientists' viewpoint, but I think the writer of a dictionary may have a relevant insight: So essentially, nationalism, according to this dictionary (personified) is patriotism perverted to extremism.

Also, the bolded part was a key in my poly-sci class: nationalism is exclusionary, patriotism is not.

One implication of nationalism, mentioned but not explored, is the security part. Security means (mostly) borders and boundaries. That's where nationalism gets its ties to the land a country is sitting on.

And there are some quotes there from famous people who do share this view of patriotism.

If you're specifically looking for the word "ideals," you can find it HERE (disclaimer: I have no idea who this person is, but I mostly share his opinion). This guy is specifically talking about the original American patriots and while he is right that there was no country (government) to fight for at the time, now that there is a country (government) to fight for, fighting for that government as the embodiment of those ideals is still patriotism. That's also why when government fails in its responsibility to uphold those ideals, fighting against the government is still patriotism.

BoulderHead

I cannot believe how poor my comprehension skills are becoming of late! Sorry about that, I’d like to blame medications rather than mind, but suspect the latter, lol.

I’m saying I see more than a path leading only to ideals, something you have denied exists. You speak of a specific definition which must lead only to ideals. The truth is closer to the definition being general, not specific, and from this general definition you rework to arrive at ideals. This is exactly what you are doing below when you make the following path;

And I want to point out a few considerations;
First; I think Nation equates more to a people than to a government, but ok.
Second; The entire path outlined above is not, and never will amount to, a demonstration that patriotism must only be defined in accordance with your beliefs for at least the following reasons;

1) The entire path outlined demonstrates a specific definition arrived at by selective interpretation from broader general definitions.
2) Each successive ‘jump’ is not necessitated by anything beyond a desire to arrive at what one wishes to arrive at.
3) Just as nothing demands one jump must lead to the next, neither is there a braking mechanism implied to stop the process at ideals.

In short, there were/are other meanings that could have been ascribed to any of those words and the chain could have been stopped at any point along the way such to have arrived at a different conclusion. That is just a plain and simple fact, nothing less and nothing more. Definitions are no doubt being redefined with every generation and even within any given there is disagreement. All of these are reasons why your claim that patriotism can only be properly defined as you would have it, is as absurd as it is patently false.

This is neither what I said, or meant to say, and in any event cannot be used as a defense for your view. What I said was;
“I tie patriotism to ideals. Unlike you, I do not boldly proclaim to hold the ‘true’ definition, but merely state to hold my own definition (knowing it isn't to be found in any dictionary )”
Clearly, I’m talking about my own personal definition here, not claiming such definition is some unalterable fact demanded by definition as you insist on continuing to do.

The one that says nationalism and patriotism are synonymous?

I would not define country to literally be any person, so no meaningful agreement can I find with such a statement. Even so, if the King is the country then ‘love of country’, would simply mean love of King, and no doubt a good number of patriots would love him, lol. All that is really seen above is a predisposition to assume ideals into patriotism.

Now, I will agree it is entirely possible to derive your interpretation of what patriotism means, but this cannot ever diminish the fact, for example, that ‘country’ equates to geography. There is simply no way you will ever get around this by showing your ‘technique’ to derive a specific meaning, so at some point you really should concede that it is in fact possible to understand patriotism in the cynical manner of Mr. Vonnegut.

I’m not asking you to defend your opinion. When you are finally able to concede that opinion is all your view amounts to then I’ll consider the discourse successfully concluded.


Yes, which is why I must ask; what part of synonymous don’t you understand?

Exactly! Concise as in; Expressing much in a few words. In fact this is quite true, although you prefer to ignore much of what can be expressed in effort to bolster an assumed conclusion.

This is cute, but I’m not the one who offered a source for those definitions, you were, LOL! Instead of attempting to write it off as ‘yet another tautology’ on my part, try considering it for what it actually is; an indicator of how ridiculously thin your position truly is. Also; if you think it tiring I’d like to discuss a very exciting new idea you’ve given me; take any two words, cut out the differences, and bingo, they look pretty similar (by god, we have a tautology, haha).

*when will this finally be understood?*
I’m saying you cannot prove it must only be an ideal, and therefore using that argument to prove Vonnegut is wrong can only fail (which is a separate matter from demonstrating that definitions can in fact equate to Vonnegut’s understanding, btw).

It doesn’t matter if is was or wasn’t *yawn*.


Are you now asking for my help in fitting presupposed ideals into your tautology again?

First; I’m working from the definitions, and I asked it be shown where in those definitions I went wrong, you haven’t shown me. Instead, you bemoan a sacred cow.
Second; There is plenty of room there for being in love with real-estate, so what are you complaining about? lol
Third; [edited out my misunderstanding]
Forth; In an effort to accomodate the US and Patriotism, here’s another dandy from Vonnegut;

(From Mother Night)
"Drawn crudely in the dust of three window-panes were a swastika, a hammer and sickle, and the Stars and Stripes. I had drawn the three symbols weeks before, at the conclusion of an argument about patriotism with Kraft. I had given a hearty cheer for each symbol, demonstrating to Kraft the meaning of patriotism to, respectively, a Nazi, a Communist, and an American. 'Hooray, hooray, hooray,' I'd said."


What if they too suggest going to the dictionary? lol

Don’t set anything aside please, I clearly make mistakes (I’m actually human and fallible) and want to know all my short fallings

russ_watters

Sure, I'll concede to that if you concede that my opinion is the prevailing one among political scientists and therefore the correct interpretation.

One thing I will concede now - though I consider the path to the definition straightforward, that may come from the fact I have studied this in great detail. To someone who has never studied this, I can see why it wouldn't be so clear. But not knowing does not give one license to make up their own definitions to suit their own personal politics.

Pretty much everything else has already been covered - including that BS about synonyms. (again) Its in bold on the first page of the thread. Check the link I posted for a dictionary writer's explanation of the definition. I was actually thinking of doing just that to demonstrate how rediculous your editing technique was. But I let it go. Do we need to define "democracy" now too? The fact that you tend to acknowledge them does give me respect for you. Not many people will even acknowledge a simple misread.

BoulderHead

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
- Giordano Bruno

The truth, in this case, is the definition of patriotism is an open ended quagmire that quite easily fits hand in glove with nationalism.

Here is how I’m inclined to see the matter at present; to the extend patriotism is defined in terms of ideals it is idealistic, and to the extent such is applied to a nation-state it is nationalistic, fostering that same old tradition of us verses them mentality (People seem forever intent on being part of something bigger than themselves, something I consider pathetic). I do believe eventually dictionaries are going to be seen reflecting ideals into their definitions for patriotism, but that day seems yet to arrive, so I cannot agree to your interpretation being correct, only prevalent.

This is not so much of a concession as a pronouncement of ignorance upon those not holding your view. Not only is this a pronouncement of ignorance, but demonstrates an unwillingness to concede another view, too. I simply will not allow this to stand for the fact you been challenged to demonstrate your view is the only possible interpretation and you have completely failed to do so. If your dictionary source had put forth the definition I will show below, I would immediately have conceded the point (actually, I never would have contested it). You are still claiming to know when in fact your own source was ambiguous at best. I think what makes the most sense is there is an ongoing process using ‘license’ to redefine patriotism away from nationalism and toward ideals. There is nothing straightforward about a definition open for defining ‘country’ as government, people, territory, etc. How about taking this revision for a test drive;

Patriotism: love of the collection of ideals on which [insert country of choice] was founded.

Now that’s what I would consider as being straightforward, and if that’s what had been meant then that’s what belongs in the dictionary!

Then take the matter up with dictionary.com because;
1) It was quite clearly in your source.
2) To simply ignore it is to again engage in a process of selective ‘cherry picking’.

If you were referring to; “the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation." Then I would simply point out there is nothing inherent here to preclude a patriot from feeling this way (for the obvious reason they are in love with the ideals behind the founding of their country). Ever hear anyone state; we’re better than they are? (I certainly have, right over there in the political forum as a matter of fact).


No need; just check and you will see the definitions for Nation, State, and Country, at one point each refer to the other, but the bulk of the definitions for Nation seem to imply a body of people (otherwise you should have corrected my renderings from the 1945 definitions earlier). Because of this it is possible to ‘snag’ whatever one wants to support a position, and this is exactly why there is nothing straightforward about the definition of patriotism.

BoulderHead

On the topic of Fatherland as it relates to Patriot, with text boldened by yours truly;

patriot - 1596, "compatriot," from M.Fr. patriote (15c.), from L.L. patriota "fellow-countryman" (6c.), from Gk. patriotes "fellow countryman," from patrios "of one's fathers," patris "fatherland," from pater (gen. patros) "father," with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition. Meaning "loyal and disinterested supporter of one's country" is attested from 1605, but became an ironic term of ridicule or abuse from mid-18c. in England, so that Johnson, who at first defined it as "one whose ruling passion is the love of his country," in his fourth edition added, "It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government."

"The name of patriot had become [c.1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that ... the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot." [Macaulay, "Horace Walpole," 1833]

Somewhat revived in ref. to resistance movements in overrun countries in WWII, it has usually had a positive sense in Amer.Eng., where the phony and rascally variety has been consigned to the word patrioteer (1928). Oriana Fallaci ["The Rage and the Pride," 2002] marvels that Americans, so fond of patriotic, (1757) patriot, and patriotism (1726), lack the root noun and are content to express the idea of patria by cumbersome compounds such as homeland. (Joyce, Shaw, and H.G. Wells all used patria as an Eng. word early 20c., but it failed to stick.)
Taken from; http://www.etymonline.com/p3etym.htm


Here is what a United States Congressman has said;

Patriotism is a love of and loyalty to one's country. A patriot is someone who loves, supports, and is prepared to serve their country. The word patriotism comes from a Greek word meaning fatherland. For most of history, love of fatherland or homeland was an attachment to the physical features of the land. But that notion changed in the eighteenth century, when the ideals of democracy, socialism, and communism strongly emerged into political thought. Patriotism was still a love of one's country that included connections to the land and people, but then also included its customs and traditions, pride in its history, and devotion to its welfare.
Taken from; http://rodriguez.house.gov/news/record.asp?id=903

Can't you just smell the soil?

Scope of topic not limited to US.

russ_watters

Great quote, but it has nothing to do with what a definition is. A definition is an arbitrary human construct, and as such, is arrived at by general agreement of the majority. Your (interesting) info on the entemology shows that.

In science, you must agree on the exact definition of a term, otherwise, it doesn't work. For some reason, people like to think that in political science, that principle doesn't apply. Well, it does.

If you walk into a physics class and tell your prof you are going to define mass as "q" and use it in all of your equations (e=qc²), he'll laugh first because he thinks you are kidding - but if you actually do it, he'll fail you.

Similarly, if you tell your poly sci prof that you choose to define patriotism as an exact synonym of nationalism, she'll laugh first, then fail you if you do it (especially if an essay question specifically asks what the difference is).

BoulderHead

Give it up, Russ. Not one iota of this supports your defense. As can now easily be seen by anyone reading these posts, your interpretation is a relatively modern invention in the history of the word patriotism and even at that it is restricted to a narrow context (the same one you seem limited to judging such things with). I have challenged you to demonstrate why there is nothing in the definition to suggest Vonnegut’s understanding and you absolutely cannot do it because the history of the word itself demonstrates there is. You have attempted at least in part to support your position by insisting patriotism can only be interpreted one way (your way), but again, you cannot do it without denying history (past and present). It appears you want to posit academia supports only your view, but you have not shown this to be factual. In the first place, it seems doubtful you would ever have had actual dealings beyond one or two such people (and therefore do not speak from a position of authority), secondly, your statement can only lead one to believe you are much too timid to attempt questioning authority (and therefore merely do what you think is expected of you, rather than actually explore the issue).
Your erroneous analogy to tautologies such as 2 + 2 = 4 misses the mark; not all things are static and unchanging, some things are even vague. Vonnegut’s view is supported both by history and linguistics, while your view of only one possible way to define patriotism equating to ideals is nothing short of ludicrous. If you wanted to argue a relativist position where context was to be considered then you missed your opportunity. Language is used in conjunction with other members of society, true, but the totality of meaning for a word such as patriotism is not limited by some narrow group, believed to exist, that one personally identifies with to the exclusion of all else, so if you want to argue context (I’m from the US and this is how we do it here, so everyone else must be wrong, etc.) you will undermine your bold claims your own self.

Any researching at all will quickly demonstrate the falsity of your position; why, even the words of the National Museum of Patriotism demonstrate a general lack of consensus;
Taken from; http://www.museumofpatriotism.org/index.html

Perhaps after straightening out the good folks at dictionary.com you might like to call the museum and explain the 'facts' to them as well;

Phone Numbers:
(404) 875-0691
or
Toll Free Phone:
(877) 276-1692

Also from that site;
It sure would have been nice if they’d have mentioned something about ideals, but at least they do not proclaim to hold a universal truth. Anyway, since you want to claim a general agreement supports your assertions (don't forget which ones I've been attacking) then I must now challenge you to present the proof. I predict you will meet with failure.

russ_watters

Huh? Did you not read the link I posted to a dictionary writer's explanation of the definition? Heck, did you even read the link you posted? From the site you linked (their definition, btw, fits mine): While it says the definition can be hard to pin down, they do frame it in such a way as to guide you to their definition (which, btw, seems to exclude the idea that it is tied to land), don't they? Of course, they get a tad more specific here: Again, though this quote doesn't specifically exclude the idea that its tied to land, it would seem to not be important enough to say it is included. It is quite specific though, that it is tied to ideals. And quite frankly, it almost seems like the quote you posted is them saying it means different things to different people because people don't understand it.

Also, of course definitions evolve and I never said they haven't - you seemed to be arguing that they don't (or, perhaps, that the modern understanding is somehow 'wrong')!

Regarding acadamia's opinion: how many do you need me to post before you conclude that there is a consensus opinion? Or perhaps better yet, could you find for me a political scientist who argues that nationalism and patriotism are exact synonyms?

Boulderhead, your argument here appears to be that you can look at the different definitions of the constituent words and pick the mixture you like best. Is that what you are claiming?

russ_watters

Something I alluded to before but didn’t fully develop: Clearly, people who think patriotism is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions. I’d like to know why? I can’t ask Vonnegut, but I can ask you: why is it that you choose to use this definition? When someone tells you “I am a patriot,” what do you assume that person means? Do you assume s/he is using your definition? Does it tell you anything that the definition you choose conflicts with the definition an avowed patriot probably uses?

Thinking about it more, perhaps like love itself, patriotism is something only a patriot understands?

BoulderHead

Yes, it does mention ideals, this it true (and methinks ‘good’ – would have been better in their official definition). Notice they first say “Obviously the word “patriotism” means different things to different people.” And when they do provide a definition they are properly cautious and say it is ”Our definition”. These are both indicators that other definitions can and do exist, whereas you have claimed only yours can rightfully be derived. Next, they invoke a rendition of the Scotsman Fallacy by stating;

“It requires building on each visitor’s understanding of patriotism and helping that visitor recognize that true patriotism is based upon devotion to the American ideals of equality before the law, economic freedom, and civic virtue.”

Now, it is of course beside the point to our haggling, but I’m going to go on record here to say I reject their opinion of what true patriotism is based on. They imply patriots of other times, of other countries, operating under other definitions, cannot be ‘true’ unless they are based on the ‘American ideals’ outlined above (note what I will quote from Jill Ker Conway concerning civic virtue, below). I think this is inflammatory and while I may not be an American by birth, I observe even within their own Americentrism they mention neither the US Constitution nor Bill of Rights. Why couldn’t a dictatorship offer up what they are suggesting?

But, back to the point; their efforts to pursued people to such a view, even noting they mention ideals directly by name, does not support your blanket statement that patriotism must necessarily be defined as implying them.

Careful now, I do not want to stray off point. There is a difference between stating that patriotism cannot possibly be interpreted in any way but your own, and trying to argue that within a certain context patriotism cannot possibly be interpreted in any way but your own. Your original claim was the former type, not the latter; as you put it neither in context or qualified it as an opinion.

To your second question; I wish to stay on my complaints. It is true that I can see perfectly well the difference between the two need not be more than negligible, and I have already shown how such could be the case. You did not comment on it at the time, but to answer your question I believe it possible to find such, yes, but you seem so recalcitrant to concede my other points that I prefer to keep drilling you with them.
To your first question; haha, it would take more for than against, obviously. Of course you are the one making the claim and so unless you are willing to retract it I would like to see you support it, yes? Try to account for Non-Americans if you can, please. I know it is difficult for many nationalists to see beyond their own territory, but judging the world so one dimensionally can come across as bigoted. I hope you will trust me when I promise to let you know if I become convinced, and maybe I’ll try to counter you two or three for one, if I’m able, lol. Why, I’ll get started with some intellectuals right now;

American Values: Understanding Patriotism in Our Time
Taken from; http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_patriotism.html
I’ll cut it there. That entire web page is worth reading, imo. Well, patriotism is said to be a mysterious word. Between Bok and Menand agrees there is talk of skepticism about patriotism and its usage in the United States among intellectuals and in the universities...
Interestingly, the question of patriotism being about loyalty to a set of ideals was not answered by Wilkins with a “yes, ideals are what patriotism is all about…”. Instead, he states more to the effect that patriotism can exist in such a climate. I would suspect this is because patriotism does not have to be spelled i-d-e-a-l-s.
Indeed that you can, yes, but more germane is the fact such has occurred, even tying patriotism directly to the soil (as that Congressman I quote related, among other things). What do you think is wrong with these statements of yours that I have been attacking;
Nowhere in ANY definition?
Nothing even to suggest?
Does historical fact play any part in your reasoning?
You deny with these bold-*** statements not only any actuality but even the very possibility of what in fact is known to be otherwise. These statements cannot even be excused by proclaiming that different interpretations exist in this day and age and therefore you are right, because such wouldn’t make one whit of difference even if true. It takes only a single example to falsify those statements and I have shown more than enough to do same.

BoulderHead

Consider this; Clearly, people who think Christianity is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions.

It doesn’t matter how it is defined, people can and will think what they want, even about those ideals you cherish. That you have trouble with this suggests to me a depth of emotional attachment you have to this word, and little more. Yes, I define it with ideals, but it still has a disgusting nationalist element about it. I prefer to be cosmopolitan.


I don’t ‘use’ this definition, I merely challenge you to show why Vonnegut cannot hold a valid definition, and why it must be true the only possible way to logically derive an understanding must equate it to ideals when in fact this has historically not always been the case.

You mean a total stranger? The statement would mean nothing conclusive except to suggest this individual has an emotional attachment to something they likely feel is greater than self and noble. As such, it is likely safe to assume they are emotional 'clubbers’.

At no time would I assume that.

It tells me meanings abound.

In the sense that patriotism involves the love word, it is emotional and personal, yes.

BoulderHead

Taken from; http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed040303a.cfm

Taken from; http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...le_10790.shtml


Taken from; http://www.veteransforpeace.org/A_ki...ism_041303.htm