Please check that again. honestrosewater asked Adam to define patriotism and he did.
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.
Well, you posted the definitions of "country" and "nation." Are you saying you see nothing in either of those definitions that would imply ideals?
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;
Patriotism: love of country
Country: a nation
Nation: the government
Government: the Constitution
Constitution: the collection of ideals on which the US was founded
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.
In any case you have already said you agree that patriotism is based on ideals.
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.
Huh? I'm following the dictionary definition.
The one that says nationalism and patriotism are synonymous?
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.
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.
That does not mean I won't defend my opinion if asked, nor does it mean I won't consider anyone else's opinion.
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.
The dictionary definition is pretty simple.
Yes, which is why I must ask; what part of synonymous don’t you understand?
It is. Its just more concise.
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.
Well gee, if you cut out the differences, then they look pretty similar! Yet annother tautology. Tiring.
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).
You're saying patriotism is not an ideal?
*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).
Are you saying the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not based on ideals?
It doesn’t matter if is was or wasn’t *yawn*.
So where do the ideals of the Constituion and Declaration fit in there?
Are you now asking for my help in fitting presupposed ideals into your tautology again?
IMO, you've pared down the definitions in such a way as to specifically exclude what makes the US the US and patriotism patriotism.
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 accommodate 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."
Maybe the next step is to ask a few political scientists what they think about the definitions of patriotism and nationalism.
What if they too suggest going to the dictionary? lol
A little more on this (I'll set aside for now the fact you are contradicting an earlier statement you made...)
Don’t set anything aside please, I clearly make mistakes (I’m actually human and fallible) and want to know all my short fallings
). 
*
