|
On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend.
Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong.
|
On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong.
you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.
I realize you probably don't like him very much, and you believe you should be loyal, and his opinion challenges that belief. I just don't happen to share your worldview, and the reasons above are why.
|
You're as much an extremist as him.....
Lmao and you are trying to deny his citizenship? That's his deal and has NOTHING to do with you.
|
On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.
In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways.
On January 19 2012 09:20 iSometric wrote:
You're as much an extremist as him.....
Lmao and you are trying to deny his citizenship? That's his deal and has NOTHING to do with you.
I already agreed earlier that it is too extreme to go out and actually mention it to the citizenship agency or w/e. Still though, if I were ever interviewed about this person if say, they were trying to get a security clearance, then I would mention it. But unless they end up doing something important to national security like that, then no I won't mention it.
I suppose I just have a moral objection to this person's ideology.
|
On January 19 2012 09:21 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways.
Re-read my post above about nationalism, manipulation, elites, Lu Xun, etc etc.
I mean, if you want to go die on that hill, go right ahead. As I'm saying, beliefs like the one you just voiced lead to a paranoid, unstable, unequal 1984-esque world where ones loyalty to The Leader, or The Government or whatever overrides ones conviction in basic concepts of decency and morality.
|
In my eyes, you're exactly the same as he is, differring only in situation, and who you pledge allegiance to.
As is evidenced by your situation, people with radical beliefs like you and your friend create interactions that are paranoid and lead to an unstable society. Here you are asking us how to sabotage his attempts to be a citizen in case of war.
Hell, I dont want to live in the kind of society you two would create if everyone thought like that.
|
This is not a matter of citizenship. The USA is a country, not a cult.
Would a war happen, a person with a foot in each country would probably be torn apart and prefer not to take action. And this is normal. Would you murder your uncle if he and your cousin got into a fight? Just because your cousin is closer to you and lives in the same town...? If you're a normal human being, capable of empathy, you'd probably try to stop the fight first.
According to your story, he didn't say he would do anything against the US; he simply felt offended by the idea of actively trying to harm his home country, where a lot of his family probably lives. And you know what? If he's not a soldier, than it's fine. This is what professional armies are made for, not civilians.
Could you look anyone in the eye and say that every American should've participated in the war effort against Iraq, for example? Even though thousands of men were lost for a lie, nuclear bombs invented by the government itself? Don't you think it's ok for a regular civilian person not to seek ways to kill other people when he has mixed feelings about the conflict?
Now not only this, but let me tell you: I was born in Chile, and emigrate to France, where I live. I spent half of my life as a foreigner, with different rights. Even though I was the most knowledgeable kid in my class and that I knew more about France than most of the people. Even though I actually spoke and wrote French much OH SO MUCH better than 96% of the fucking French population. Even though I was I, for one, truely and sincerely grateful to France for the opportunity that was given to me.
But even then, I had to wait in airports for everyone to go through check-in while I had to wait for the police to get there and verify my identity, even though I was fucking 8 years old. When I went to the US, I was treated like a terrorist by customs. I almost couldn't make it back to France twice after visiting family in Chile.
I don't care if you're a biggot or a patriot, but there is no valuable reason to go and prevent that person from getting a US citizenship. If you did this, you would simply be an asshole.
And don't worry, if a war is started between China and the US, they'll take any person of Chinese descent and throw them into a concentration camp, just like they did with the Japanese population in 1941. Men, women and children alike.
|
On January 19 2012 09:23 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:21 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways. Re-read my post above about nationalism, manipulation, elites, Lu Xun, etc etc. I mean, if you want to go die on that hill, go right ahead. As I'm saying, beliefs like the one you just voiced lead to a paranoid, unstable, unequal 1984-esque world where ones loyalty to The Leader, or The Government or whatever overrides ones conviction in basic concepts of decency and morality.
And where's the morality in two-facing one's way into being a citizen of a country that you would betray not out of injustices that the country is committing but rather because you never intended to actually be a part of said country?
I'm not saying that the citizens are supposed to guard The Leader or The Government, because in the end they're not the nation. The entire idea of the US was to be a nation not ruled by elites. Sure, that may be happening more and more nowadays (but who can really say how much?), but the point stands that it's not their interests that are supposed to be protected by the citizens. That's the entire point where you can, you know, not vote for the dicks who abuse the system.
|
On January 19 2012 09:26 Kukaracha wrote:
This is not a matter of citizenship. The USA is a country, not a cult.
Would a war happen, a person with a foot in each country would probably be torn apart and prefer not to take action. And this is normal. Would you murder your uncle if he and your cousin got into a fight? Just because your cousin is closer to you and lives in the same town...? If you're a normal human being, capable of empathy, you'd probably try to stop the fight first.
According to your story, he didn't say he would do anything against the US; he simply felt offended by the idea of actively trying to harm his home country, where a lot of his family probably lives. And you know what? If he's not a soldier, than it's fine. This is what professional armies are made for, not civilians.
Could you look anyone in the eye and say that every American should've participated in the war effort against Iraq, for example? Even though thousands of men were lost for a lie, nuclear bombs invented by the government itself? Don't you think it's ok for a regular civilian person not to seek ways to kill other people when he has mixed feelings about the conflict?
Now not only this, but let me tell you: I was born in Chile, and emigrate to France, where I live. I spent half of my life as a foreigner, with different rights. Even though I was the most knowledgeable kid in my class and that I knew more about France than most of the people. Even though I actually spoke and wrote French much OH SO MUCH better than 96% of the fucking French population. Even though I was I, for one, truely and sincerely grateful to France for the opportunity that was given to me.
But even then, I had to wait in airports for everyone to go through check-in while I had to wait for the police to get there and verify my identity, even though I was fucking 8 years old. When I went to the US, I was treated like a terrorist by customs. I almost couldn't make it back to France twice after visiting family in Chile.
I don't care if you're a biggot or a patriot, but there is no valuable reason to go and prevent that person from getting a US citizenship. If you did this, you would simply be an asshole.
And don't worry, if a war is started between China and the US, they'll take any person of Chinese descent and throw them into a concentration camp, just like they did with the Japanese population in 1941. Men, women and children alike.
I wasn't suggesting that and that's not what person X was objecting to. Person X suggests that active participation should be in the opposite direction - against the US, which person X supposedly is going to become a citizen of. There's no being neutral here. If person X were for being neutral, I wouldn't have any issue with this. It's that person X would automatically promulgate active participation of some sort against the US. Do you not think there is something morally wrong with becoming a naturalized citizen of a country if you would automatically advocate participation against said country?
|
On January 19 2012 09:27 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:23 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:21 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways. Re-read my post above about nationalism, manipulation, elites, Lu Xun, etc etc. I mean, if you want to go die on that hill, go right ahead. As I'm saying, beliefs like the one you just voiced lead to a paranoid, unstable, unequal 1984-esque world where ones loyalty to The Leader, or The Government or whatever overrides ones conviction in basic concepts of decency and morality. And where's the morality in two-facing one's way into being a citizen of a country that you would betray not out of injustices that the country is committing but rather because you never intended to actually be a part of said country? I'm not saying that the citizens are supposed to guard The Leader or The Government, because in the end they're not the nation. The entire idea of the US was to be a nation not ruled by elites. Sure, that may be happening more and more nowadays (but who can really say how much?), but the point stands that it's not their interests that are supposed to be protected by the citizens. That's the entire point where you can, you know, not vote for the dicks who abuse the system.
I'm going to say this one more time.
I'm not saying either of you are in the right. I'm saying that your views, if replicated across society, would lead to a paranoid, unstable society.
I can choose to not accept either of your views. It sounds like you have some issues with logic. Just because there are two different views does not make one of them correct and one of them wrong. Two people can get into an argument about whether the world is flat or whether it is shaped like a bowl, and it doesnt mean a third party needs to judge which side is correct, or even which side is more correct. Just because I see your view as dangerous, does not mean I cannot also see his view as dangerous.
Again, you're entitled to have your opinions and views, diversity is a good thing. Hell, if you didn't have such an extreme view, I wouldnt be able to dissect it in an educational way for everyone else reading this thread :D I actually mean this in a positive way, although I'm saying it dismissively. It's a good conversation.
|
Quite frankly it isn't your business. While I understand and mostly agree with your sentiment, this person's beliefs and actions are his own affair, and you are in no way responsible for them, affected by them, or entitled interfere or tamper with his life.
|
On January 19 2012 09:31 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:27 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:23 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:21 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:11 EtherealDeath wrote:
To clarify, what I found to be strange is that person X considered the fact that I would almost certainly be supporting the US (I mean hell if I'm even in military intel....) to be unacceptable not in the sense that it seems like blind devotion, but in that I am not helping China.
In other words, the problem as person X sees it is not that I would be helping the US, the problem is that I wouldn't automatically be helping China rather than the US.
So, while I can understand the whole not black and white argument, and certainly you don't have to support your nation if you feel the nation's actions are wrong, my problem with person X is that they would automatically be supporting another nation which hypothetically is at war with the US.
I also wouldn't call this person an acquaintance in any way. I like to keep interaction to a minimum due to bad history, but that's not relevant to this blog. To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways. Re-read my post above about nationalism, manipulation, elites, Lu Xun, etc etc. I mean, if you want to go die on that hill, go right ahead. As I'm saying, beliefs like the one you just voiced lead to a paranoid, unstable, unequal 1984-esque world where ones loyalty to The Leader, or The Government or whatever overrides ones conviction in basic concepts of decency and morality. And where's the morality in two-facing one's way into being a citizen of a country that you would betray not out of injustices that the country is committing but rather because you never intended to actually be a part of said country? I'm not saying that the citizens are supposed to guard The Leader or The Government, because in the end they're not the nation. The entire idea of the US was to be a nation not ruled by elites. Sure, that may be happening more and more nowadays (but who can really say how much?), but the point stands that it's not their interests that are supposed to be protected by the citizens. That's the entire point where you can, you know, not vote for the dicks who abuse the system. I'm going to say this one more time. I'm not saying either of you are in the right. I'm saying that your views, if replicated across society, would lead to a paranoid, unstable society. I can choose to not accept either of your views. It sounds like you have some issues with logic. Just because there are two different views does not make one of them correct and one of them wrong. Just because I see your view as dangerous, does not mean I cannot also see his view as dangerous. Again, you're entitled to have your opinions and views, diversity is a good thing. Hell, if you didn't have such an extreme view, I wouldnt be able to dissect it in an educational way for everyone else reading this thread :D
Wait, so it's wrong in some way to, if you want to become a citizen of a country, to view the ultimate duty of citizenship as being that of ensuring that the social contract which binds that country (be in written down in a constitutional form or w/e) is upheld, not violated, not expoited etc?
I honestly don't understand where you pull paranoia out of that. If one doesn't agree completely with the social contract, w/e I don't care no one agrees on everything anyways, nothing wrong with that. Maybe it'll help you get a job, and you've contributed to the country for a long time. Absolutely no issue with that. 100% agreement can never be expected and never happens.
But if you'd actively try to harm said social contract should conflict arise with your previous nation, regardless of the circumstances, then wtf? Where's the paranoia in thinking that view is fucked up?
|
If you can conclude that he's some ter rorist , you have a point, but having love for his home country is not some wrongdoing.
|
On January 19 2012 09:36 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:31 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:27 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:23 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:21 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:
[quote]
To me it doesnt exactly matter-- you are viewing him as friend or enemy based on his allegiance to elites, rather than on his relationship to you. While you say you aren't unquestioningly obedient or against a specific government, you aren't that different than him in that allegiance is determining your actions, rather than basic human notions of decency or whatever. No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways. Re-read my post above about nationalism, manipulation, elites, Lu Xun, etc etc. I mean, if you want to go die on that hill, go right ahead. As I'm saying, beliefs like the one you just voiced lead to a paranoid, unstable, unequal 1984-esque world where ones loyalty to The Leader, or The Government or whatever overrides ones conviction in basic concepts of decency and morality. And where's the morality in two-facing one's way into being a citizen of a country that you would betray not out of injustices that the country is committing but rather because you never intended to actually be a part of said country? I'm not saying that the citizens are supposed to guard The Leader or The Government, because in the end they're not the nation. The entire idea of the US was to be a nation not ruled by elites. Sure, that may be happening more and more nowadays (but who can really say how much?), but the point stands that it's not their interests that are supposed to be protected by the citizens. That's the entire point where you can, you know, not vote for the dicks who abuse the system. I'm going to say this one more time. I'm not saying either of you are in the right. I'm saying that your views, if replicated across society, would lead to a paranoid, unstable society. I can choose to not accept either of your views. It sounds like you have some issues with logic. Just because there are two different views does not make one of them correct and one of them wrong. Just because I see your view as dangerous, does not mean I cannot also see his view as dangerous. Again, you're entitled to have your opinions and views, diversity is a good thing. Hell, if you didn't have such an extreme view, I wouldnt be able to dissect it in an educational way for everyone else reading this thread :D Wait, so it's wrong in some way to, if you want to become a citizen of a country, to view the ultimate duty of citizenship as being that of ensuring that the social contract which binds that country (be in written down in a constitutional form or w/e) is upheld, not violated, not expoited etc? I honestly don't understand where you pull paranoia out of that. If one doesn't agree completely with the social contract, w/e I don't care no one agrees on everything anyways, nothing wrong with that. Maybe it'll help you get a job, and you've contributed to the country for a long time. Absolutely no issue with that. 100% agreement can never be expected and never happens. But if you'd actively try to harm said social contract should conflict arise with your previous nation, regardless of the circumstances, then wtf? Where's the paranoia in thinking that view is fucked up?
I see, you didn't read my first post about how wars don't benefit ordinary citizens. The puzzle pieces are all there though. If you're curious, you can either re-read them and think, or send me a PM. I have to go off now.
|
On January 19 2012 09:30 EtherealDeath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2012 09:26 Kukaracha wrote:
This is not a matter of citizenship. The USA is a country, not a cult.
Would a war happen, a person with a foot in each country would probably be torn apart and prefer not to take action. And this is normal. Would you murder your uncle if he and your cousin got into a fight? Just because your cousin is closer to you and lives in the same town...? If you're a normal human being, capable of empathy, you'd probably try to stop the fight first.
According to your story, he didn't say he would do anything against the US; he simply felt offended by the idea of actively trying to harm his home country, where a lot of his family probably lives. And you know what? If he's not a soldier, than it's fine. This is what professional armies are made for, not civilians.
Could you look anyone in the eye and say that every American should've participated in the war effort against Iraq, for example? Even though thousands of men were lost for a lie, nuclear bombs invented by the government itself? Don't you think it's ok for a regular civilian person not to seek ways to kill other people when he has mixed feelings about the conflict?
Now not only this, but let me tell you: I was born in Chile, and emigrate to France, where I live. I spent half of my life as a foreigner, with different rights. Even though I was the most knowledgeable kid in my class and that I knew more about France than most of the people. Even though I actually spoke and wrote French much OH SO MUCH better than 96% of the fucking French population. Even though I was I, for one, truely and sincerely grateful to France for the opportunity that was given to me.
But even then, I had to wait in airports for everyone to go through check-in while I had to wait for the police to get there and verify my identity, even though I was fucking 8 years old. When I went to the US, I was treated like a terrorist by customs. I almost couldn't make it back to France twice after visiting family in Chile.
I don't care if you're a biggot or a patriot, but there is no valuable reason to go and prevent that person from getting a US citizenship. If you did this, you would simply be an asshole.
And don't worry, if a war is started between China and the US, they'll take any person of Chinese descent and throw them into a concentration camp, just like they did with the Japanese population in 1941. Men, women and children alike. I wasn't suggesting that and that's not what person X was objecting to. Person X suggests that active participation should be in the opposite direction - against the US, which person X supposedly is going to become a citizen of. There's no being neutral here. If person X were for being neutral, I wouldn't have any issue with this. It's that person X would automatically promulgate active participation of some sort against the US. Do you not think there is something morally wrong with becoming a naturalized citizen of a country if you would automatically advocate participation against said country?
Are China and the USA at war? No.
Will they ever be and H-bomb the shit out of each other? No, this is what third parties like the two Koreas or the Middle-East are there for.
Can a regular citizen do anything of importance to cripple his own country? No.
Are you paranoid? Yes.
Are you thinking as if a war was already there? Yes.
|
On January 19 2012 09:39 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:30 EtherealDeath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2012 09:26 Kukaracha wrote:
This is not a matter of citizenship. The USA is a country, not a cult.
Would a war happen, a person with a foot in each country would probably be torn apart and prefer not to take action. And this is normal. Would you murder your uncle if he and your cousin got into a fight? Just because your cousin is closer to you and lives in the same town...? If you're a normal human being, capable of empathy, you'd probably try to stop the fight first.
According to your story, he didn't say he would do anything against the US; he simply felt offended by the idea of actively trying to harm his home country, where a lot of his family probably lives. And you know what? If he's not a soldier, than it's fine. This is what professional armies are made for, not civilians.
Could you look anyone in the eye and say that every American should've participated in the war effort against Iraq, for example? Even though thousands of men were lost for a lie, nuclear bombs invented by the government itself? Don't you think it's ok for a regular civilian person not to seek ways to kill other people when he has mixed feelings about the conflict?
Now not only this, but let me tell you: I was born in Chile, and emigrate to France, where I live. I spent half of my life as a foreigner, with different rights. Even though I was the most knowledgeable kid in my class and that I knew more about France than most of the people. Even though I actually spoke and wrote French much OH SO MUCH better than 96% of the fucking French population. Even though I was I, for one, truely and sincerely grateful to France for the opportunity that was given to me.
But even then, I had to wait in airports for everyone to go through check-in while I had to wait for the police to get there and verify my identity, even though I was fucking 8 years old. When I went to the US, I was treated like a terrorist by customs. I almost couldn't make it back to France twice after visiting family in Chile.
I don't care if you're a biggot or a patriot, but there is no valuable reason to go and prevent that person from getting a US citizenship. If you did this, you would simply be an asshole.
And don't worry, if a war is started between China and the US, they'll take any person of Chinese descent and throw them into a concentration camp, just like they did with the Japanese population in 1941. Men, women and children alike. I wasn't suggesting that and that's not what person X was objecting to. Person X suggests that active participation should be in the opposite direction - against the US, which person X supposedly is going to become a citizen of. There's no being neutral here. If person X were for being neutral, I wouldn't have any issue with this. It's that person X would automatically promulgate active participation of some sort against the US. Do you not think there is something morally wrong with becoming a naturalized citizen of a country if you would automatically advocate participation against said country? Are China and the USA at war? No. Will they ever be and H-bomb the shit out of each other? No, this is what third parties like the two Koreas or the Middle-East are there for. Can a regular citizen do anything of importance to cripple his own country? No. Are you paranoid? Yes. Are you thinking as if a war was already there? Yes.
I already amended my position to that of doing nothing unless interviewed because this person is seeking a security clearance (yes they do track down everyone the person knows and interviews them in person). A person with a security clearance can definitely do harm.
Also the war scenario was not created by me - person X brought this up. I had not given any thought to it prior to this.
|
On January 19 2012 09:42 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:39 Kukaracha wrote:On January 19 2012 09:30 EtherealDeath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2012 09:26 Kukaracha wrote:
This is not a matter of citizenship. The USA is a country, not a cult.
Would a war happen, a person with a foot in each country would probably be torn apart and prefer not to take action. And this is normal. Would you murder your uncle if he and your cousin got into a fight? Just because your cousin is closer to you and lives in the same town...? If you're a normal human being, capable of empathy, you'd probably try to stop the fight first.
According to your story, he didn't say he would do anything against the US; he simply felt offended by the idea of actively trying to harm his home country, where a lot of his family probably lives. And you know what? If he's not a soldier, than it's fine. This is what professional armies are made for, not civilians.
Could you look anyone in the eye and say that every American should've participated in the war effort against Iraq, for example? Even though thousands of men were lost for a lie, nuclear bombs invented by the government itself? Don't you think it's ok for a regular civilian person not to seek ways to kill other people when he has mixed feelings about the conflict?
Now not only this, but let me tell you: I was born in Chile, and emigrate to France, where I live. I spent half of my life as a foreigner, with different rights. Even though I was the most knowledgeable kid in my class and that I knew more about France than most of the people. Even though I actually spoke and wrote French much OH SO MUCH better than 96% of the fucking French population. Even though I was I, for one, truely and sincerely grateful to France for the opportunity that was given to me.
But even then, I had to wait in airports for everyone to go through check-in while I had to wait for the police to get there and verify my identity, even though I was fucking 8 years old. When I went to the US, I was treated like a terrorist by customs. I almost couldn't make it back to France twice after visiting family in Chile.
I don't care if you're a biggot or a patriot, but there is no valuable reason to go and prevent that person from getting a US citizenship. If you did this, you would simply be an asshole.
And don't worry, if a war is started between China and the US, they'll take any person of Chinese descent and throw them into a concentration camp, just like they did with the Japanese population in 1941. Men, women and children alike. I wasn't suggesting that and that's not what person X was objecting to. Person X suggests that active participation should be in the opposite direction - against the US, which person X supposedly is going to become a citizen of. There's no being neutral here. If person X were for being neutral, I wouldn't have any issue with this. It's that person X would automatically promulgate active participation of some sort against the US. Do you not think there is something morally wrong with becoming a naturalized citizen of a country if you would automatically advocate participation against said country? Are China and the USA at war? No. Will they ever be and H-bomb the shit out of each other? No, this is what third parties like the two Koreas or the Middle-East are there for. Can a regular citizen do anything of importance to cripple his own country? No. Are you paranoid? Yes. Are you thinking as if a war was already there? Yes. I already amended my position to that of doing nothing unless interviewed because this person is seeking a security clearance (yes they do track down everyone the person knows and interviews them in person). A person with a security clearance can definitely do harm. Also the war scenario was not created by me - person X brought this up. I had not given any thought to it prior to this.
I'm fairly certain that if X actually were looking to get a security clearance to do something harmful to the US, he wouldn't be mouthing off about it to you or anyone else. That would just be dumb. So I guess there's nothing to be concerned about. Also agree with everyone else that you shouldn't try to intervene against his becoming a citizen, but then you already stated you wouldn't, so it's all good.
|
The only citizenship you have on this planet is that of Earth. Everything else is just stupid man being stupid.
In short, you're taking this too seriously.
|
On January 19 2012 09:38 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:36 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:31 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:27 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:23 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:21 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:19 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:16 caradoc wrote:On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:
[quote]
No, I'm not making a view of friend or enemy on this. I would be perfectly fine with being an acquaintance of a person who held such views, as long as they are otherwise a good person. I just don't believe they should become citizens of a country if their initial allegiance - before taking into account circumstances - is not to said country. Well, you did say you are seriously considering sabotaging his citizenship... not exactly the actions of a friend. Well, I don't know how to do a non overly radical analogy for this, so here is a radical analogy. If my friend were to apply to be a guy's bodyguard, but if a Chinese guy ever tried to kill said person, then my friend would try to make sure the Chinese guy gets out of it unhurt. Should I let my friend become said bodyguard? It just feels morally wrong. you're looking for approval, you won't get it. I don't accept your analogy either. We aren't talking about bodyguards, we're talking about you and this guy who you are trying to sabotage. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. In the end, citizens are supposed to be the bodyguards of the state against all enemies foreign and domestic no? In ideal anyways. Re-read my post above about nationalism, manipulation, elites, Lu Xun, etc etc. I mean, if you want to go die on that hill, go right ahead. As I'm saying, beliefs like the one you just voiced lead to a paranoid, unstable, unequal 1984-esque world where ones loyalty to The Leader, or The Government or whatever overrides ones conviction in basic concepts of decency and morality. And where's the morality in two-facing one's way into being a citizen of a country that you would betray not out of injustices that the country is committing but rather because you never intended to actually be a part of said country? I'm not saying that the citizens are supposed to guard The Leader or The Government, because in the end they're not the nation. The entire idea of the US was to be a nation not ruled by elites. Sure, that may be happening more and more nowadays (but who can really say how much?), but the point stands that it's not their interests that are supposed to be protected by the citizens. That's the entire point where you can, you know, not vote for the dicks who abuse the system. I'm going to say this one more time. I'm not saying either of you are in the right. I'm saying that your views, if replicated across society, would lead to a paranoid, unstable society. I can choose to not accept either of your views. It sounds like you have some issues with logic. Just because there are two different views does not make one of them correct and one of them wrong. Just because I see your view as dangerous, does not mean I cannot also see his view as dangerous. Again, you're entitled to have your opinions and views, diversity is a good thing. Hell, if you didn't have such an extreme view, I wouldnt be able to dissect it in an educational way for everyone else reading this thread :D Wait, so it's wrong in some way to, if you want to become a citizen of a country, to view the ultimate duty of citizenship as being that of ensuring that the social contract which binds that country (be in written down in a constitutional form or w/e) is upheld, not violated, not expoited etc? I honestly don't understand where you pull paranoia out of that. If one doesn't agree completely with the social contract, w/e I don't care no one agrees on everything anyways, nothing wrong with that. Maybe it'll help you get a job, and you've contributed to the country for a long time. Absolutely no issue with that. 100% agreement can never be expected and never happens. But if you'd actively try to harm said social contract should conflict arise with your previous nation, regardless of the circumstances, then wtf? Where's the paranoia in thinking that view is fucked up? I see, you didn't read my first post about how wars don't benefit ordinary citizens. The puzzle pieces are all there though. If you're curious, you can either re-read them and think, or send me a PM. I have to go off now.
Wars tend to have some benefit even for ordinary citizens in the end, unless there is some sort of Pyrrhic victory. I mean, the very existence of that term suggests that its opposing number exists.
Concessions are made in international diplomacy all the time, and surely things impact a nation for the better or the worse. The better one's position is in the world stage, the better deal one can expect to get. Of course I don't know any specifics on this matter so I can only speculate.
For instance, WWII is often credited with being the actual boost that got the US out of the Great Depression, FDR's works notwithstanding. Of course there was also a tremendous loss of life for the US during that war, though not comparable to that for other nations. Which side of the scale is heavier is impossible to judge in the end - though one might naturally say it cost more in terms of lives lost than we gained economically.
Then of course the Carter doctrine which contributed to proxy wars during the Cold War in the Middle East. The purpose of that was to ensure that the flow of Middle Eastern oil continued uninterrupted. If the US had not been active in showing its willingness to protect its interests in the region with force, might something have happened that could have caused an oil crisis for the West? Maybe, maybe not, again, hard to say. But to say that wars never benefit the average citizen seems a bit naive to me.
Not all wars are nearly limitless engagements which tend to destroy more than they create. Most wars nowadays have self imposed limits either multilaterally or unilaterallly, and one side or the other tends to come out with a material or positional gain.
|
On January 19 2012 09:52 EienShinwa wrote:
The only citizenship you have on this planet is that of Earth. Everything else is just stupid man being stupid.
In short, you're taking this too seriously.
I wish that were the case. Sadly stupid man being stupid tends to make suboptimal solutions locally optimal.
On January 19 2012 09:48 Legatus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 09:42 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 09:39 Kukaracha wrote:On January 19 2012 09:30 EtherealDeath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2012 09:26 Kukaracha wrote:
This is not a matter of citizenship. The USA is a country, not a cult.
Would a war happen, a person with a foot in each country would probably be torn apart and prefer not to take action. And this is normal. Would you murder your uncle if he and your cousin got into a fight? Just because your cousin is closer to you and lives in the same town...? If you're a normal human being, capable of empathy, you'd probably try to stop the fight first.
According to your story, he didn't say he would do anything against the US; he simply felt offended by the idea of actively trying to harm his home country, where a lot of his family probably lives. And you know what? If he's not a soldier, than it's fine. This is what professional armies are made for, not civilians.
Could you look anyone in the eye and say that every American should've participated in the war effort against Iraq, for example? Even though thousands of men were lost for a lie, nuclear bombs invented by the government itself? Don't you think it's ok for a regular civilian person not to seek ways to kill other people when he has mixed feelings about the conflict?
Now not only this, but let me tell you: I was born in Chile, and emigrate to France, where I live. I spent half of my life as a foreigner, with different rights. Even though I was the most knowledgeable kid in my class and that I knew more about France than most of the people. Even though I actually spoke and wrote French much OH SO MUCH better than 96% of the fucking French population. Even though I was I, for one, truely and sincerely grateful to France for the opportunity that was given to me.
But even then, I had to wait in airports for everyone to go through check-in while I had to wait for the police to get there and verify my identity, even though I was fucking 8 years old. When I went to the US, I was treated like a terrorist by customs. I almost couldn't make it back to France twice after visiting family in Chile.
I don't care if you're a biggot or a patriot, but there is no valuable reason to go and prevent that person from getting a US citizenship. If you did this, you would simply be an asshole.
And don't worry, if a war is started between China and the US, they'll take any person of Chinese descent and throw them into a concentration camp, just like they did with the Japanese population in 1941. Men, women and children alike. I wasn't suggesting that and that's not what person X was objecting to. Person X suggests that active participation should be in the opposite direction - against the US, which person X supposedly is going to become a citizen of. There's no being neutral here. If person X were for being neutral, I wouldn't have any issue with this. It's that person X would automatically promulgate active participation of some sort against the US. Do you not think there is something morally wrong with becoming a naturalized citizen of a country if you would automatically advocate participation against said country? Are China and the USA at war? No. Will they ever be and H-bomb the shit out of each other? No, this is what third parties like the two Koreas or the Middle-East are there for. Can a regular citizen do anything of importance to cripple his own country? No. Are you paranoid? Yes. Are you thinking as if a war was already there? Yes. I already amended my position to that of doing nothing unless interviewed because this person is seeking a security clearance (yes they do track down everyone the person knows and interviews them in person). A person with a security clearance can definitely do harm. Also the war scenario was not created by me - person X brought this up. I had not given any thought to it prior to this. I'm fairly certain that if X actually were looking to get a security clearance to do something harmful to the US, he wouldn't be mouthing off about it to you or anyone else. That would just be dumb. So I guess there's nothing to be concerned about. Also agree with everyone else that you shouldn't try to intervene against his becoming a citizen, but then you already stated you wouldn't, so it's all good.
Just to be clear, I never suggested premeditated intent. Rather, there is the danger of opportunistic intents in rare, unlikely scenarios. But if you're going to give someone a security clearance, you'd better be relatively sure that even those aren't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
