|
In a short conversation today with an unnamed individual X who has lived in the US for nearly two decades now, with a greencard, and is planning on applying for citizenship in the very near term, I mentioned that I am thinking about trying to get a job in military intelligence (probably in AF/Navy). The person in question is a Chinese citizen atm, as am I (I also plan on applying for US citizenship in the very short term). Person X brought up the question of "what then if the US and China had a war?" My answer was quick and obvious - "Then I'll find a way to fuck them [China] over." The response to this statement was one of feeling highly insulted, i.e. insinuating it would be traitorous to do so, etc.
Now keep in mind this is from the scenario where the both of us are US citizens. This person considers that it would be traitorous to act against China in the interests of the US, that the proper course of action would be to support China.
I am seriously thinking about trying to make sure this person does not succeed in getting US citizenship. Only if I am interviewed because said person someday is trying to get a security clearance. I know that this person is extremely two-faced, and will likely lie to the best of person X's ability if ever asked about such issues. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but the principle of citizenship is one that I do not take lightly, and I do not believe such a person should be allowed to be a naturalized citizen of the US.
Poll: Am I mostly....Right on this principle (20) 44% Taking it way too seriously (18) 40% Wrong on this principle (7) 16% 45 total votes Your vote: Am I mostly.... (Vote): Right on this principle
(Vote): Wrong on this principle
(Vote): Taking it way too seriously
Clarification:
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 - their natural reaction, prior to knowing the circumstances, is to support the opposition wtf?
 
|
|
|
Person X clearly doesn't understand or value "citizenship."
That said, trying to screw this guy over is petty and probably won't work anyway.
And... I don't think most Americans understand or value citizenship anyway. The social contract binding person is absolutely necessary in order for us to maintain the thin veneer that is "civilization."
|
I agree that this guys principles are questionable at best.
Don't do anything silly though, trying to sabotage someones citizenship because you have a ethical disagreement doesn't sound like a good idea.
O yeah, and good luck getting your citizenship, I hope it goes smoothly for you 
OK after thinking a little more it is really preposterous to be a citizen of one country and then say it would be "Treasonous" to fail to support another.
|
United States5162 Posts
I don't think you should be trying to become a citizen of a country that you openly admit you would commit treason against given the circumstance, but I probably wouldn't do this myself unless I knew that person was going to be in the military or some other position of power.
|
On January 19 2012 07:38 Myles wrote:
I don't think you should be trying to become a citizen of a country that you openly admit you would commit treason against given the circumstance, but I probably wouldn't do this myself unless I knew that person was going to be in the military or some other position of power.
Well I'm fairly certain neither of those two scenarios will come to pass, so I guess no point getting worked up over it.
On January 19 2012 07:37 PassiveAce wrote:I agree that this guys principles are questionable at best. Don't do anything silly though, trying to sabotage someones citizenship because you have a ethical disagreement doesn't sound like a good idea. O yeah, and good luck getting your citizenship, I hope it goes smoothly for you OK after thinking a little more it is really preposterous to be a citizen of one country and then say it would be "Treasonous" to fail to support another.
Wait what, I'm kind of confused by your wording there. It sounds like you are saying that it would be natural to support in a war to support the current enemy of the country you are a citizen of?
|
excuse me for the poor wording.
What I am trying to say is that it would be ridiculous for Mr. X to say it would be "treasonous" to support the US in a time of war with China, If he were a citizen of the United States.
|
Yea that's what I thought you meant, makes more sense.
|
On January 19 2012 07:32 krndandaman wrote:
I think both of you are extremes.
I'm surprised you guys even came up with an answer that quick.
I was born and raised in the states but the rest of my extended family lives in South Korea and I have very close ties there with friends/family.
My friend asked a similar question and in all honesty, I do not know which side I would choose if I had to.
this is the right answer
|
People don't apply for citizenship because of patriotism but for jobs.
Also, why would it be logical to support a country in war time simply because you are the citizen of that country? Couldn't you factor that, perhaps, what the leaders of your country is trying to do is wrong and that a lot of context is missing by simply asking a "Country X vs. Country Y" question?
I'm glad I was never a German or Japanese citizen in WWII where my neighbors would be all patriotic and telling me "Let's support our country in this war time!"
Otherwise, I'd feel kind of awkward...
EDIT: I'm not saying it wouldn't be treason. I'm just saying a piece of paper shouldn't choose your opinions for you.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 19 2012 08:15 The_Pacifist wrote:
People don't apply for citizenship because of patriotism but for jobs.
Also, why would it be logical to support a country in war time simply because you are the citizen of that country? Couldn't you factor that, perhaps, what the leaders of your country is trying to do is wrong and that a lot of context is missing by simply asking a "Country X vs. Country Y" question?
I'm glad I was never a German or Japanese citizen in WWII where my neighbors would be all patriotic and telling me "Let's support our country in this war time!"
Otherwise, I'd feel kind of awkward...
EDIT: I'm not saying it wouldn't be treason. I'm just saying a piece of paper shouldn't choose your opinions for you.
No, you're glad you weren't German or Japanese in WWII because you probably would have been sent to an internment camp.
As far as the rest of your point, I disagree, but there's not much we can say to change each others mind in this one me thinks.
|
Well this is sort of the two sides of the same coin. The question I would ask is, why do you have to feel this sort of extreme loyalty to a nation. I am biased because I have moved around a lot and I don't believe in any after life or anything, so the idea of willingly risking your single life no re. just for the nations sake is weird to me(it's lines drawn in dirt and there's lots of places with great people and great cultures to appreciate).
Now I can understand fighting if something is at stake, but your question is merely a " war happens, which side do you choose?". Why they are fighting doesn't matter? just pick a country? This is how particularly pointless/bad wars get started in the first place. Because I think both of you just assumed in this hypothetical war the other side is in the wrong.
I can also understand how this gets ingrained into people though. I'm sure if I spent my whole life in one country it's possible I'd feel that sort of dedication to side with it no matter what.
|
Its totally fine to have differing opinions on this subject. However IMO it is really really childish/wrong to go ahead and attempt to sabotage someone, or mess things up for them. In the end, just worry about your own life and your own beliefs, and let that person do whatever he wants. If the time ever comes when you are both forced to make a decision, he will make his, and you will make yours. What happens to him after that is his problem.
|
On January 19 2012 07:32 krndandaman wrote:
I think both of you are extremes.
I'm surprised you guys even came up with an answer that quick.
I was born and raised in the states but the rest of my extended family lives in South Korea and I have very close ties there with friends/family.
My friend asked a similar question and in all honesty, I do not know which side I would choose if I had to.
I'm very sorry I auto-voted "right on the principle" before reading this post. I despise nationalism so OP seemed to be in the right, but now looking at it now the issue definitely isn't that black and white.
|
I think it's silly to care so much about it.
Wars aren't things that are created by every day citizens, they are created by elites for elite interests. They don't benefit ordinary citizens. Nationalism in this sense is partly just a form of manipulation to get ordinary citizens to act in a way that benefits elites. While this is simplifying things to an extent, it is more or less accurate in the context of this example.
Why should one have to pick a 'side' and swear 'loyalty' to a specific cadre of elites? It's a false choice. Why not just be opposed to war, period, regardless of instigator or setting?
To be clear, sabotaging your acquaintance's attempt to become a citizen is petty, and, when replicated across society, leads to a paranoid, dangerous, 1984-esque big brother type world. It's essentially declaring that you serve your specific cadre of elites to the point where you will betray another human being to serve their interests, without batting an eyelid.
Not cool
I'm not sure if you were raised in China and went through the Chinese education system or not, but one of China's most famous authors, Lu Xun, makes a similar argument in a madman's diary (狂人日记). Although the CCP canonized his writings as a means of authenticating their own rule in the first half of the 20th century, the type of society he talks about applies equally to today.
|
|
|
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 - their natural reaction, prior to knowing the circumstances, is to support the opposition wtf?
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.
|
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.
To be fair, you're allowed to act however you want, not judging you, it's just my opinion that it leads to a more paranoid/unstable/unequal society.
|
On January 19 2012 09:12 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +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.
A country is more than just the elites anyways. Sure the "elities" tend to initiate or start wars, but sometimes shit is forced on you as far as can be reasonably seen if you want to maintain the standard of living in your country. To be sure, the US has been more pre-emptive than defensive of late, but I'm speaking in terms of principles that hold before applying the existing circumstances surrounding each case, rather than the special circumstances themselves.
|
On January 19 2012 09:15 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
Wait, I don't understand. Why isn't there an option that you wouldn't support the war because you are worried about the devastation to either country?
I mean it isn't anti-american to be against american wars. You can simply not agree with the war. Just because we're at war doesn't mean every American citizen must be for this war.
|
On January 19 2012 10:15 DoubleReed wrote:
Wait, I don't understand. Why isn't there an option that you wouldn't support the war because you are worried about the devastation to either country?
I mean it isn't anti-american to be against american wars. You can simply not agree with the war. Just because we're at war doesn't mean every American citizen must be for this war.
You don't understand, I would be fine with that view. The problem is Person X considers the only correct view to be one of supporting China. Not neutrality - a side is picked - and it is automatically that of the old citizenship.
|
On January 19 2012 10:18 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:15 DoubleReed wrote:
Wait, I don't understand. Why isn't there an option that you wouldn't support the war because you are worried about the devastation to either country?
I mean it isn't anti-american to be against american wars. You can simply not agree with the war. Just because we're at war doesn't mean every American citizen must be for this war. You don't understand, I would be fine with that view. The problem is Person X considers the only correct view to be one of supporting China. Not neutrality - a side is picked - and it is automatically that of the old citizenship.
Well then he probably shouldn't get a security clearance. If they interview you, then just answer honestly. For security clearances, they do ask you questions like "Can you see this person being traitorous to the United States?" and "Does this person have complete devotion to the United States of America" etc. etc.
Citizenship is fine though.
|
On January 19 2012 10:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:18 EtherealDeath wrote:On January 19 2012 10:15 DoubleReed wrote:
Wait, I don't understand. Why isn't there an option that you wouldn't support the war because you are worried about the devastation to either country?
I mean it isn't anti-american to be against american wars. You can simply not agree with the war. Just because we're at war doesn't mean every American citizen must be for this war. You don't understand, I would be fine with that view. The problem is Person X considers the only correct view to be one of supporting China. Not neutrality - a side is picked - and it is automatically that of the old citizenship. Well then he probably shouldn't get a security clearance. If they interview you, then just answer honestly. For security clearances, they do ask you questions like "Can you see this person being traitorous to the United States?" and "Does this person have complete devotion to the United States of America" etc. etc. Citizenship is fine though.
Yea, that's why I amended my position to being that of only mentioning it in case of being interviewed for Person X's security clearance. My previous view I admit was far too extreme.
|
Also, if he still has lots of contacts and family in China, then he probably won't be able to get too high a security clearance anyway.
|
But, would he give up his chinese nationlity ? If not, in case of trouble before the war, he could leave the US to be back in China ? All in all you should just respond honestly and not trying actively to screw his demand as he would probably help you
|
On January 19 2012 11:08 Erasme wrote:But, would he give up his chinese nationlity ? If not, in case of trouble before the war, he could leave the US to be back in China ? All in all you should just respond honestly and not trying actively to screw his demand as he would probably help you
Sorry but I'm not parsing your statement at all. What do you mean he would help me? What demand? And yea, if you become a naturalized US citizen, in this case one would have to give up chinese nationality.
|
If he's trying to get security clearance, get him out of the way. Security and citizenship exist for a reason, having loyalty to another country is not acceptable over the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
