Will Scotland liberate itself from English tyranny?

http://satwcomic.com/art/evil-flag.jpg

 

Germans, as a whole, do seem pretty insecure to me. Lots of censorship of violence and nazis and shit.

 

It's just some people's preference. I'd much rather help my neighbour than help someone on the other side of the world, and there isn't much you can say to change that mindset. Nationalism doesn't mean "I'm the only one that matters" or "my country needs more clay" or anything to do with ethnicity. What it means is putting your country, and its citizens, first before other countries, and there is nothing wrong with that. An example - I'd much rather have unemployment and poverty reach a solution within my own borders, before trying to solve it in the borders of others; the country needs to be strong before it makes others strong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with internationalism, and nationalism doesn't imply anti-internationalism, it's just a preference.

You might not understand this too much since central European countries, especially Germany, are the economic powerhouses of Europe, but for a country like Canada which has always had issues with American investment, it is really important that Canadian owned corporations, Canadian artist, and most importantly, Canadian citizens are protected by the state. That's Nationalism. Canada also has had identity issues with the UK, and it took a lot of the last century to try to change that to achieve the Canadian national identity - from making it law that governor generals have to be born in Canada, to Trudeau bringing the Constitution from the UK to Canada.

Furthermore, even if we all share this planet, I'd argue it's much easier to empathize, or even sympathize, with a citizen of the country you live in, than a citizen of another, and even if we have all this communications technology and news of shit going on in the world the instant they happen, I'd further argue that psychologically humans don't even have the capacity to care about things that don't directly affect them after a week or two. An exception would be the whole issue with the Islamic State, but I actually attribute that to being feelings of sympathy for the mass suffering of humanity, and nothing to do with nationalism or internationalism.

 

I dont see a reason why.

 

Who, whoa, let me stop right here. What do you mean there is *nothing* wrong with that? If you have an opportunity to give someone, for the lack of a better word, advantage and in a situation where both parties stand to gain as much, there is nothing weird about doing so, as you stand to benefit, but doing so if the other party stand to gain more is cunty. Of course, common sense applies as someone will immiediately try to hyperbolise the shit out of that statement and say something to the tune of "then you should never buy anything bare minimum and donate everything to ethiopians". Lets not verge into extremes, point is there *can* be wrong with that.

This is somewhat of a bad example, seeing as just what is considered poverty and "lots of unemplyement" varies between places. Now, I dont disagree with the order of business, but i disagree with the why's. I'd do that simply because its more efficient. The area is closer, i know terrain, blahlbahblahs, can more easily communicate with others. I stand to do more good in shorter period of time.

The first part is really silly. We have a ridiculously long story of cultural wipes and opression, it was done by "us" and done upon "us". The other - meh, its as simple as wanting to get status quo, not liking change as far as i can see.

On what basis? Now of course we have shit like nationalist everywhere, religious fanatics and other lot with which its hard to symphatise, but radicals aside, just why? We are all human beings and on a fundamental level are nearly exact same. (logical shortcut inbound) Nations and whatnot are just artificial constructs evolved from tribes ment to keep people secure.

Complete and utter bollocks. Sure, with lots of distractions that keeps the mind in *now* one doesnt necessarily reflect alot about distant places, but its more about info overload to me. I might be able to joke about some grim shit, but seriously, any of the really sick shit disturbs me uttermost. Ive seen two vids over the last like 4 months. One was of some mexican drug related execution and the other one was a more recent ISIS one that shown prety much animal like one-after-another style of execution. Both made me depressed for at least a day and now make my blood boil everytime i think about it. Sure I dont do that all the time, but thats because i have human limitations.

I dont really get what isis per has to do with nationalism, they, as far as I know, care about the religious law in their own interpretation of it. Maybe they discriminate against non-arabs, but I really do not have info if Kurds are Muslims as well and such. Then again, people seem to forget that between china and the balkans there live people who are not arabs. An arab=/muslim as well.



edit: Oh fuck me, now ive gone complete Chris023 with post style, minus -5 stars.

 

Its plasma really, and sun's structure is more complicated that that, Id bet we dont even know the half of it.

``
sorry, i just had to get back into the cunty character

 

Brah, it's fine as long as you don't go full-blown "Morals are a terrible thing to judge anything by so we should just ignore them."

 

Did someone say anything like that in here before?

 

It was like the basis of everything Chris wrote, that moral's 'n' shit are subjective and doing anything based off morals was stupid.

 

Ill be honest, I never bothered to read past his first paragraph when he went all DEBATE-like, so I wouldnt know. He also had the teeth syndrome of not being able to contain words to a minimum.

... can you even do anything without it somehow being traced back to some sort of moral?
If we take morals off then I'd assume we'd get cold logic, but it would be pretty hard to judge anything purely on that since humans are somewhat advanced as far as constructs go,

 

When you trust everyone, it's the same as trusting no one.

Humans are most effective when they trust each other, but they can't trust everyone unfortunately.

Ergo, humanity is a team sport.

 

I'm sorry, but that's just retarded. If I trusted no one, I'd be paranoid and wouldn't do things like leave my bike unlocked or my door open at night. If I trust everyone, I'd do things like leave my bike unlocked and my door open at night. Which I do.

 

The steady state behavior is the same.

When you don't allow yourself to vet a select group of people to trust, you eventually have to distrust everyone.

Your utopian anecdotes are only anecdotes.

 

It's kinda interesting to see where the cracks are.

Not surprising though. The Empires forums are too basic for that.

 

Why can't I just vet everyone?

Or how about I trust everyone in the world except one person? How does it work then?

These might be anecdotes, but all I can see from you is just theorizing.

 

I really, really, really have no idea what you are arguing here. Nationalism is a PREFERENCE for matters in your own country, not anti-internationalism. Nationalism has nothing to do with putting your own people to gain over those of other countries, that's imperialism/modern-capitalism. Simply put, if I'm given the option to donate to two food drives, one for the poor of Toronto, and the other for the poor of Paris, and I could only choose one, I would donate to the Toronto charity. It's that simple.

alright.

I don't know how to explain it to you, people you know and that you can identify with you will have an emotional bond and trust with. That same emotional bond that you won't really have with someone you've never met, so it's easier to have empathy and/or sympathy for your own countryman, than it is for a citizen of another country. Read the headline of a newspaper, "ISIS beheads a hundred soldiers", you might get mad but you'll probably be more angry when your friend or your neighbour gets layed off from his work, or goes a night without eating.

I was saying that the exploits of ISIS is different from other issues in the world because they threaten all of humanity, therefore that whole issue is in the mind of every citizen of earth, whether they are nationalist or internationalist. I did not attribute any ideology to ISIS.

No, Chris is a blabbering idiot who's 2edgy4u and anti-everything.

 

There is a difference between not trusting singular persons and not trusting members of whole nations

 

Idk, talk to zoom...

But seriously though, we're walking, talking risk analyzers. We see stuff and make very quick decisions to trust or distrust said stuff. That sort of mechanic keeps you alive.

I suppose it might be possible for everyone to present themselves in a trustworthy fashion, but I suspect that there's some reason for why it's impractical.

Isn't that what we're all doing?

I only meant that you can't implicitly present an anecdote as "proof". There's no "proof" in these sorts of fluffy discussions.