Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

Oh geeze, Bunny, don't get me started . . . we should just ship all them malcontents back to Urinetania, or wherever they come from.

There has been a lot of noise at my home town's cemetary this morning: my old English teachers turning and turning in their graves :wink:

Only for the stone-hearted, like nimh and Setanta:
http://www.derpatriot.de/grafik/archiv/26636047.jpg

LOL! English is IMPOSSIBLE Walter - and needs its bottoms smacked...

Save me some of that roast mutton, 'k, Walter?

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


Hey, Lil' Coney, you passin' out spankings ?

Just added the link to it, Setanta.

Hey! Those poor Aussie sheep have landed in Eritrea.

Cost us about $10 mill.

We had to fix up the pens, give 'em thousands of tons of fodder, and donate a lot to them.

Sad - poor sheep suffered cos we went to Iraq.

It is mean - taking stuff out on aminals - and humans, too, for that matter...

That is a story with which i am unfamiliar, Cunning Coney, care to share?

Craven--

I think I'm splitting hairs, or just forwarding an extreme-minority view--at least here.

I thought when many members avoided criticism of the Moslems (is this considered an inappropriate term?), and instead seemed to defend them by bringing up other issues--it was an act of Political Correctness.

My rationale-- Moslems are an 'endangered group' because of some hostilities after 911-- The popular notion (PC) makes us uncomfortable criticising them, because we may be deemed as Moslem-haters if we criticise them-- Therefore, we bend over backwards not to criticise them, even when certain, specific Moslems behave in a heinous way.-- Therefore, even valid criticisms are self-policed, publicly derided, and considered inappropriate, giving any and all members of the group special status above criticism. That is an example of PC to me. When large numbers of people subscribe to this way of thinking, it is PC and groupthink to me. No coolness. No call to rudeness. Just my disgust at the above rationale and the peer pressure forcing people to be afraid to share their honest views.

But, as I've reread several items--it does seem to be not worthy of any more discussion. People are free to interact how they please.

You did say the term Moslem is inappropriate. This is a good example of what I consider PC. What is wrong with Moslem? And have I been judged an an anti-Moslem for using it? What baggage did I acquire in using that term?

-----
An aside-- Lash was roundly criticised for saying 'hacked' when coupled with Africans. I have seen this used by plenty others, some who took such offense when Lash did it. Wonder why they didn't get the same treatment Lash did?

Oh - 50,000 poor Oz sheep were sold to the Saudis - Arab states generally want live sheep, so they can be slaughtered according to their beliefs - this is a very controversial trade over here, because lots of animals die en route sometimes.

Anyway, the Saudis, when they are cross with us - or occasionally because of some other political reason - reject the sheep when they arrive - they say they are ill, or something.

The Saudis were not entirely willing to ignore Iraq - prolly to regain points with their neighbours, and people, so they rejected the latest load.

The poor sheep have sailed all round the Middle East - (it is bad for them to be at sea) with the Saudis putting pressure on other people not to take them - Oz did not want them back - unless push came to shove - for quarantine reasons. I assume we bribed Eritrea to take them. I assume we may have bribed others - who did not take them at the last second. Such is bizness over there! LOL.

Anyways, the sheep have become (not unreasonably) a cause celebre here, with concerns about the cruelty of the trade mounting.

It has not gone entirely un-noticed here that concern for the sheep has been white-hot - while that for similar boat-loads of refugees has not.

These are the ironies of life.

I realize that the trade may be important to many people in Oztralia, but it is the kind of situation in which one would love to tell the Saudis to go find their sheep elsewhere.

Personally, i regret that one cannot get mutton commonly in the United States. What is sold as lamb here, however, is really just juvenile mutton--lambs are slaughtered much later here than elsewhere in the world when lamb is sold. We ate mutton when i was a child, but you cannot get it now. People complain of a strong taste--but hell, that's why i like it, it has some flavor. Americans have been sold bland food so long by national food chains who go for the lowest common denominator that it's become hard to even find any fish in a store that isn't white and tasteless.

I'm sure it's damned unpatriotic of me to complain.

Sofia - why do you equate concern for groups of people who may be suffering in various ways with "political correctness"?

Would there be any way your political opponents might express such concerns that you NOT would label such?

Is your concern for Jewish people in a time where anti-semitism seems to be on the rise in some quarters "politically correct"? It certainly would appear to be a concern sanctioned by various US governments - as it is here. Or - are only the concerns of the left to be deemed as such. Do you therefore allow only to conservatives the ability to form reasoned judgements about whom they may express concern for?

Setanta - I am no expert in the livestock trade - however, I believe these sheep ARE mutton - I think I may have heard that they have passed their useful lives as wool producers, or other sheep producers - and are too old for Australian taste.

I suppose it is too much to hope that they might pass the remainder of their lives beside still waters...

With Bach's Sheep May Safely Graze playing quietly in the background, of course . . .

Again, to bring yet another argument that may more properly belong on another thread here, if "political correctness" as a negative construct has been demonstrated recently, I would have seen a prime example as being the reaction to Craven's mention of the existence of "hate crimes" by Jewish people on another recent thread. It was acknowledged clearly that this was not an attempt to deny the appalling treatment of Jewish people through the ages, but I believe it was treated as such. Was this reaction "political correctness" - or, do we have another name for it when it is practiced by us our "side"?

I do not believe Craven saw fit to attempt to play the "political correctness" card in his rebuttals on that thread.

Had I been in his position, I would not have done so either, since I consider most current uses of the term in debate to be an example of the very mindless "groupthink" that an appeal to such a concept sets itself up to be against.

That Bach is waaaay fun to sing!!!!

of course, my Bach is worse than my bite.....

There you go again with your blunderbuss absolutism "Dissent should never be silenced---blah--blah--blah. Let's take WWII as a lead in to the scenario I want to present. Historically I don't know what actually happened regarding citizens giving dissenters some very nasty looks and attempting to bring them into line by ostracizing them. But even as desperate as WWII was our actual survival was never really in doubt so forcible silencing of dissent was not justifiable but I would certainly expect that the majority would not be tolerant when it surfaced. Also since survival was never in doubt the actions of a few miserable dissenters had no real consequence.

The scenario which I refer to is when survival lies in the balance and it's fight to the death or surrender and be put in chains. Dissent then is not an option----dissenters must either unify with the majority or face execution as traitors. This is when unification gives them a chance to survive and without unification they have no chance. It is in this circumstance that some dissenters will recognize their obligation to accept their responsiblity to the society they live in to survive with dignity and to maintain their freedom.

Hopefully none here will ever be placed in that postion but I do think it deserves some thought and discussion. I believe you yourself have said absolutisms are absurd.

Yes, absolutes are absurd. It is also absurd to say that dissent should be silenced based upon national exigencies. If in such cases there is dissent, it is because the dissenters do not agree that the is such an emergency. You continue to refuse to recognize that crucial aspect of this particular argument. We say now that we are fighting to preserve our freedom, a kind of "light to the world" hypocricy in the light of what silencing dissent would mean for our presonal liberty. Ashcroft would like to curtail many of those same freedoms and protections which we claim we are fighting to preserve.

If there is dissent, there is not universal agreement about the nature of the emergency you posit. In such a case, silencing dissent is an attack on the freedoms you claim we need to defend. You also continue to ignore the point that many have made in this thread, that political demagogery can be used, and often has been used in history, to convince a population that there is a proximate threat which requires the suppression of liberties. That is a fast-track to the end of all of our freedom.

I'm opposed to absolutism, and to none so much as political absolutism, also known as dictatorship.