You win! I misused the term Patriot. Ok, I'm a great admirer of the America I described.
"Both" - stood for 'citezen and non-citezen'
"render those values present" - stood for 'having anything to do with bringing the values of freedom, capatilism and individualism into concrete reality'.
I am intellectually discriminitive, however, I think most people are. I get plenty of exposure to a wide range of people, being involved in health, and a wide range of political views, because I do put myself out there!

> "a sentiment of a citizen" - this is hardly dissecting. It is like
saying spirituality is only a sentiment of a religious person, whereby
clearly, we have outsiders and secularists, respectively, expressing
those sentiments.

No, your analogy to spirituality and religious people and patriotism and citizenship is not accurate and therefore doesn't provide a good argument. By definition a patriot may only be a citizen whereas by definition a spiritual person is not confined to a religious person but may be anyone at all. There is spirituality felt by being amongst nature for example. *You* don't even agree with your own analogy being on point andgo on to distinguish it and this confused me. Lol

>but incomprehensible and lacking reason? Where's that coming from?

The foolowing statements from you is what I couldn't understand:

1."There is no dissecting line in your definition."

(Not sure what a dissecting line is - could you mean a distinction? If
so, there was certainly a distinction. The distinction of a patriot must be a citizen by definition but not vice versa.)

2."And it would be stupid
to have one. Why would a citizen of the USA be able to freeload on its
achievements and identify in pride of America's values, and not a non
citizen? There is no difference."

This comes back to the definition of patriot. Someone who identifies with another culture/country/nation and not his own is not a patriot but a [country]phile. eg Francophile, Anglophile. There is no reason why a person should not identify with another country but they would not be called patriots.

3.Both did nothing to render those values present, they simply identify with those values."

Both what? and "to render those values present"? I couldn't understand this at all.

>"Also, I am intellectually discriminating and quite frankly don't see a problem with it."

Nor I but if you are going to make such a claim for yourself then it becomes a question of degree!!

>I suggested superiority of my intellect? Evidence please.

This was my impression merely. I could be wrong but when one makes claims to Be "intellectually discriminating" and to "declare a verdict on what I like and don't like, what holds my
attention and doesn't" and then choose not to associate with those that don't meet your criteria, implies a certain conceit or intellectual superiority. But if you say you are not so then clearly my impression was mistaken and I apologise.

> - is not the same as, "I am too good for those
inferior little scum" (something I did not say or even point towards)

Nor I. What it implied to me was that you would choose to isolate yourself from those that did not share your verdict, or who could not hold your attention. Not that you were too good but just that you couldn't be bothered. Again that is your choice. But those same people may have very important things to share on subjects you know nothing about and from whom you may learn.

I hope that explains things, Kasper.

PS Glad you enjoyed the skit. The one I posted for Glenn (below) is better though and you may enjoy that!!

Rosie

I feel the same way Marcus. I love the ideals that America is founded on, and the US is still an amazing country in many respects.

I think it all comes down to the fact that the US is so decentralized. Looking at the country as a whole will make it look far more free than the UK, or most other nations. But with state and county governments making up much of the US bureaucracy, I don't think there's that great a difference between the US and the UK.

Even so, I still think that the US is the land of opportunity, despite increasing socialism.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Haha Rosie. Great skit!

Whhooopsi. I see you are entirely correct on the original definition of Patriotism, I have misread/mis interpreted what you wrote. Still, should have done the homework. So apologies.
However, I don't see any difference between the love for ones own country or another country. What difference does it make? Bottom line is, its still (the same thing) an allegiance to the values manifested in a nation?
"a sentiment of a citizen" - this is hardly dissecting. It is like saying spirituality is only a sentiment of a religious person, whereby clearly, we have outsiders and secularists, respectively, expressing those sentiments.

I, like Glen, adore America for what it was, its constitution and freedom, even though these freedoms are slowly passing away.
I understand you commenting on what I wrote as being contrary, but incomprehensible and lacking reason? Where's that coming from?
Also, I am intellectually discriminating and quite frankly don't see a problem with it.
I suggested superiority of my intellect? Evidence please.
Declaring a verdict on what I like and don't like, what holds my attention and doesn't - is not the same as, "I am too good for those inferior little scum" (something I did not say or even point towards)

...I am wondering what degree of greater liberty they have over the UK? There seems to be just as much, if not worse, rampant socialism going on at the state (and often Federal) level there at the moment.

If it wasn't for their decision to uphold the 2nd amendment last week (and who knows if that will really be followed through at the state level), I'd be hard put to name something.

You bet. Unfortunately, given New Zealand's appalling attitude towards our friends, we frankly don't deserve it.

That is funny at first glance! But what precisely does it mean?

Our NZ flag represents the Statute of Westminster perfectly - but what does your flag represent, legally speaking?

And how do you see whatever-this-is happening?

Rosie

You disappoint me, Kasper. You answered me in the Pets thread so as to give the impression of your being so intellectually discriminating and superior that neither pets nor many people held your attention. And yet patriotism is indeed the sentiment of a citizen and I found your below explanation to the contrary somewhat lacking in reason and, if I may say so, incomprehensible! I am aware that citizens and patriots are different concepts. A citizen may or may not be a patriot but a patriot must always be a citizen (although under present law a "resident" may possibly be included!)

From Merriam-Webster

pa·tri·ot·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈpā-trē-ə-ˌti-zəm, chiefly British ˈpa-\

Function: noun

Date:circa 1726

Rosie

Thanks, Kas.

"A patriotic American from New Zealand...interesting idea"
Why is that interesting? According to the scope within the definition you provided, Glen, an individual, has every right to be patriotic about America as a citizen or non citizen.

There is no dissecting line in your definition. And it would be stupid to have one. Why would a citizen of the USA be able to freeload on its achievements and identify in pride of America's values, and not a non citizen? There is no difference.
Both did nothing to render those values present, they simply identify with those values.
Don't blur the distinction between a citizen and a patriot. They are different concepts.

A patriotic American from New Zealand...interesting idea...you will be pressing for NZ to become the 51st state then?

In the words of Eric Idle..(sorry I don't know how to download the actual youtube video on to this site)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGKm9_75HEY

Rosie

I love America and the ideals inscribed in its constitution, and I'm proud to hold a Greencard. 9/11 was a direct attack on those values, and I detest the idea that some here find it funny in any way.

"Don't know if you noticed, Goode, but we're very patriotic around here."

From Wikipedia

Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria < Greek patris, πατρίς), by individuals and groups. The 'fatherland' (or 'motherland') can be a region or a city, but patriotism usually applies to a nation and/or a nation-state.
Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and
culture, the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the
culture, and identification with other members of the nation.

LOL!!!

Rosie

... contemplated the possibility that this might not be the place for him."

This from the asshole who makes fun of 9/11. Don't know if you noticed, Goode, but we're very patriotic around here.

Are you asking me to ban Eli again, Goode?

No. I would not presume to tell you how to run this site or SOLO.

But I wonder, has Elijah contemplated the possibility that this might not be the place for him?

As for abolishing the racist mentality, I'd love to, but that's Linz's call, not mine.

Are you asking me to ban Eli again, Goode?

That would be a bad call, Goode.

If the Thought Police are to ban Eli for mock-badges that are not racist countering badges that are, then why should they not also ban nihilists, Slayer-lovers, Humeans, pomowankers and anal-retentive poms? To say nothing of that trash-metal band, Robert Campbell and the Brandroids, and its death-metal warm-up, Brendan Hutching and the Global Warmongers? Not to mention that country-and-western harmonica ensemble, Luscious Luke and the Bleeding Hearts? And how could I forget the bat-shit crazy Kevin and the Thetan-Worshippers? But then, how dull SOLO would be.

Nah, you'll have to do gooder, Goode, you do-gooder.

FC: Your position on affirmative action is cutting: “They’ve even set up a separate Maori writers’ art council organization,” you said. “That’s so stupid – they may as well set up a separate grouping for red-headed writers or writers who are five foot two.” Can you expand on that?

Alan Duff: I’ve since extended that to 1/64th Maori children and to people with one leg shorter than the other, and people with faces that are not quite straight, that veer to the left or the right. It’s all a lot of nonsense, and say no more.

Marcus, you are probably wasting your breath.

Richard, Luke and others just want to name call and will never accept that A is A if I say it...so... just stop bothering with them.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

"And the solution to "reverse" racism (the Ka Hikitia badges) is not more racism (à la Lineberry)."

And that's Richard's problem in a nutshell, he thinks Elijah was not mocking "reverse" racism, but offering a solution to it.

Apart from that, from his comments regarding "don't be a big bunch of racists" which originated from the comedy spoof I posted, both Goode and Ahmadinejad lack a sense of humour.

you replied to my post before I had time to edit it thus: Elijah's non-governmental-issued 'racist' badges...

Secondly, the biggest difference between Elijah's joke and yours is that 2600 innocent people didn't have to die to make it.

The whole point of this debate was borne from what? From Elijah's non-governmental-issued racist badges? Or from Elijah taking the piss out of these... and the statist badge-lover who issued them

From Elijah's non-governmental-issued racist badges. This debate has been about Elijah's racism right from the get-go.

Glad to see you acknowledge that Elijah's badges are racist.

... with context, don't you, Goode. The whole point of this debate was borne from what? From Elijah's non-governmental-issued racist badges? Or from Elijah taking the piss out of these...

... and the statist badge-lover who issued them:

It's become apparent, from your over-sensitivity here and the abject lack of it over on your callous 9/11 'joke', that you wouldn't get black humour even if it fucked you up the ass with a pineapple.

Interesting quote from Peikoff, Glenn.

The solution to racism is not "reverse" racism, but abolishing the racist mentality.

Absolutely right. And the solution to "reverse" racism (the Ka Hikitia badges) is not more racism (à la Lineberry). Two wrongs don't make a right. Three wrongs don't either.

As for abolishing the racist mentality, I'd love to, but that's Linz's call, not mine.

Affirmative action (by the state - thanks for that qualification, Matty!) is racist. Of course the government has no business indulging in it. I've never said otherwise.

That's the funny thing about Objectivists. They jump to conclusions - bypassing their "only absolute" altogether - at the drop of the Hat.

I know a lot of people have been answering questions you pose to others lately Glenn but I had to jump in here as I was having this conversation with a co-worker earlier today.

Affirmative action Isn't necessarily an action of state. It's merely the process of giving benefits to members of a race that is seen as disenfranchised in some way. Therefore AA isn't inherently un-libertarian and I'm sure Richard opposes tax-funded government-imposed Affirmative Action.

I myself see logical arguments for it even though I'm not sure yet whether or not i personally agree with it. I'm not sure for instance if I have any problems with the United Negro College Fund.

Just as it was necessary to separate church and state, so must we separate race and state. You should know better, Goode, that the government has no business indulging in this sort of social conditioning.

Affirmative Action is racist, and your lazy-assed referencing has done nothing to support your flakey-assed position. What's your principle here?

I think you'll find Peikoff's definition is a little closer to Objectivist principles:

"Affirmative action" means a quota system by law favoring certain racial minorities at the expense of others. Whatever the motives offered, this is racism by liberals. A system that discriminates for one race today can turn against it tomorrow. The solution to racism is not "reverse" racism, but abolishing the racist mentality. This would require not laws, but an intellectual change, a philosophy of individualism.

Elijah: "*Snigger* ....you believe in Wikipedia, too, then?"

We know all about you and Wikipedia ...

...it is usually only collectivist bully thugs who run around pointing their fingers at others shouting out that they are racists.

Elijah was merely exposing evil through the same absurdity that the original badges perpetrated. I don't see why he should be attacked for that!

If I were to mock James Hansen by calling on all environmentalists to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, would I be labelled by Richard et al. as being a fascist dictator?

*Snigger* ....you believe in Wikipedia, too, then?

Would you prefer a definition from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy, Encyclopedia Britannica online or BusinessDictionary.com? They all say much the same thing.

You're an idiot.

*Snigger* ....you believe in Wikipedia, too, then?

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

According to Wikipedia,

The term affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group... intended to promote access to education or employment. Motivation for affirmative action is a desire to redress the effects of past and current discrimination that is regarded as unfair.

That's pretty much it. No claim that

an individual's value is determined by their bloodline

or suggestion that affirmative action is

an admittance that racial groups, or women, are inferior...

Greg: "Affirmative action is an admittance that racial groups, or women, are inferior and therefore need regulatory assistance to provide some (false) counterbalance.

No-Goode: "No, it's not."

That's exactly what affirmative action is, Goode: it's a racist policy that claims an individual's value is determined by their bloodline, not by their actions. If there's one thing that's kept a great deal of Mordi in perpetual dependency, it's the "we're here to help" socialist programmes of the state.

Affirmative action is an admittance that racial groups, or women, are inferior and therefore need regulatory assistance to provide some (false) counterbalance.

No, it's not.

No-Goode, Ms Purchas, etc, I take to be PC.

Another vexatious and baseless accusation. I object to racism. Nothing PC about that.

Hit the nail on the head, Gregster!

It rather follows on from my post that certain chaps have to believe in Taniwhas and do not believe there is a Mongrel Mob

Now I am not suggesting Richard, Luke, Rosie and others are an "enemy within", or even that they are card carrying members of the Communist party, but, gosh...you rather have to look sideways at people who believe in supernatural beings such as taniwhas

(I would be less surprised and have more respect if they came clean and admitted they were planning to marry their sisters)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

No-Goode, Ms Purchas, etc, I take to be PC.

Political correctness, it should be stressed, reinforces racial stereotypes rather than affronting them.

Affirmative action is an admittance that racial groups, or women, are inferior and therefore need regulatory assistance to provide some (false) counterbalance. It's proponents don't seem to realise this, or are too stupid to care.

Racial stereotypes are based on more than enough evidence and there, of course, will be many exceptional individuals. I prefer to "discriminate," not "stereotype."

I contend that there are many individuals that have not been endowed with as much intelligence as others. There are others who will rise from adversity by their own, or their family's extraordinary effort.

Rosie asked

Are you suggesting that Elijah was pointing out racism of original badges??!!

And you replied

Elijah thought of this in terms of state-sponsored political correctness gone mad.

So, are you suggesting that Elijah was pointing out the racism of the original badges, or not?

Lance, the one group of people I greatly dislike are the "bob each way" types...mealy mouthed, never saying what they mean, never meaning what they say.

I prefer to say what I mean, mean what I say and tell the truth...(and face the consequences). 

I suggested some badges which I said were 'accurate'...now I do not claim to be perfect, but there has been a great deal of hysterical behaviour from solo-ists in recent days, and name calling and all sorts of accusations thrown around.

This can only lead me to conclude that some people consider my badges to be "inaccurate"...and these are people who claim to be libertarians and/or objectivists.

If my badges are inaccurate it means there are people who believe the following:

1. In taniwha

2. Maori are entitled to blame everyone else for their problems

3. Maori are entitled to land rightfully owned by other people

4. There is no such thing as a Maori welfare recipient

5. There is no such thing as family violence in Maori families

6. There is no such thing as gangs comprised of Maori who initiate violence against others

7. The World does owe Maori a living

8. There is no such thing as a Maori criminal under the age of 19

9. Maori do not fail exams [in large numbers]

etc...etc

Now you cannot have a bob each way.... either you agree with the badges or you don't...and if you do not, well, gosh, that is your business, each to their own.

So, Luke, Richard, Rosie et al you believe in Taniwhas if you want to but I prefer to face 'reality'...

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

My opinion is that... the original badges are racist.

That's no answer to my question.

But I suspect no one here cares much about that.

And you've repeated your insinuation that we're a big bunch of racists.

Are you calling us racists, Marcus?

and were my badges not spot on accurate

Spot on accurate about what pray tell?

Thanks Callum for the positive post, and you are correct the original badges are demeaning and racist...and were my badges not spot on accurate there would not be such a fuss about them.

What is of much greater concern is the socialist collectivism shown on solopassion.com whereby comments such as 'we' are posted...as Peter Cresswell and Tonto point out "what do you mean we, pale face".

I think chaps should speak for themselves rather than presuming to speak for 'everyone' or 'we'.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

...the original badges are racist.

Elijah with his piss-take is making fun of that context. Elijah thought of this in terms of state-sponsored political correctness gone mad. And positive discrimination (i.e. racism) is what this type of political correctness is.

To call the Government bureaucrats behind the badges 'White Urban Liberals' is indeed racist against white people. Those guilt-ridden urban liberal bastards could just as well be black, brown or yellow. But I suspect no one here cares much about that.

Are you suggesting that Elijah was pointing out racism of original badges??!!

Good question.

Another good question is, did Elijah point out the racism of the original badges? And the answer to that question seems to be no. In fact, he said

This is the perfect example of 'White Urban Liberals' wanting to show they are not racist

Are you suggesting that Elijah was pointing out racism of original badges??!!

Rosie

Strange, the people here that have a problem with Elijah's piss-take, don't seem to have a similar problem with the racism of the original badges which he is poking fun at!

Do you mean

(1) we don't think the original badges are racist

or

(2) we think the original badges are racist but don't have a problem with that

?

Strange, the people here that have a problem with Elijah's piss-take, don't seem to have a similar problem with the racism of the original badges which he is poking fun at!

Ignoring the problems with in the Maori community is a form of racism that is the most insidious. For well over several decades, successive governments have chosen to conveniently ignore the issues within the Maori community out of fear of being labelled racist. So what do they do? they do what all governments do - start throwing money at the problem until it eventually shuts up.

Actually getting to the root cause of these issues? it'll never happen as so long as a society we choose to ignore the statistics, we choose to treat Maori like a pitty case rather than addressing it head on instead of this politically correct mumbo jumbo of sitting around, holding hands and talking about some someone touched their penis when they were young. What is easier, actually fixing the damn issue and making individuals accountable for their actions or simply throwing money at the problem and making politically correct speeches.

Guess whats happened to the hardworking Maori? they've gone to Australia to escape the politically correct mumbo-jumbo. If I had $5 for every Maori who had moved to Australia and turned out better off - I'd be able to buy a large chunk of telecom NZ with enough change left over for a couple of pizza's. It is the politically correct that is strangling Maori, not all the bullshit that Labour and the Greens claim as to being the cause.

Oh, and of course, it is in labours vested interest - have as many people reliant on the state, and thus, reliant on the Labour party; its the theft of money from hard working NZ'ders to bribe unproductive oxygen thieving, space wasting, air conditioning justifying, seat warmers to vote Labour.