The year is about to end so I'll do some bashing

[Aeson]

Well if you don't know what it is, how can you suggest that it's a good thing?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't believe I did. I believe I said that taking pride in your country's military and martial accomplishments is a good thing...

[Aeson]

But you did so in response to my quote. My quote was dealing with "pride" as in a national ego. By refering to it, you were referencing my use of the term.

Either you were mistaken in your interpretation of my use of the term, intentionally taking the quote out of context, knowingly making an irrellevent point to the statement you quoted, or were saying that militarily filling a void in our national ego is a good thing. I'll defer to your judgement as to which it was.

[Drake Tungsten]

But you did so in response to my quote. My quote was dealing with "pride" as in a national ego. By refering to it, you were referencing my use of the term.

Given that the quote I referenced came well before your first use of the term "national ego", I don't see why my response should be construed as having anything at all to do with said term...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Given that the quote I referenced came well before your first use of the term "national ego", I don't see why my response should be construed as having anything at all to do with said term...

Contrary to your assumption, the context of a statement does matter. You have admitted to having taken the statement without regard for it's context. Option B as it were.

"National ego" (and thus the context for "pride") is simply the term I used to sum up the rather extensive concept that I had illustrated in my original post. It thus includes the following aspects that I had expounded upon:

- a view of military and moral superiority
- use of military to satiate that view of superiority
- an unquestioned support of national policy
- questioning of the patriotism of any with a dissenting view to force compliance

[Drake Tungsten]

So basically you wrote that whole long, boring post in order to illustrate the concept of jingoism and give it an unnecessary new name. Makes me glad I only skimmed the thing after I figured out where it was heading...

[Aeson]

If you wish to read my opinions, feel free. I'm not here to entertain you, so it may be boring, I simply don't care. If you don't, no one is forcing you. But when you respond to my (or anyone's) statements, it might be a good idea to at least try to have read what you are responding to.

I wrote the post to give my opinion. I don't subscribe to "isms", prefering to make my own explanations for how I think. Partly because the way I think rarely matches up with any "ism" perfectly enough for my own satisfaction, partly because I don't have the time to research every "ism" out there to find ones that would be acceptably compatible, but mostly because one of the most basic tennets of my view on life is that subscribing to "isms" in general is detrimental. In much the same way as "jingoism", as it promotes a group mentality that leads to unnecessary divisiveness. (And yes, there's probably an "ism" for that as well, I of course do not subscribe to it even if my rationale is similar.)

[techumseh]

Aeson, you describe many of the US posters here with unerring accuracy! Keep up the superb work.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't subscribe to "isms", prefering to make my own explanations for how I think.

That's all well and good, but if you insist on making up words when perfectly serviceable ones already exist, you probably shouldn't get pissy when others don't know what the **** you're talking about...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That's all well and good, but if you insist on making up words when perfectly serviceable ones already exist, you probably shouldn't get pissy when others don't know what the **** you're talking about...

First you tried to refute what I was talking about, which implies you thought you knew what I meant:

Countries that don't take pride in their military and martial accomplishments are full of pussies. They also don't tend to last too long... - Drake Tungsten

Then you admitted you didn't know what you were referencing initially:

I don't even know what a national ego is, let alone how one could have a "void" in it. - Drake Tungsten

Then you tried to suggest that the context of a statement was not important: (Just included for kicks, not part of illustrating your inconsistancy.)

Given that the quote I referenced came well before your first use of the term "national ego", I don't see why my response should be construed as having anything at all to do with said term... - Drake Tungsten

Then you stated you really had known what I was talking about all along:

So basically you wrote that whole long, boring post in order to illustrate the concept of jingoism and give it an unnecessary new name. Makes me glad I only skimmed the thing after I figured out where it was heading... - Drake Tungsten

Now you're back to saying you didn't know what you were responding to.

That's all well and good, but if you insist on making up words when perfectly serviceable ones already exist, you probably shouldn't get pissy when others don't know what the **** you're talking about... - Drake Tungsten

All this just to avoid having to actually read and understand what you initially responded to...

[Drake Tungsten]

First you tried to refute what I was talking about, which implies you thought you knew what I meant:

No, I didn't. I simply used a quote of yours as a jumping off point to argue that pride in your country's military and its accomplishments is a good thing.

Then you admitted you didn't know what you were referencing initially

I never referenced your novel concept of "national ego". I don't see why I would reference an invented term that I didn't know the meaning of.

Then you tried to suggest that the context of a statement was not important:

No, I was pointing out that I hadn't actually referenced "national ego". The quote I referenced was three paragraphs removed from the coining of "national ego".

Then you stated you really had known what I was talking about all along

I hadn't known what you were talking about all along. It was only after you explained what "national ego" encompassed that I figured out that you were talking about jingoism.

Now you're back to saying you didn't know what you were responding to.

I didn't understand what "national ego" was, nor did I respond to it.

All this just to avoid having to actually read and understand what you initially responded to...

I read and understood what I responded to. Even quoted it.

[Sandman]

Why not? Seems to me when there's war included, it gets efficient.

For normal countries yes, for America no.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, I didn't. I simply used a quote of yours as a jumping off point to argue that pride in your country's military and its accomplishments is a good thing.

You don't need me for that. But in any case, you already admitted you didn't understand what you were quoting.

I never referenced your novel concept of "national ego". I don't see why I would reference an invented term that I didn't know the meaning of.

Yes, you did. You quoted a portion of my post, and the "pride" you quoted was the same concept. You just didn't take the time to actually read what you were quoting in context, and so missed that.

No, I was pointing out that I hadn't actually referenced "national ego". The quote I referenced was three paragraphs removed from the coining of "national ego".

You said that because "national ego" was used after "pride" that they were not part of the same context... and now you've gone and said that 3 paragraphs cannot be the same context either. (Which is inane given that you'd expect at least 3 paragraphs for say... an essay about a topic. Minimally you have an introduction, body, and conclusion. But by your definition, the introduction would have nothing to do with the conclusion... )

I hadn't known what you were talking about all along. It was only after you explained what "national ego" encompassed that I figured out that you were talking about jingoism.

Yet according to you, you knew where it was going before you had even read it, and so just skimmed over it.

"Makes me glad I only skimmed the thing after I figured out where it was heading..."

I read and understood what I responded to. Even quoted it.

No. You admittedly took the quote out of context by not reading the entire post before interpreting it, and have denied repeatedly that the context of the post even matters when addressing points contained within it.

If you had understood what I was saying with "pride", as I used interchangeably with "national ego", and as you later termed "jingoism", then we can assume you think jingoism is a good thing?

[Drake Tungsten]

So now "pride", "national ego" and "jingoism" all mean the same thing? I guess I didn't understand what I was referencing. In my defense, it is hard to understand something that doesn't make the least bit of sense to someone who expects words to mean what they usually do and doesn't expect an invented term to mean the same thing as two everyday terms with different meanings. Hell, I'm not even sure that is possible...

[Aeson]

I hadn't known what you were talking about all along. It was only after you explained what "national ego" encompassed that I figured out that you were talking about jingoism.

One other point on this. I had initially explained "national ego" and "pride" in my original post. All the points I condensed down for you had already been made.

Here is the list of points you can understand:

1 - a view of military and moral superiority
2 - use of military to satiate that view of superiority
3 - an unquestioned support of national policy
4 - questioning of the patriotism of any with a dissenting view to force compliance

Here are the original corresponding statements taken from my first post: (There are other similar references within the post which aren't so explicit, but these will do.)

1 - "I remember often having discussions with other kids (and sometimes adults) about the prowress of our military, how it could beat other nation's militaries, how it had "saved the world" from Nazis and Commies."

2 - "To some extent I think this has left us with a national ego that's hungry to be filled. It's been over half a century since that ego has really been fed."

3 - "And not just in the US... virtually any war is founded upon the same principles of unquestioned loyalty to the group."

4 - "Anyone who speaks out against the war is unpatriotic. At least until it's going really badly, and has become obvious we never should have been there (at least in that manner) in the first place... even then though you get labelled still."

------------------

You admit to not having read it initially well enough to understand. Yet you try to blame me for your ignorance as to what you didn't read. Funnier still is then you admit you understand what I am talking about when I condensed it down for you, but still can't see that those condensed points were already present in the post you pretend you "knew where it was going" before you read it, yet somehow "didn't understand".