Re: Ethno-Nationalism, or Racism, or Whatever???

--- Alexandru Moeller <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> david_russell_watson schrieb:
> >
> > If you choose to exercize your right to have then
> anyway, and
> > which right I fully recognize, then I have no
> choice but to
> > exercize my own right to refuse you that part of
> my resources
> > that you're asking for to help take care of them.
> >
> > Individual freedom cannot be divorced from
> individual
> > responsibility.
> >
> > David
>
>
>
> and we can get back to the origin of the mankind or
> somewhere in its
> childhood. Assuming the state is gone (and with it,
> all the mechanisms
> and instruments to save, protect, make justice or
> alike) then we are
> somewhere back in the stone age. And the one who has
> more children will
> be the one who will have the simply man power to
> take what he needs.
> Implicitely your part of the resources if you are
> not able to protect
> them. If you (generally speaking) don't have the
> technological advantage
> to overpower their number, you will be history in a
> such scenario.
> Or do you think that this kind of poor persons who
> are not having the
> ideals you have, not even the same values about
> "rights" of groups or
> individuals, not the same value about the life of
> single one person, do
> you think this kind of persons will think twice
> before taking what you
> consider to be your part of resources?
> Unfortunately, my experience I
> had, they won't think twice, you will be for them an
> enemy, simply
> because you think a part of the resources should
> belong to you and they
> need it...
> And we get back to the ethic and ideal conditions
> versus reality and
> practic problems and maybe we can better undestand
> why some languages
> survive and some not. Sometimes the highest value we
> discover are not
> appreciated by the larges group of a society and
> maybe your only
> survival posibility is to take distance from your
> values and to act as
> these who consider you as being a potential enemy.
> Maybe this is the
> only solutions sometimes while, we should not forget
> from the very that
> begining, homo homini lupus.....
>
>
> Alex

****GK: All these discussions seem to me to be pretty
useless. De gustibus non est disputandum. It's pretty
obvious that the human being has both
personal(individual) and social dimensions. Not all
(equally obviously) favour a 50:50 significance split
between these. You can have a great variety of
ideological positions depending on the split you
favour. Which is most relevant philosophically or
practically also varies with time and space. Extreme
solutions on either side of the pendulum will rarely
(perhaps never) work, but that won't stop some from
formulating such. I remember a very good passage from
Thomas Aquinas where he claims that the only
indubitably rational moral standpoint which will
obtain pretty well universal agreement everywhere and
at all times is the principle "Do good, avoid evil".
As soon as you get more concrete, however, and attempt
to give content to "good" or "evil" you run into
problems of ineluctable disagreements. "Rational"
discussions can become endless and futile. Not
uninteresting but threateningly inconclusive. So I
have no other conclusion. Linguistics, History, or
Archaeology anyone? Factual that is. (Even that is
difficult enough!)*****

>