Poll: Is it strange that . . . .

[Willinium]

So after learning about the recent bombing in Ansbach I went to skype to vent and try to organize my thoughts, I had lived there for several years you see, and though thankfully mine had all moved away years ago I still have fond memories of the place and its people. Anyway when I mentioned wondering about what nationality the people committing these acts I got lambasted for hating people based on their religion and skin. I was wondering if the acts were committed by Natives or by those that used the dispossessed refugee situation to their advantage. I was quick to note that I honestly could not care less race or religion but rather I cared for Nationality and philosophy of those involved.

So to get to the point is it strange that I judge people based on their nationality and philosophy's rather then their skin or religion?

 

[Zontar]

No, it's not strange. Judging someone based on their philosophy is not only perfectly natural, it's what we should do. People should be judged based on their actions and beliefs.

Nationality is a different thing. Do they care about their nationality? And I don't mean just having it be a part of their identity but being full on jingoist. If yes then yes, if no then not really.

 

[Willinium]

No, it's not strange. Judging someone based on their philosophy is not only perfectly natural, it's what we should do. People should be judged based on their actions and beliefs.

Nationality is a different thing. Do they care about their nationality? And I don't mean just having it be a part of their identity but being full on jingoist. If yes then yes, if no then not really.

Eh. . . .I mean I can be rather imperialistic and militaristic but I tend to view it in a benevolent manner not as a they are inferior to me or mine nation manner. Which I feel I should expand on. Imperialistic as in I believe that the US should be constantly be looking for ways to convince other countries into joining us whether from Coercion or just economic diplomacy.

Militaristic as in I believe in a strong military and I approve of our interventionist policies but do not feel that we take them far enough. If a place is falling apart into anarchy, lets use Somalia here, I say we focus our forces there and bring order to the place. Sure there will be rebellions to put down but we will build roads, schools, bring in teachers and a infrastructure if given enough time to do so. Involve the locals in the process so that they feel both indebted to us but . . . . have them look more favorably upon us. Afterwards when we eventually leave the the nation we will have built up either a new born state or a indebted ally to us that will be able to protect themselves and our interests in the area.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Philosophy, and words overall are flimsy thing. People's opinions change, they take variety of positions over place and time.

They can be faked and they may vary... so I count them to be incredibly unreliable.
However, they are closest thing to a person's belief, thoughts if you will. A second best thing to judge people for.

Actions the person commit however are always reliable. They will always be true to you.


What I do not understand is that you use (or imply) that group of people and philosophy. Geologically associated group rarely have same sets of philosophy.
But then, it is pretty common for people associate those two together those days. So not strange would be my answer.

 

[FalloutJack]

Half-and-half. My method is upon merits and deeds. Where you came from is not of import. What you do and what you've done is. Philosophy is important, though. It's good to know how they got there.

 

[Leg End]

So to get to the point is it strange that I judge people based on their nationality and philosophy's rather then their skin or religion?

I'd say it's quite normal. Hell, I'd say it's human. Though personally I couldn't care less about nationality but in this case, it seems pretty relevant to consider.

I'd actually say a person's religion and philosophy are often intertwined. There are reasons why I don't subscribe to popular religions. It's hard to say you believe in a faith that involves something very much at odds with your personal philosophy.

 

[Barbas]

I wonder...what makes someone native? Is it merely a matter of years spent in a country? Do they have to be the first generation of their family born in that country, or do they simply need to attain legal citizenship?

Nationality's a little unusual. I'd say judging them based on their actions is best, but philosophy or ideology comes the closest to affecting that. So go with that, I suppose!

 

[Recusant]

Is it strange? No, but that doesn't mean it's good. I this attitude all too commonly these days.

No, it's not strange. Judging someone based on their philosophy is not only perfectly natural, it's what we should do. People should be judged based on their actions and beliefs.

Why? Actions, sure; I'm with you there. But a person's actions affect the world around them; a person's beliefs only their actions. The very nature of a free society requires that we tolerate different beliefs. How can we have that if we're judging people based them?

 

[hermes]

Judging people based on their philosophy is not so different that judging them based on their religion, because both inform the same concept, to judge them based on "how do people think?". How they think and act is deeply intertwined with how they see themselves spiritually.

By a similar token, judging them based on their nationality is not that different that judging them based on their appearance, because you can't really distinguish a person's nationality except in the broadest terms, so it is to judge them based on "how do people look?"

Is it strange? no. It is not strange at all... but that doesn't mean it is fair, or not something to work on.

 

[votemarvel]

Involve the locals in the process so that they feel both indebted to us but . . . . have them look more favorably upon us. Afterwards when we eventually leave the the nation we will have built up either a new born state or a indebted ally to us that will be able to protect themselves and our interests in the area.

I seem to remember another nation trying things similar to that and an entire nation rebelling against them.

Oh yes, it was nations known as Great Britain and the United States of America.

You seem to have an idealistic idea of empire building.

 

[Willinium]

Involve the locals in the process so that they feel both indebted to us but . . . . have them look more favorably upon us. Afterwards when we eventually leave the the nation we will have built up either a new born state or a indebted ally to us that will be able to protect themselves and our interests in the area.

I seem to remember another nation trying things similar to that and an entire nation rebelling against them.

Oh yes, it was nations known as Great Britain and the United States of America.

You seem to have an idealistic idea of empire building.

I have a VERY idealistic idea of empire building, I recognize that, but the idea of empire building in and of itself is not a bad one. Great Britain's problem is that they appointed people that they wanted to GET RID OF into positions of power in the Colonies of the US. Not to mention a apathetic and Corrupt Parliament. I like to think that we can avoid those problems our selves, having learned from history after all.

I wonder...what makes someone native? Is it merely a matter of years spent in a country? Do they have to be the first generation of their family born in that country, or do they simply need to attain legal citizenship?

Nationality's a little unusual. I'd say judging them based on their actions is best, but philosophy or ideology comes the closest to affecting that. So go with that, I suppose!

I view Native as in born and raised, not to say that Citizens that came in and have lived there for a great many years are not as good or lesser then native citizens, but It is easier to . . . .find a person's motive if you are able to figure out there background like that.