|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
patriotism is not fanatacism?
Does the Bush administration think that patriotism and fanaticism are the same thing? Patriotism means supporting your nation to an extent whereas fanaticism means supporting your nation or beliefs no matter what. -- acebrock 18.104.22.168 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Supporting your nation (a real conglomerate of people,represented by states) and supporting your religion(a complex of stories,memes,concepts and abstract ideas) are fundamentally different.Faith and Nationalism are different concepts don't you agree? Patriotism is not (strictly) fanaticism(adherence to action for one "true" ideology),it not a concrete Ideology(as Nationalism,which its close relative).Its more of broad allegiance to prevalent social power that runs (not necessary goverment) the state,sort of tribal conformism,a vital component for bringing the people under social order and authority(the state structure formation) cf. Nation-state ) . It's when patriotism starts asserting the superiority,uniqueness or special purpose of the nation/ethnos/tribe it becomes nationalism. Like religion(typically a political, expansionist religion) that argues that other religions are false/inaccurate/inferior/misleading/distorted is not designed to explain faith, morality or values,its just affirming authority and truthiness of it (ex:by denial of alternatives,circular reasoning,etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- Depending on how people excersize patriotism dertermines the fanatic. Fanacism is not always bad if it does not lead to violence. If someone wants to believe that their country is the best, that is fine, but when people decide that gives them a right to kill others, I don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
I don't know about the patriotism aspect, but I would like you to consider adding an additional category to this article - Social Fanaticism. This could include an extreme patriotism, but I would like to see it include references to the various organizations such as PETA, where it is generally considered good to look out for the interests of wildlife, unleashing hundreds of minks on an unprepared countryside causes more damage than it does good. There are numerous articles about this. Also in this section I would like a discussion about Posessive fanaticism. Where the object is to obtain an object at all costs without regard to the object itself. For example, if a mother must have her child while the father would clearly make a better single parent, and then engages in destructive behaviour to make herself the sole possesor of the child, regardless the damage to the child. Theives could also be considered possesive fanatics, but only if they stole the object simply to have it, if they intended to sell the object for money then they would not be considered fanatics.
I think the Apple/PC picture currently showing is great. it is a trivial issue on which everyone has an opinion on. Having a display of other types of fanaticism will come across as biased, especially as a solitary picture will always misrepresent one side. Most people do not like being called fanatics after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the tone of this entry is somewhat negative in its nature? Seems to need work in terms of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriaBen (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
"abnormal or disproportionate"
There are a lot of problems with using the word abnormal. Being smarter than average can be considered abnormal, as it's above the norm. Being highly intelligent, and especially a genius, is really abnormal. Red hair is abnormal because it's much less common than brown or black. Being really interested and engaged in high school History class is abnormal from my experience. Is that a bad thing? There is a mythical worship of the norm, when in fact most people prefer interesting people and those people are defined by their deviations from the norm.
Secondly, "disproportionate" is similarly unsupported by objective evidence here and is instead presented as an arbitrary judgment. Who is the arbiter, who decides what is proportionate and disproportionate? What is this objective universal standard and why isn't it referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)