E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
There's a neurosis in there somewhere, and that dangerous.
The Americans seem to take this 'in-yer-face' patriotism seriously. I recall going to a baseball game once (utterly boring, by the way) and being amazed at all the hand on heart stuff: truly cringeworthy!
In where?
Ochlocracy.
So if a majority might hold an opinion that might be stoked up by n appeal to uniformity that would be ochocracy and in addition a sign of neuroses in your view?
Muslims going AWOL when Mohammed is depicted in cartoons and the like.
It depends on the emotional motivations it has. What the Americans have with their flag and all that is similar to the Muslims going AWOL when Mohammed is depicted in cartoons and the like. The fact that they are not tested on this, because they are a powerful nation, doesn't negate the fact that this is hovering below the surface.
Why don't we just say "mob rule" instead of using high falutin' words that most of us have to look up?
"AWOL" is clearly wrong in this context. The closest I could come up with was "apeshit".
and surely is similar to any unique cultural claims. Any statement about 'emotional motivations' and their worth or not is surely simple assertion?
My last post was a reference to unconscious forces i.e. they run the people not the other way round. We saw this kind of thing with the Nazis and the complicity of the German people. That is what ochlocracy essentially refers to.
and that is the point I was challenging. Surely on that basis it becomes a description nothing more? All cultures are a subject of unconscious forces, rather Luke the emergent properties being discussed elsewhere?
But some reach a tipping point where a kind of madness follows, a rage or outburst of violence.
which if you are using description is then an argumentum ad consequentiam
