Putting family before country, that is.

I love my country, but I’ll tell you right now that if ever I had to choose between my family and my country, I wouldn’t have to think twice. If ever I had to choose between my religion and my country, I wouldn’t have to think twice. If I am ever put in the position of having to choose between my liberty (or someone else’s), and my country, I wouldn’t have to give it one moment of consideration. It is in the spirit of our nation that bonds to country are not as important as bonds to God, family, and liberty — and that we are obligated to rise up if our country should threaten any of those things. The very worst governments in the world are built on the premise that loyalty to country, party, or some abstract mass grouping trumps family. Communist governments used children to spy on their parents in service of the state or country or party. Many governments have banned religious practices of all sorts under the auspices of preserving the motherland. I hardly feel the need to mention the daily encroachments on liberty that governments make while questioning the patriotism of those who would be free.

Not to say that Rand Paul’s choice was that stark or severe, but I can sympathize with, understand, and respect a man who puts family first. If my dad ever launched a quixotic bid for President, I’d probably support him, as well.

Not very interested in politics, though.

That should immediately inform you who the wiser of the two of us is… (Hint: it’s not me.)

to have been a conflict between family and liberty, not family and country. I agree that such is a trickier row to hoe than the conflict between family and country.

The Civil War is a trickier issue, and to be honest I don’t think much of the soldiers who abandoned their families in the South solely so that the Union could be the sole political authority in the US. I have a high opinion of southern-born soldiers who fought for the North and abandoned their families due to heartfelt sentiment about slavery and abolition, but that is again a conflict between family and liberty, not family and country.

I don’t think that Rand Paul setting up and taking down campaign tents for his dad is really a big deal, and I could see myself doing the same for my dad. A vote for President is so statistically insignificant as to be worthless, and Rand is a smart guy — I bet he could see that his dad wasn’t going to win, meaning that his efforts would have little effect on the outcome. I certainly don’t think that everyone needs to share my opinion on filial duties… but it is understandable, no? Especially given that conservatism has always had a high regard for stable, tight-knit families as the engine of America. I can’t say I have much respect for Ron Paul’s politics, but his family life is unimpeachable — and if he’s a good dad, I don’t have a problem with Rand supporting something dumb that he’s doing (God knows I’ve had to cover for my family’s deficiencies and vice versa).

by having any admiration for those damned traitorous bastards who abandoned their right and proper homeland, the United Kingdom, to fight for their families.

After all, patriotism trumps familial ties — right?

Always wanted one of those, though unfortunately there’s no hope of you being as entertaining as Stricia was for acat.

This entire discussion is about ordering of values in the abstract. I used implicit if => then conditional statements in talking about the situation of Southerners; one must consider the antecedent in these statements as well as the separate cases which I note. If you can’t understand flow of conversation, conditional statements, and subsets of a larger set like “Confederate soldiers”, then I’m certainly not going to waste my time getting you up to speed.

I don’t know a single “cocktail party” type who would have as sympathetic a view of the average Southerner of the antebellum South as I do. To be fair, I’ve never been within striking distance of a cocktail party, so I wouldn’t truly know.

As far as my quotes go, I change them habitually as I read or find something that catches my eye outside of RS. Sorry if you can’t keep up.

Also, I hate to bring up my military service since I never served anywhere particularly dangerous or in any capacity that was all that glamorous, but for Keyboard Kommando here I’ll make an exception — I’d be willing to bet that I’ve served my country longer and better than you by any measure, and that I’ve had more contact with military personnel than you have. I’m sure it doesn’t compare to the great patriotism required to post risible pandering BS about the military, though.

And you know what? I said nothing about duty because unlike you I’m not a moral relativist. Anyone who justifies an action based solely on a sense of duty that isn’t informed and thought through is outsourcing their morality; every man in every age justified themselves and their actions in that way — and while I’m empathetic, I’m not supportive of such nonsense as a firm moral philosophy. Duty and loyalty are tops as informed attributes. They are worse than worthless when applied as mindless dicta which allow people to override their sense of morality and informed duty.

The post I wrote, which you responded to, made the argument that many, many Confederates served their side of the conflict honorably for their kith and kin. R E Lee would be included among those. Maybe next time you can read what I wrote (which was obviously sympathetic to soldiers who fought for the CSA — a point that everyone but you got), instead of fumbling for faux outrage talking points like an inbred moron.

you could have seen the abstract principle that I used and applied it to both sides in that conflict, like everyone else involved in the thread did.

Taking a principle and applying it to different contexts is what intelligent, reasoning people do. Only a blithering fool needs every instance of a principle to be spelled out in explicit detail.