Civilization, War, and so on.

[Papewaio]

My comment does not note a relationship, but an identity statement: A is B. To whit: "The whole point...of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization...". The thrust of the judgment is a condemnation. To condemn is to be opposed to the thing condemned. The thing condemned is the nation, its people and 'civilization'. To criticize the identity of a thing is to be anti that thing.

To criticize the identity of a thing is to be anti that thing.

I think the last part is incorrect. It I had an overweight enemy and said that they looked fine and that the best thing for them was to sit on a couch, watch DVDs, play PC games and eat chocolate then I would not be criticizing them but I would be anti their long term health and hence anti that person. (edit: I'm my own worst enemy by the looks of things)

On the other hand if I told my overweight friend that they had a muffin top and that they should pull their finger out and exercise, I would be criticizing them but pro their long term health and hence helping them.

I'm pretty sure the biggest critics of athletes are themselves closely followed by their coaches and trainers.

The issue is that criticism should be factual, timely and have an action plan to resolve the issues highlighted so that it is positive criticism. Also the delivery mechanism has to be sweet enough to be digested... heck most headache pills are sweetened... so should positive criticism.

I do think that it is often one and the same as Tab A slots into Slot B on many an instruction sheet (spent the weekend at IKEA and assembling Babywaio's new bed so lots of building analogy's are at my red raw finger tips). However I don't think it is automatic that to be critical of something is to be anti it.