|
Country bashing will result in bans from 00:20 KST onward. |
On October 09 2011 11:03 PraetorialGamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:01 Elegy wrote:On October 09 2011 10:57 legendre20 wrote:
I'm kind of amazed at the explosion of anger from some people. Rape is a horrible crime, no doubt.. but things like this happen every day. Some people just have no sense of morality or value. The Korean reaction is perfectly understandable. If Americans were not stationed in Korea, these particular rapes would not have occurred. Same pertains to similar incidents in Japan. On October 09 2011 10:59 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:53 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:47 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:45 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:41 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:
This story illustrates the obvious and age old problems that military presence in foreign countries causes in those societies (as well as the colonizing society, in terms of self-image), which is by no means an exclusively American phenomenon.
To say that pointing this out amounts to `America bashing` is to imply that American culture, as well as its image in the world, is predicated entirely on military dominance and the exercise of hard power, which i am sure many Americans would resent. Oh please, there is nothing special about this story except for the fact that it happened to be American GI's. Are you going to tell me a Korean raping another Korean "illustrates the obvious and age old problem" of letting people go out at night? Would you say a foreign tourist raping a Korean "illustrates the obvious and age old problem" of allowing tourists? Immigrants? Do you have any evidence at all that American GI's rape foreigners at a higher rate than one would expect? It's disheartening to see a tragedy like this get turned into an opportunity for people to display their gross biases. Whether or not American GIs have a higher incident of rape than Korean civilians is not the point. Why do you insist upon bringing it up? Why do you insist on bringing Japan up? It's a logical point in an argument. On October 09 2011 10:41 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:38 domovoi wrote:
People's reactions to this story are quite odd. Do American GI's rape at a higher rate than Koreans? Other Americans? Other foreigners? I am quite certain that every day someone gets raped in Korea by a Korean, and yet these alleged rapes have stirred up a lot of emotions.
If these soldiers did it, then I hope they receive their due punishment. But it sadly says a lot about humans that we instinctly turn it into a tribalistic thing. Why? I think he has an opinion he'd like to share.Why the Red-Herring? It's relevant.Why the obsession with statistically proving that X people rape more than Y people? Because it is relevant, being that there is currently no study in place to prove that soldiers commit rape more often.It's completely missing the point. Your point, which is not what I have seen as being a general consensus.And tribalism wut? He's referring to how our discussion turned into a discussion of foreign policy, with two clearly defined side throwing rage at each other...that would probably be you and I. The Korean public outrage has nothing to do with the fact that American soldiers are statistically more likely to rape than Koreans. Therefore it is irrelevant from the discussion. The throw-out of the word 'tribalism' is also strange because BOTH OF US are arguing from the standpoint of the United States. You give him too much credit, even when speaking on his behalf. Oh wait, that explains it doesn't it? Contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, there are some people who find that this is not unusual at all. I give him credit for trying to calm this down. The Korean public outrage is a factor, but the incident itself could potentially suggest greater issues of US foreign policy, which he and I have attempted to address. I might point out that many people brought up the point that the US has bases all over the world and controls many countries, but these people were against such a position. I(and he) were referring to them, not to you. Tribalism is a political term describing aggression with little restraint, though obviously without the violent context that the word alone implies. What? What countries does the United States "control" through its military presence, barring the obvious? Consolidate made a solid point that Korea and Japan must kowtow to the US because of its military presence. Not what I personally would have described it, but...
This isn't the 1950s.
American military presence doesn't control Japanese nor Korean policy.
|
@Elegy: Yes, you're right. I should have made it specific about people on TL or "non-koreans".. If I was a Korean I'd be pretty pissed too. Although we do have a reason to be there... but that's a different subject all together. *cough* North Korea..
|
On October 09 2011 11:01 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 10:54 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:50 psheldr wrote:domovoi, you make it seem like it is perfectly normal to have military bases of a foreign power in your country with tens of thousands of military men - as normal as immigrants and tourists? So if that is so normal don't you find it odd that China, Holland, Liechtenstein all don't want to have a miltiary base of their own in the US? That's the shocking thing. You find military presence all around the world as natural as blue skies. It shows that you don't think about it and have no sensitivity for the issue. On October 09 2011 10:43 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:41 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:38 domovoi wrote:
People's reactions to this story are quite odd. Do American GI's rape at a higher rate than Koreans? Other Americans? Other foreigners? I am quite certain that every day someone gets raped in Korea by a Korean, and yet these alleged rapes have stirred up a lot of emotions.
If these soldiers did it, then I hope they receive their due punishment. But it sadly says a lot about humans that we instinctly turn it into a tribalistic thing. Why? Why the Red-Herring? Why the obsession with statistically proving that X people rape more than Y people? It's completely missing the point. And tribalism wut? It's not an obsession, it's looking at this situation rationally. If the perpetrators were Koreans, it would be a non-story. If they were immigrants, it would be more of a story but not much of one. If it were tourists, same. Logically, why should the fact that they were American GI's change our emotional perspective about these rapes? It's because they trigger age-old tribalistic biases (hundreds of thousands of years of human warfare have created an instinctual bias against foreign servicemen). And I wish we would take more effort to get past that. I do believe that most people who argue that it is not unusual to have something like this happen realize that they are incapable of changing the system, and therefore choose to support a position within those restrictions that they consider to be morally sound. Acceptance is not ignorance. I don't like the US having bases all over the world, but I'm a freshman, what can I do other than write my opinion? Stop having a meta-discussion about the value of your own opinions with regard to affecting real change in the world. This is an internet forum. No one is going to mistake your comments for think-tank policy.
Nor yours, but we're still having this discussion. I can find faults in your argument, you in mine.
By turning making a comment about the phrasing of my questions without any apparent regard for what any other poster on this thread has said, you are displaying a good amount of your regard for your own opinions. Change in the world was talked about. Opinions on the military were talked about. Tales were told of direct contact with objects of significance to this news story.
But you didn't read any of that...did you?
|
Hope the girls are okay.
Like someone said, awful to see someone who's meant to protect you, hurt you.
|
On October 09 2011 11:05 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:03 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 11:01 Elegy wrote:On October 09 2011 10:57 legendre20 wrote:
I'm kind of amazed at the explosion of anger from some people. Rape is a horrible crime, no doubt.. but things like this happen every day. Some people just have no sense of morality or value. The Korean reaction is perfectly understandable. If Americans were not stationed in Korea, these particular rapes would not have occurred. Same pertains to similar incidents in Japan. On October 09 2011 10:59 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:53 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:47 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:45 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:41 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:
This story illustrates the obvious and age old problems that military presence in foreign countries causes in those societies (as well as the colonizing society, in terms of self-image), which is by no means an exclusively American phenomenon.
To say that pointing this out amounts to `America bashing` is to imply that American culture, as well as its image in the world, is predicated entirely on military dominance and the exercise of hard power, which i am sure many Americans would resent. Oh please, there is nothing special about this story except for the fact that it happened to be American GI's. Are you going to tell me a Korean raping another Korean "illustrates the obvious and age old problem" of letting people go out at night? Would you say a foreign tourist raping a Korean "illustrates the obvious and age old problem" of allowing tourists? Immigrants? Do you have any evidence at all that American GI's rape foreigners at a higher rate than one would expect? It's disheartening to see a tragedy like this get turned into an opportunity for people to display their gross biases. Whether or not American GIs have a higher incident of rape than Korean civilians is not the point. Why do you insist upon bringing it up? Why do you insist on bringing Japan up? It's a logical point in an argument. On October 09 2011 10:41 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:38 domovoi wrote:
People's reactions to this story are quite odd. Do American GI's rape at a higher rate than Koreans? Other Americans? Other foreigners? I am quite certain that every day someone gets raped in Korea by a Korean, and yet these alleged rapes have stirred up a lot of emotions.
If these soldiers did it, then I hope they receive their due punishment. But it sadly says a lot about humans that we instinctly turn it into a tribalistic thing. Why? I think he has an opinion he'd like to share.Why the Red-Herring? It's relevant.Why the obsession with statistically proving that X people rape more than Y people? Because it is relevant, being that there is currently no study in place to prove that soldiers commit rape more often.It's completely missing the point. Your point, which is not what I have seen as being a general consensus.And tribalism wut? He's referring to how our discussion turned into a discussion of foreign policy, with two clearly defined side throwing rage at each other...that would probably be you and I. The Korean public outrage has nothing to do with the fact that American soldiers are statistically more likely to rape than Koreans. Therefore it is irrelevant from the discussion. The throw-out of the word 'tribalism' is also strange because BOTH OF US are arguing from the standpoint of the United States. You give him too much credit, even when speaking on his behalf. Oh wait, that explains it doesn't it? Contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, there are some people who find that this is not unusual at all. I give him credit for trying to calm this down. The Korean public outrage is a factor, but the incident itself could potentially suggest greater issues of US foreign policy, which he and I have attempted to address. I might point out that many people brought up the point that the US has bases all over the world and controls many countries, but these people were against such a position. I(and he) were referring to them, not to you. Tribalism is a political term describing aggression with little restraint, though obviously without the violent context that the word alone implies. What? What countries does the United States "control" through its military presence, barring the obvious? Consolidate made a solid point that Korea and Japan must kowtow to the US because of its military presence. Not what I personally would have described it, but... This isn't the 1950s. American military presence doesn't control Japanese nor Korean policy.
As I said, "many people", or more accurately several people, said it. I did not.
|
On October 09 2011 11:04 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 10:58 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:55 Consolidate wrote:
We're not talking about the legitimacy of cultural stereotypes. Nor am I. We're talking about outrage stemming from the symbolic implications of American soldiers raping Korean girls on Korean soil. Yes, so am I. The very fact it's somehow symbolic despite the lack of any evidence that such incidents are more commonplace than otherwise just goes to show how deep these human biases persist. In a more rational world, it wouldn't be symbolic. There wouldn't be outrage, unless such incidents were systemic. Objective justice would be served, much like any other incident of rape in Korea. Whether or not is is commonplace is not the issue. Here's an extreme example of your curious logic: When 9/11 happened, were Americans outraged because Saudi Arabian terrorist attacks were commonplace? Or were they outraged simply because it happened?
Uhm, that's a terrible example. Something that's large enough to make international news no matter who does it, and something that ONLY makes international news because of who does it are different types of incidents.
Nobody would be talking about this if Koreans had raped Koreans. It only matters to anyone because they get the opportunity to attack Americans and/or our military through guilt by association.
|
|
|
We don't need threads like this on TL...
|
nothing we havn't seen before people who are retarded enough to generalize a population based on 2 people raping people without any details whatsoever
what if the Army personnel thought they were older then they were and were charged with a form a statutory rape but they give no details on that?
|
So are people angry that people got raped? Or are people angry because 2 Americans did it? Or because 2 soldiers did it? Or because 2 men did it? Or because the victims were Koreans? Or because the victims were females?
|
On October 09 2011 11:10 pt wrote:
So are people angry that people got raped? Or are people angry because 2 Americans did it? Or because 2 soldiers did it? Or because 2 men did it? Or because the victims were Koreans? Or because the victims were females?
Mostly because they were American soldiers, the race issue got dropped pretty early.
|
On October 09 2011 11:10 levarien11111 wrote:
nothing we havn't seen before people who are retarded enough to generalize a population based on 2 people raping people without any details whatsoever
Happens a lot on TL. There are more people who do this than you think.
|
On October 09 2011 11:07 PraetorialGamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:01 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:54 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:50 psheldr wrote:domovoi, you make it seem like it is perfectly normal to have military bases of a foreign power in your country with tens of thousands of military men - as normal as immigrants and tourists? So if that is so normal don't you find it odd that China, Holland, Liechtenstein all don't want to have a miltiary base of their own in the US? That's the shocking thing. You find military presence all around the world as natural as blue skies. It shows that you don't think about it and have no sensitivity for the issue. On October 09 2011 10:43 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:41 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:38 domovoi wrote:
People's reactions to this story are quite odd. Do American GI's rape at a higher rate than Koreans? Other Americans? Other foreigners? I am quite certain that every day someone gets raped in Korea by a Korean, and yet these alleged rapes have stirred up a lot of emotions.
If these soldiers did it, then I hope they receive their due punishment. But it sadly says a lot about humans that we instinctly turn it into a tribalistic thing. Why? Why the Red-Herring? Why the obsession with statistically proving that X people rape more than Y people? It's completely missing the point. And tribalism wut? It's not an obsession, it's looking at this situation rationally. If the perpetrators were Koreans, it would be a non-story. If they were immigrants, it would be more of a story but not much of one. If it were tourists, same. Logically, why should the fact that they were American GI's change our emotional perspective about these rapes? It's because they trigger age-old tribalistic biases (hundreds of thousands of years of human warfare have created an instinctual bias against foreign servicemen). And I wish we would take more effort to get past that. I do believe that most people who argue that it is not unusual to have something like this happen realize that they are incapable of changing the system, and therefore choose to support a position within those restrictions that they consider to be morally sound. Acceptance is not ignorance. I don't like the US having bases all over the world, but I'm a freshman, what can I do other than write my opinion? Stop having a meta-discussion about the value of your own opinions with regard to affecting real change in the world. This is an internet forum. No one is going to mistake your comments for think-tank policy. Nor yours, but we're still having this discussion. I can find faults in your argument, you in mine. By turning making a comment about the phrasing of my questions without any apparent regard for what any other poster on this thread has said, you are displaying a good amount of your regard for your own opinions. Change in the world was talked about. Opinions on the military were talked about. Tales were told of direct contact with objects of significance to this news story. But you didn't read any of that...did you?
Should I? Or does it contain more of your waxing poetically on the merits of your own discussions?
(Heh. Sorry)
|
On October 09 2011 11:11 PraetorialGamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:10 pt wrote:
So are people angry that people got raped? Or are people angry because 2 Americans did it? Or because 2 soldiers did it? Or because 2 men did it? Or because the victims were Koreans? Or because the victims were females? Mostly because they were American soldiers, the race issue got dropped pretty early. Yeah and it is justified anger imo because to the world, the US Army has a big influence on what other countries think of us. Not to mention the crime is despicable anyways.
|
On October 09 2011 10:30 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 10:24 Klipsys wrote:
I'm just ridiculing those who dismissing this entire topic as an ordinary crime of trivial importance.
No crime is "ordinary", but this one wasn't extraordinary either. Basically, you're using these girls getting raped as an excuse to wage a personal moral crusade against the establishment of military bases in other countries. I don't know why exactly, but that's what you're doing. Then you claim the military is actually, actively involved in the protection of rapists, and talk about a few incidents that happened sporadically over the past decade or so, without any mention or thought to the other possible hundreds that you didn't hear about, that don't do anything to support your claim of bias from the military. There's actually little chance you'd head about some military case that ended with a guilty verdict, because it probably happens frequently. Why does everything seem to simple to you? I don't give a hoot about the morality of rape or US bases on foreign soil. All I'm saying is that this type of event has wider-ranging consequences than joe schmo (Klipsys), can comprehend even on good-brain days.
Except that was never your position, and you only now narrowly being to explain what your whole point was.
|
On October 09 2011 11:04 Consolidate wrote:
Whether or not is is commonplace is not the issue.
I'm not sure why you keep missing my point. I know it's not the issue. It should be the issue, if there's going to be any issue at all.
When 9/11 happened, were Americans outraged because Saudi Arabian terrorist attacks were commonplace?
Or were they outraged simply because it happened?
Are Koreans outraged because two girls were raped? No. They are outraged because it happens to be American GI's who allegedly raped them.
Were Americans outraged by 9/11 because it happened to be perpetrated by foreign Arabs? Americans probably would have been outraged had it been the Irish or a white American (e.g. Oklahoma city bombing), but you could certainly make a good case that tribalism caused Americans to be more outraged by 9/11 than similar incidents.
|
On October 09 2011 11:09 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:04 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:58 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:55 Consolidate wrote:
We're not talking about the legitimacy of cultural stereotypes. Nor am I. We're talking about outrage stemming from the symbolic implications of American soldiers raping Korean girls on Korean soil. Yes, so am I. The very fact it's somehow symbolic despite the lack of any evidence that such incidents are more commonplace than otherwise just goes to show how deep these human biases persist. In a more rational world, it wouldn't be symbolic. There wouldn't be outrage, unless such incidents were systemic. Objective justice would be served, much like any other incident of rape in Korea. Whether or not is is commonplace is not the issue. Here's an extreme example of your curious logic: When 9/11 happened, were Americans outraged because Saudi Arabian terrorist attacks were commonplace? Or were they outraged simply because it happened? Uhm, that's a terrible example. Something that's large enough to make international news no matter who does it, and something that ONLY makes international news because of who does it are different types of incidents. Nobody would be talking about this if Koreans had raped Koreans. It only matters to anyone because they get the opportunity to attack Americans and/or our military through guilt by association.
Nope. It's actually a pretty good example of your terrible logic.
The 'who' is indeed very important in this case.
So what?
Why does it need to be commonplace for it to be an outrage?
|
On October 09 2011 11:13 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:07 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 11:01 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:54 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 09 2011 10:50 psheldr wrote:domovoi, you make it seem like it is perfectly normal to have military bases of a foreign power in your country with tens of thousands of military men - as normal as immigrants and tourists? So if that is so normal don't you find it odd that China, Holland, Liechtenstein all don't want to have a miltiary base of their own in the US? That's the shocking thing. You find military presence all around the world as natural as blue skies. It shows that you don't think about it and have no sensitivity for the issue. On October 09 2011 10:43 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 10:41 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 10:38 domovoi wrote:
People's reactions to this story are quite odd. Do American GI's rape at a higher rate than Koreans? Other Americans? Other foreigners? I am quite certain that every day someone gets raped in Korea by a Korean, and yet these alleged rapes have stirred up a lot of emotions.
If these soldiers did it, then I hope they receive their due punishment. But it sadly says a lot about humans that we instinctly turn it into a tribalistic thing. Why? Why the Red-Herring? Why the obsession with statistically proving that X people rape more than Y people? It's completely missing the point. And tribalism wut? It's not an obsession, it's looking at this situation rationally. If the perpetrators were Koreans, it would be a non-story. If they were immigrants, it would be more of a story but not much of one. If it were tourists, same. Logically, why should the fact that they were American GI's change our emotional perspective about these rapes? It's because they trigger age-old tribalistic biases (hundreds of thousands of years of human warfare have created an instinctual bias against foreign servicemen). And I wish we would take more effort to get past that. I do believe that most people who argue that it is not unusual to have something like this happen realize that they are incapable of changing the system, and therefore choose to support a position within those restrictions that they consider to be morally sound. Acceptance is not ignorance. I don't like the US having bases all over the world, but I'm a freshman, what can I do other than write my opinion? Stop having a meta-discussion about the value of your own opinions with regard to affecting real change in the world. This is an internet forum. No one is going to mistake your comments for think-tank policy. Nor yours, but we're still having this discussion. I can find faults in your argument, you in mine. By turning making a comment about the phrasing of my questions without any apparent regard for what any other poster on this thread has said, you are displaying a good amount of your regard for your own opinions. Change in the world was talked about. Opinions on the military were talked about. Tales were told of direct contact with objects of significance to this news story. But you didn't read any of that...did you? Should I? Or does it contain more of your waxing poetically on the merits of your own discussions? (Heh. Sorry)
I am a natural poet  . No offense taken.
|
I get the impression from most Koreans that they don't like them, and don't want them here. I've heard plenty of stories from Koreans I've met here about how American soldiers have raped girls and gotten away with it.
Really hoping nobody mistakes me for one. ^.^
|
On October 09 2011 11:17 Consolidate wrote:
Nope. It's actually a pretty good example of your terrible logic.
The 'who' is indeed very important in this case.
So what?
Why does it need to be commonplace for it to be an outrage?
It's not that hard to understand. Ask yourself, why should the "who" be very important in this case? Is it because military presence increases incidents of rape? If not, what reason is there to be more outraged than any other incident of rape?
I understand perfectly that the "who" does happen to be very important to those who are outraged. I think they are not being rational. Similarly, I think people who focus on crimes committed by illegal immigrants reflects their own xenophobia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
