|
Country bashing will result in bans from 00:20 KST onward. |
On October 09 2011 11:18 Devilgoat wrote:
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. ^.^ Does it affect how they view civilian Americans? I want to visit Korea to both have fun and better my language skills. Do they tend to generalize or is it a case by case basis?
|
This thread proves that everyone is racist, no matter if you have morals or not.
Hey, I can bring up irrelevant but attention grabbing topics too!
|
On October 09 2011 11:10 novabossa wrote:
We don't need threads like this on TL...
Welcome to reality buddy.
poor girls I hope they can move on with life swiftly.
|
On October 09 2011 11:17 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:09 JingleHell wrote: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?
My terrible logic? Terrorism on that scale, foreign or domestic, is going to be headline news all over. Remember Norway a couple months ago? That was domestic terrorism, and Americans still knew about it.
On the other hand, I don't see major news stories about Koreans raping Koreans. I do see them for Americans raping Koreans. If you're incapable of recognizing the difference, I won't waste any more time explaining, because it's actually rather simple logic.
If people consider a fairly major crime to be international news when it promotes a political agenda, but ignore it when it doesn't, that's a double standard. If it's international news either way, no issue, and no similarity.
|
On October 09 2011 11:22 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm not saying the outrage is 'justified', just that it shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
I understand WHY they're angry, and I don't see the point of determining the necessarily conditions required so they SHOULD be angry.
It's much more interesting to talk about the former, because that discussion is based reality and can reveal practical policy. The latter is just people on TL being angry that other people are angry when they don't meet the standards of their own anger.
|
On October 09 2011 11:23 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:17 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 11:09 JingleHell wrote: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? My terrible logic? Terrorism on that scale, foreign or domestic, is going to be headline news all over. Remember Norway a couple months ago? That was domestic terrorism, and Americans still knew about it. On the other hand, I don't see major news stories about Koreans raping Koreans. I do see them for Americans raping Koreans. If you're incapable of recognizing the difference, I won't waste any more time explaining, because it's actually rather simple logic. If people consider a fairly major crime to be international news when it promotes a political agenda, but ignore it when it doesn't, that's a double standard. If it's international news either way, no issue, and no similarity.
NOTE:
There are often stories about the prevalence of Rape in South Africa presented as a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
This story of Americans raping Korean teenagers IS NOT PRESENTED AS A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
So why the fuck are you trying to prove that which is obviously not implied.
|
On October 09 2011 11:30 Consolidate wrote:
I'm not saying the outrage is 'justified', just that it shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
I understand WHY they're angry, and I don't see the point of determining the necessarily conditions required so they SHOULD be angry.
It's much more interesting to talk about the former, because that discussion is based reality and can reveal practical policy. The latter is just people on TL being angry that other people are angry when they don't meet the standards of their own anger.
From a "practical" perspective, discussing policy on TL.net has absolutely zero effect on policy. On the other hand, my criticisms against irrationality being displayed in this thread encourages people to be more rational. I'm certain the effect is minute, but at least it's of some use.
|
On October 09 2011 11:33 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:30 Consolidate wrote:
I'm not saying the outrage is 'justified', just that it shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
I understand WHY they're angry, and I don't see the point of determining the necessarily conditions required so they SHOULD be angry.
It's much more interesting to talk about the former, because that discussion is based reality and can reveal practical policy. The latter is just people on TL being angry that other people are angry when they don't meet the standards of their own anger. From a "practical" perspective, discussing policy on TL.net has absolutely zero effect on policy. On the other hand, my criticisms against irrationality being displayed in this thread encourages people to be more rational. I'm certain the effect is minute, but at least it's of some use.
I believe I already made clear my thoughts about the meta-usefulness of discussion of anything at all on internet forums.
You point is that people are irrational. They are angry when they shouldn't be.
How novel.
|
U.S. soldiers made some big shit? i am not suprised tbh.. I hope Korean people react to this properly.
|
So from what a friend tells me, these types of news gets forgotten over the course of a few days or maybe even a month because of how common rape incidents show up on the news  . Apparently sexual violence is big or something? Obviously talk about the American military is a problem too.
This is just from one person of course but here you go. He's telling me a bunch of things lol
|
On October 09 2011 11:41 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:33 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 11:30 Consolidate wrote:
I'm not saying the outrage is 'justified', just that it shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
I understand WHY they're angry, and I don't see the point of determining the necessarily conditions required so they SHOULD be angry.
It's much more interesting to talk about the former, because that discussion is based reality and can reveal practical policy. The latter is just people on TL being angry that other people are angry when they don't meet the standards of their own anger. From a "practical" perspective, discussing policy on TL.net has absolutely zero effect on policy. On the other hand, my criticisms against irrationality being displayed in this thread encourages people to be more rational. I'm certain the effect is minute, but at least it's of some use. I believe I already made clear my thoughts about the meta-usefulness of discussion of anything at all on internet forums.
And yet your very first response to me was an attempt to cut-off a perfectly relevant avenue of inquiry. How meta of you.
You point is that people are irrational. They are angry when they shouldn't be.
How novel.
Ironic that you've foregone debating the substantive points and have resorted to a meta-argument about the "novelty" of my points, as if that were relevant at all.
If you want to talk about the political ramifications of Korean outrage, please feel free to, nobody's stopping you. That doesn't mean the irrationality of making baseless, emotional conclusions about military presence in Korea from isolated, though tragic, incidents is off-limits from discussion.
|
On October 09 2011 05:29 Emporio wrote:
Do soldiers rape more often than the average person or is it just that Hess cases are way more publicized? Because I feel like every place soldiers are stationed for extended periods of time, you hear about someone raping a local. And I know that this doesn't apply to every soldier, or even rhe majority of them and there is probably a strong attraction of military careers to people who maybe have social problems.
I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I did serve in the military. I believe it just gets more attention due to the position of the individuals. With that being said some of the people I served with... I wouldn't doubt they are capable of anything.
|
On October 09 2011 11:47 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:41 Consolidate wrote:On October 09 2011 11:33 domovoi wrote:On October 09 2011 11:30 Consolidate wrote:
I'm not saying the outrage is 'justified', just that it shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
I understand WHY they're angry, and I don't see the point of determining the necessarily conditions required so they SHOULD be angry.
It's much more interesting to talk about the former, because that discussion is based reality and can reveal practical policy. The latter is just people on TL being angry that other people are angry when they don't meet the standards of their own anger. From a "practical" perspective, discussing policy on TL.net has absolutely zero effect on policy. On the other hand, my criticisms against irrationality being displayed in this thread encourages people to be more rational. I'm certain the effect is minute, but at least it's of some use. I believe I already made clear my thoughts about the meta-usefulness of discussion of anything at all on internet forums. And yet your very first response to me was an attempt to cut-off a perfectly relevant avenue of inquiry. How meta of you. Show nested quote +You point is that people are irrational. They are angry when they shouldn't be.
How novel. Ironic that you've foregone debating the substantive points and have resorted to a meta-argument about the "novelty" of my points, as if that were relevant at all. If you want to talk about the political ramifications of Korean outrage, please feel free to, nobody's stopping you. That doesn't mean the irrationality of making baseless, emotional conclusions about military presence in Korea from isolated, though tragic, incidents is off-limits from discussion.
My comment about the quaintness of your opinion was a facetious remark, it was not actually about the novelty of your points.
Once and for all:
Why they are angry is by far a more interesting and fruitful path of discussion than: 'They shouldn't be angry because of statistics'.
|
there is a lot of racism going on in this thread
|
Do soldiers rape more often than the average person or is it just that Hess cases are way more publicized? Because I feel like every place soldiers are stationed for extended periods of time, you hear about someone raping a local. And I know that this doesn't apply to every soldier, or even rhe majority of them and there is probably a strong attraction of military careers to people who maybe have social problems.
http://www.answers.com/topic/rape-by-military-personnel
To place military rape rates in context, it is valuable to compare them with civilian rates. Comparisons of the crime rates of civilian and military populations during peacetime periods in 1986–92 reveal that contemporary peacetime rates of rape by American military personnel are actually lower (controlling for age and gender) than civilian rates. However, the data also indicate that peacetime military rape rates are diminished far less from civilian rates than are military rates for other violent offenses. This “rape differential” is also reflected in the World War II data: U.S. Army rape rates in Europe climbed to several times the U.S. civilian rates for that period, while military rates for other violent crimes were roughly equivalent to civilian rates. Thus, in both contexts studied, a rape differential exists: the ratio of military rape rates to civilian rape rates is substantially larger than the ratio of military rates to civilian rates for other violent crimes.
So basically, at least for Americans, soldiers commit less rapes than civilians in peacetime and more rapes than civilians in wartime. Which is what you'd expect I guess.
|
It's preposterous to think that these crimes were a result of the US Army being stationed in Korea. Rather, if we contemplate simple demographic statistics, as bad as it sounds, people are likely to be raped in a civilization, regardless of the nationality/job of the assailant and victim. However, the fact that it happened twice will undoubtedly make the issue quite a big deal larger. I suppose my point is that you can't really add this into the equation when weigh pros and cons of US occupancy. To be quite honest, the S. Korea - America bond is one of the strongest alliances in the modern era, and our dependence upon one another outweighs these unfortunate 'collateral damages' if you will. Just indict the dregs of military society, and if found guilty, remove them from said society and resume productivity in my opinion.
|
United States24768 Posts
On October 09 2011 10:35 Pawn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 05:33 micronesia wrote:On October 09 2011 05:30 Bleak wrote:
Wow, there are still 50.000 soldiers in Japan. I guess once US enters somewhere they don't ever go back. Japan isn't really the typical case. Look into what was decided after WW2 regarding the role of Japan in the world. Couple of things that need pointing out here. 1) This is absolutely the normal case. The United States has always left troops stationed in a country they have defeated in a war. (Note Germany, Italy, Russia is actually an exception, as they were an ally at the end of the war. You will see the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a constant through U.S. History.
Oh I agree with this.
I'm just saying Japan is particularly high on the list (and Germany) compared to most other countries (except for those very recently in the news: Iraq/Afghanistan). The USA also ensured certain limitations were imposed on certain countries (Japan) and not others.
|
What I don't understand is why the soldiers have to physically be there. It's not like modern technology doesn't allow you to travel there in a heartbeat anyway if a full out war would break out.
I'm not being critical of it or anything, I'd just like someone with some insight to answere it for me, because the NK threat seems irrelevant.
Or are they all sailors and pilots for ships and aircraft carriers docked there?
Edit: The armed forces in a foreign country will always be representatives for the nation. I don't quite understand what benefit they are for either country considering they sooner or later are bound to do something stupid, and that'll just negatively affect relations.
|
Motherfuckers should be executed on TV live after they were given a chance to beg for forgiveness. Bullet to the head and cover that trash with some dirt. Disgusting.
|
On October 09 2011 11:22 TheRPGAddict wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 11:18 Devilgoat wrote:
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. ^.^ Does it affect how they view civilian Americans? I want to visit Korea to both have fun and better my language skills. Do they tend to generalize or is it a case by case basis?
Hahahah what is this I dont even...
You're asking a random Korean to generalize the Korean population, and whether this homogenous group generalize Americans? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
