|
On September 19 2012 07:11 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:09 Xpace wrote:On September 19 2012 07:05 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 07:01 EchoZ wrote:On September 19 2012 06:57 ChThoniC wrote:
Can we agree that the most ridiculous thing of this all is the hate on the ground because of this?
Nobody deserves to have their car busted because of the country it was made in.
Corporations don't deserve to have their factories shut down because of the pissing contests of corrupt governments.
I think it's crazy how many mindless drones will attack, murder, and die for their government.
Here are the people at fault in these island disputes:
- The Japanese government for being a pitiful representation of their own people and doing unnecessary actions that provoke other country leaders.
- The Chinese government for encouraging violence against Japan.
- The Korean government for indoctrinating students with anti-Japanese hatred from childhood.
- Anyone in any of these countries that perpetuates this hatred and blindly follows their corrupt government. Very well said. I just feel like our government is just adding oil into the fire. Thank you! The Japanese government has had like 7 prime ministers in 7 years. They have all had approval ratings in the 20s or worse, and do a terrible job at representing Japanese citizens. All governments have this problem, but for the Japanese recently it's even worse. ^ This. While I've disagreed with several of your previous sentiments in this thread, this addresses the root of the problem. China should ask the US to invade Japan and remove the government, since the people's voices aren't being represented and are being ignored by their rulers!  One root. Don't forget the other 3.
HEY. You don't play fair. You respond to a post of mine when it's directed at someone else, and you don't respond to my post directed at you. You... you... selective asshat!
Edit:
On September 19 2012 07:14 Reaper9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 19 2012 03:02 Enders116 wrote:
This is just what the world needs...
And now this is the perfect political platform to bring these other two issues to the eyes of the world:
- The Hague convention of 1980 in regard to international parental abduction and the fact that Japan has not signed said convention. See video below for more information.
+ Show Spoiler +
and...
- Japanese hunting of Endangered species (whales, dolphins, etc.) in international waters.
Until these other two issues are addressed and foreigners are treated completely equally with Japanese citizens in their courts in all aspects, I will turn a blind eye to all of the lynchings, pillagings, protests, and plunders conducted by the Chinese.
and I whole-heartedly agree with the post that Kwark made that got in to the OP. @Enders116 You bring shame to my Taiwanese heritage. This is fucking disgusting. Most are normal humans living their lives out, and then the governments play their little games. Disgusting, DISgusting DISGUSTING. This is a competition for limited resources, but for most people, it's this stupid national pride that clouds all justice and has normal, "sane" people baying out for blood. A wrong in history is NEVER corrected by another wrong! I'd hate to see this cycle of hatred spawn just because a person is of a certain ethnicity or lives on a plot of land. Then you say this. + Show Spoiler +Enders116 Taiwan. September 19 2012 03:28. Posts 177
Some places cannot be saved. They can only be destroyed.
That is...that is why these STUPID wars keep going on.
This is really random, but I noticed he has a stream :S I guess you can rage at him there, lol
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=369843
|
@semantics. Yea, it's a big mess. Sigh. When I meant heritage, i meant the good parts, but of course Taiwan had its foundings in a brutal/bloody fashion as well. Make amends, and go on living.
This conflict is a mess in so many ways...old hatreds re-ignited, and new ones forged.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning.
edit: read MisterFred's response as it is much better than mine.
I will add that nationalism is considered an "infantile disease" by Einstein and other intelligentsia including George Orwell and Bertrand Russell.
|
On September 19 2012 07:21 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:15 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:00 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 06:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:41 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:38 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:34 Azarkon wrote:
[quote]
There is nothing ludicrous about it. Just because you disagree with the actions conducted, does not imply that the actions conducted were not justified by the cultural and social condition. Your personal vendetta against the US notwithstanding, the decision reflects perfectly how the world works and has always worked.
A man is not an island onto himself. All that you have, all the opportunities and privileges that you were born with, all the material luxuries and 'human rights' that you are granted, are the product of your country - the society into which you were placed.
To say that this society is merely individualistic and transient within the space of a single generation is to ridicule the temporal and social processes that have characterized mankind's existence from the very beginning.
America would not exist without the near extinction of the Native Americans, which was caused by European colonization. Yet, Americans every generation hereafter have benefited from that extinction, and from the colonial decisions made by their ancestors. To say that Americans today owe nothing to these acts is to engage in self delusion of the highest sort.
Individualist ideology has never been enough to explain the workings of the world, nor the conduct of the peoples therein. Individualist morality has never been sufficient for guiding the behaviors of man. Man are fundamentally tribal creatures, whose actions and decisions are made at the level of social units, units that far outlast their lives. Never has so much been said and my argument not addressed at all. Please read my post line-by-line, because I addressed your post, so you should at the least do me the same favour in your reply instead of just writing an ad hominem about my "personal vendetta against the US" then going on a tangent completely unrelated to my argument. I'm pretty sure even an objective person would be disgusted by the murder of civilians en masse. You've given opinions and presented them as facts. I ignored those specifics for a reason - because it is both off-topic and inflammatory. You've basically accused the US of committing war crimes in the space of a few sentences. I'm not going to address that except to say that it is off topic. Open another thread if you want to talk about whether the bombing of Japan during war-time was justified. Funny. I thought you were the one who brought up the atomic bombings of Japan and framed them like they were the correct decision at the time. I merely pointed out how immoral they were and how your argument--that we ought to use it as precedent and punish a country for the actions of a few--is flawed. That's your own interpretation once again. I brought them up to argue that individuals and societies are never independent. The actions of a few Japanese leaders during WW 2 caused their entire society to suffer the consequences. This is not a fluke. This is the way it has always been throughout history. Individuals are not islands onto themselves. They are participants in society, and when those societies go to war, whether the individual personally agrees with the war has no bearing whatsoever on whether he is affected by it. You are confusing being affected with being responsible & guilty. Yes, every Japanese person today is affected, at least in some small way, by the wars of the old Imperial government. This is obvious. But it does not follow that they should be accountable for those wars. It is foolish for the Chinese to blame today's Japanese for the atrocities of World War II. Doing so is racist in that it applies to a race (socially constructed - in this case, Japanese) a condition (aggressive militarism) inherent to the race. The rioters are advocating punishing the current generation for the sins of their parents while assuming they are ideologically identical on account of race. That is wrong, and for you to consider it reasonable is sad. That may be the way things ARE - but that does not mean you are right. It merely adds you to the vast ranks of those who are wrong. The classic failing of idealism is to fail to see reality, and to pretend that ideals are a valid replacement. Thus they are doomed to never have their hopes for the world fulfilled. Hey look, most people out there are wrong. I should be wrong, too! (That way I don't look foolish.) <---- this is what you are advocating in your last post. Who ever has their hopes for the world fulfilled? + Show Spoiler + I do see reality, thank you. I know the motivations that drive people. I know most people will never understand how they are manipulated. This does not mean I should reject reason and morality. Nor should I become a hermit and refuse to teach. Of course I have no influence over the China-Japan tensions. Neither do you. Wow. Shocker. Revelations. I do have the eyes of a few individuals on this forum, and I hope some of the readers have learned a thing or two. No one learns anything from moral naivete. Your entire argument was a strawman to begin with. Do you really think the Chinese are protesting / rioting because they believe the current generation of Japanese are responsible for what happened in World War II? Of course not. Yet that has been your thrust all along. I'm going to put it simply - the Chinese are protesting / rioting because they believe the Diaoyu / Senkaku islands are ill gotten territory, territory that Japan - the country - took by force during a time of weakness from China. Thus, they believe they are justified to take back the territory by force. They are rioting against Japanese property owners because they want to hurt Japan - the country, and in so doing make a statement to the leaders of Japan - the country - that their behavior is not going to be tolerated. These issues have nothing to do with arcane notions of moral responsibility / individual vs. collective guilt as they are taught in philosophy. They are grounded in a concrete reality in which China and Japan - the countries - are fundamentally antagonistic towards each other. Notions of moral responsibility / individual vs. collective guilt are never arcane, and are always grounded in concrete reality.
Moral principles are culturally relative. There are dozens of schools of moral philosophy out there today. You are talking about a very specific notion of morality based on a very specific conception of individualism.
It suffices to say that not all cultures agree with such definitions. Whether you choose to condemn those cultures, it is naive to believe that your own notion of morality is shared by all.
|
On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:On September 18 2012 17:09 sharkie wrote:
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Yes, they have committed atrocious things. But what country in the world has not? Japan's Rapes and Germany's Holocaust are "the most horrible" ones because they have lost the most recent war.
But we are talking about a country here who has SPENT BILLIONS of dollars supporting other countries in need. You think without Japan Southeast Asia would be as prosperous as it is today? It wouldn't be.
Southeast Asia loves to hate on Japan, yet they still have welcomed and KEEP welcoming Japan's money.
And no, they not only help with money but also by being helpful. How many nature catastrophes did we have in the last 10 years? Tons, from tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. And which country has sent the most help in MONEY, RESOURCES and WORKERS in the world? Yes, it is Japan.
Just ask New Zealand. When the big earthquake happened in Japan, most helpers were still in New Zealand because they suffered huge damage from a earthquake prior to the big one.
Yes Japan's past is shameful, I feel huge remorse and the huge majority of Japan feels the same. So I ask again, why is there so much hate for Japan? Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's. It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field. Why is there so much hate for Japan? Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed. Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery.
I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument.
Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either.
|
Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet.
Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers?
Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public.
Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system.
|
On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning.
No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it.
No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together.
Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).
But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion.
|
On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning.
No, a country does not think. You're reaching here. the country's people can think. the representatives of a country's government can think. the country. does not think.
likewise for hate.
|
On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. How does a country think if not for the individuals? How does a country hate if not for the individuals? And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism
How does a country think if not for the individuals? Leaders.
How does a country hate if not for the individuals? Public sentiment.
And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Other countries.
Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism So? Life is a disease by the accounts of biologists. Does that make it less relevant?
People have been arguing against nationalism for ages, yet nationalism, an extension of tribalism, is intrinsic to the human experience. The unit of social organization need not be modern nations, of course - historically, it was at the level of tribes, kingdoms, ethnic groups, social classes, and empires. But it is never just the individual.
|
On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system.
Yes because we all know voting is 100%-0 right? Cuz myself, and not 51% of the american people didn't want bush in office his first term, but hey, bush got elected, must be americans condoning him starting a war in afghanistan right?
the prime minister even tried to talk them out of it. and not all members of the political office are voted in. The highest member aka the prime minister of japan is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being selected by the legislature. NOT a voted on position. And the sites that were worshiped, were not JUST specific sites for the war criminals, they were shrines that was for all combatants of the japanese military of the time. That'd be equivalent to Angela Merkel going to any war memorial and picking out 1 name on the memorial and claiming Merkel supports that 1 person who did atrocious things.
|
China and Japan need to chill the fuck out. Just saying.
|
On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system.
If you take Japanese politicians seriously you know very little of how far the relation between their "elected officials" and the heart of japan is, "oh i liked his father i'll just vote for him".
On September 19 2012 07:35 Kazeyonoma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system. Yes because we all know voting is 100%-0 right? Cuz myself, and not 51% of the american people didn't want bush in office his first term, but hey, bush got elected, must be americans condoning him starting a war in afghanistan right? the prime minister even tried to talk them out of it. and not all members of the political office are voted in. The highest member aka the prime minister of japan is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being selected by the legislature. NOT a voted on position. And the sites that were worshiped, were not JUST specific sites for the war criminals, they were shrines that was for all combatants of the japanese military of the time. That'd be equivalent to Angela Merkel going to any war memorial and picking out 1 name on the memorial and claiming Merkel supports that 1 person who did atrocious things.
American voting is just as bad but in different ways for non presidential elections barely 40%(about 60% for presidental) of people able to vote, and it's a disproportional demographics, along with how little the popular vote matters not only for federal elections the majority of states will use winner take all sorta of deals for state congress, not even getting into gerrymandering districts.
I wont even get started on how fucked up the national S. Korean legislate works just because it reaches beyond how people get into power but what they do while they are in power.
They are all fucked up in their own way doesn't make their whole nation dammed.
|
On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion.
Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude?
|
On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system.
Actually, some Germans vote for them... and some Germans visit them. This is the root of this "country" delusion, that you think there can be a definitive answer the question "Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines?" Of course the answer is both yes and no at the same time. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous.
To skip a few other questions and go to your last paragraph... actually the very structure of citizenship in Asia is inherently nationalistic & racist in most countries. For instance, both Japan and Korea allow ANYONE of the correct racial stock to claim citizenship at any time, while severely restricting the ability of people without such parentage to become citizens.
This came up famously when Alberto Fujimori fled Peru and claimed citizenship in Japan on the basis of ancestry, despite not having ever lived in Japan before or (to my knowledge) even knowing Japanese. Japan allowed his application for immediate citizenship on the basis of race & refused to extradite one of their citizens back to Peru for trial.
Now you may be thinking, oh, well there goes Japan again. But in fact Korea has the exact same citizenship laws. And in fact it is ridiculously hard for persons not of the Korean RACE to obtain citizenship, unlike how Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South America, Africa, India, much of Central Asia, or North America defines citizenship.* There is a deep belief that the RACE (always socially-defined, of course) is the COUNTRY in most Asian countries. An idea which used to be common in the west, until after World War II. I haven't checked China's laws, but I suspect they are similar. So in answer to your last paragraph - ALL other Asian countries might not be inherently biased to engender hate towards the Japanese, but all are inherently biased to view the world in stark racial terms, the exact sort of racism that leads to an amplification of historical wrongs.
*We generally define citizenship on the basis of inner loyalty - those who love America can be Americans. This is also true in the other areas I mentioned, where generally the requirement to become a citizen is to have lived in the country for five years or so, maybe speak the language, and to be knowledgeable about the country's history and political system. This is emphatically NOT the case in Korea, China, Taiwan, and Japan (and probably the same in other Asian countries farther south).
|
On September 19 2012 07:35 Kazeyonoma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system. Yes because we all know voting is 100%-0 right? Cuz myself, and not 51% of the american people didn't want bush in office his first term, but hey, bush got elected, must be americans condoning him starting a war in afghanistan right? the prime minister even tried to talk them out of it. and not all members of the political office are voted in. The highest member aka the prime minister of japan is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being selected by the legislature. NOT a voted on position.
The political system was developed by the people of that country. Who represents the foreign relations of Japan? The government. I'm sorry but the government is a reflection on the people. Yes I do judge Americans for being uneducated and allowing the Bush adminstration 2 terms in office. And yes I do judge the general Japanese populous for allowing such people to remain in power. Do I feel any personal animosity when I meet a Japanese person? No, I have Japanese friends on my baseball team? Do I treat them different personally? No. But I still harbor this resentment towards the "Japan" as a country
|
On September 19 2012 07:37 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system. If you take Japanese politicians seriously you know very little of how far the relation between their "elected officials" and the heart of japan is, "oh i liked his father i'll just vote for him". Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:35 Kazeyonoma wrote:On September 19 2012 07:28 calderon wrote:Even without that it would still easily be animosity, but do you see Jews blaming Germany no they blame nazi's. China does it every day manipulating history keeping topics hidden from the public or changing how they are told, just look how they handle dissidences and their Internet. Do the Germans keep voting in people who visit Nazi shrines? Does Angela Merkel go visit monuments and shrines to Hitler and other SS soldiers? Blame it on the politicians, but how do they get voted in? Due to a clueless and apathetic Japanese public. Also, to everyone blaming this hate towards Japan on the Chinese education system: do you think the education systems of ALL other Asian countries are so biased to engender hate towards the Japanese? In Korea, the anti-Japanese sentiment runs just as deep (if not more so), and I don't think this is due to complete brainwashing of Korean citizens in the education system. Yes because we all know voting is 100%-0 right? Cuz myself, and not 51% of the american people didn't want bush in office his first term, but hey, bush got elected, must be americans condoning him starting a war in afghanistan right? the prime minister even tried to talk them out of it. and not all members of the political office are voted in. The highest member aka the prime minister of japan is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being selected by the legislature. NOT a voted on position. And the sites that were worshiped, were not JUST specific sites for the war criminals, they were shrines that was for all combatants of the japanese military of the time. That'd be equivalent to Angela Merkel going to any war memorial and picking out 1 name on the memorial and claiming Merkel supports that 1 person who did atrocious things. American voting is just as bad but in different ways for non presidential elections barely 40%(about 60% for presidental) of people able to vote, and it's a disproportional demographics, along with how little the popular vote matters not only for federal elections the majority of states will use winner take all sorta of deals for state congress, not even getting into gerrymandering districts.
Oh I'm all too aware... =(
|
On September 19 2012 07:37 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude?
It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments.
Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil.
|
On September 19 2012 07:38 MisterFred wrote:
*We generally define citizenship on the basis of inner loyalty - those who love America can be Americans. This is also true in the other areas I mentioned, where generally the requirement to become a citizen is to have lived in the country for five years or so, maybe speak the language, and to be knowledgeable about the country's history and political system. This is emphatically NOT the case in Korea, China, Taiwan, and Japan (and probably the same in other Asian countries farther south).
No in Korea, "Must have had domicile in the Republic of Korea for more than five consecutive years." Which basically means if you get a job in Korea, you can get naturalized. I think you gotta take some Korean history and language tests, from what I heard its at about the 4th grade level? (correct me if i'm wrong).
Get your facts straight.
|
On September 19 2012 07:26 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:21 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:15 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:00 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 06:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:41 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:38 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
Never has so much been said and my argument not addressed at all. Please read my post line-by-line, because I addressed your post, so you should at the least do me the same favour in your reply instead of just writing an ad hominem about my "personal vendetta against the US" then going on a tangent completely unrelated to my argument. I'm pretty sure even an objective person would be disgusted by the murder of civilians en masse. You've given opinions and presented them as facts. I ignored those specifics for a reason - because it is both off-topic and inflammatory. You've basically accused the US of committing war crimes in the space of a few sentences. I'm not going to address that except to say that it is off topic. Open another thread if you want to talk about whether the bombing of Japan during war-time was justified. Funny. I thought you were the one who brought up the atomic bombings of Japan and framed them like they were the correct decision at the time. I merely pointed out how immoral they were and how your argument--that we ought to use it as precedent and punish a country for the actions of a few--is flawed. That's your own interpretation once again. I brought them up to argue that individuals and societies are never independent. The actions of a few Japanese leaders during WW 2 caused their entire society to suffer the consequences. This is not a fluke. This is the way it has always been throughout history. Individuals are not islands onto themselves. They are participants in society, and when those societies go to war, whether the individual personally agrees with the war has no bearing whatsoever on whether he is affected by it. You are confusing being affected with being responsible & guilty. Yes, every Japanese person today is affected, at least in some small way, by the wars of the old Imperial government. This is obvious. But it does not follow that they should be accountable for those wars. It is foolish for the Chinese to blame today's Japanese for the atrocities of World War II. Doing so is racist in that it applies to a race (socially constructed - in this case, Japanese) a condition (aggressive militarism) inherent to the race. The rioters are advocating punishing the current generation for the sins of their parents while assuming they are ideologically identical on account of race. That is wrong, and for you to consider it reasonable is sad. That may be the way things ARE - but that does not mean you are right. It merely adds you to the vast ranks of those who are wrong. The classic failing of idealism is to fail to see reality, and to pretend that ideals are a valid replacement. Thus they are doomed to never have their hopes for the world fulfilled. Hey look, most people out there are wrong. I should be wrong, too! (That way I don't look foolish.) <---- this is what you are advocating in your last post. Who ever has their hopes for the world fulfilled? + Show Spoiler + I do see reality, thank you. I know the motivations that drive people. I know most people will never understand how they are manipulated. This does not mean I should reject reason and morality. Nor should I become a hermit and refuse to teach. Of course I have no influence over the China-Japan tensions. Neither do you. Wow. Shocker. Revelations. I do have the eyes of a few individuals on this forum, and I hope some of the readers have learned a thing or two. No one learns anything from moral naivete. Your entire argument was a strawman to begin with. Do you really think the Chinese are protesting / rioting because they believe the current generation of Japanese are responsible for what happened in World War II? Of course not. Yet that has been your thrust all along. I'm going to put it simply - the Chinese are protesting / rioting because they believe the Diaoyu / Senkaku islands are ill gotten territory, territory that Japan - the country - took by force during a time of weakness from China. Thus, they believe they are justified to take back the territory by force. They are rioting against Japanese property owners because they want to hurt Japan - the country, and in so doing make a statement to the leaders of Japan - the country - that their behavior is not going to be tolerated. These issues have nothing to do with arcane notions of moral responsibility / individual vs. collective guilt as they are taught in philosophy. They are grounded in a concrete reality in which China and Japan - the countries - are fundamentally antagonistic towards each other. Notions of moral responsibility / individual vs. collective guilt are never arcane, and are always grounded in concrete reality. Moral principles are culturally relative. There are dozens of schools of moral philosophy out there today. You are talking about a very specific notion of morality based on a very specific conception of individualism. It suffices to say that not all cultures agree with such definitions. Whether you choose to condemn those cultures, it is naive to believe that your own notion of morality is shared by all.
People's principles do change. Yes, there are many schools of philosophy.
And some of those schools of philosophy are better than others. Some sets of principles are better than others.
When I choose to condemn others, it has nothing to do with assuming my notions of morality are shared or not. It has everything to do with defining right from wrong, or at least preferable from less preferable.
|
On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:Doomwish, you are exactly right. On September 19 2012 06:39 Azarkon wrote:
Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? Do you go to work everyday? Do you put your children through public schools? Do you buy grocery at your nearby Walmart? Do you...?
Every act that you do is understandable only through the lens of your participation in the society around you. No excuses that you give about individualism can possibly save you when the sum of the actions of your society come back to haunt you. Should China go to war with the US tomorrow, it won't matter one bit whether you are personally responsible for the war. You will live and die by your society's actions - all the same. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic. It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist. *Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude? It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil.
Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
