|
Also people don't realise even though the economies of these countries have grown rapidly, not all the social attitudes have been as quick to adapt.. But this is changing, ie. more rights for women.. but has no where caught up the economic advances.
Most people don't know Korea was a poorer than sub-sahara african countries in the 60's.. through cut throat survivalist mentality the people picked it self up to be a developed, democratic society. Basically all I'm trying to say is that even those a lot of these nations seem sound economically, they are still growing through many social pains.. which may seem a lot of customs and actions of these people seem irrational.
|
On September 19 2012 07:45 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Hmm. Yes, I was wrong about Korean nationalization. Thanks for pointing that out. That's a big error. My apologies.
Though Korea does still follow jus sanguinis.
|
One that opened this thread for the first time in the last few pages would have wondered what this thread was all about.
|
On September 19 2012 07:53 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:45 calderon wrote: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. Hmm. Yes, I was wrong about Korean nationalization. Thanks for pointing that out. That's a big error. My apologies. Though Korea does still follow jus sanguinis.
I mean, you're not wrong in principle, I think 99% of people in Korea are Koreans and true assimilation is very difficult for non-Koreans . I was merely pointing out that things are changing, all be it very slowly in comparison to the economy and other technological advances.
|
On September 19 2012 07:53 Orek wrote:
One that opened this thread for the first time in the last few pages would have wondered what this thread was all about.
It's about right & wrong & hate & violence. Has been since the first page  .
|
On September 19 2012 07:19 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:11 calderon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:25 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 06:15 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:01 MisterFred wrote:
I think the main thing a lot of people are forgetting is that World War II was SEVENTY YEARS AGO. Punishing people for what their parents did is stupid.
The Japanese alive today did not participate in the Rape of Nanking, they did not use comfort women, they didn't steal or make war. The Chinese alive today did not persecute Nestorian Christians out of existence, invade Korea, or commit other ancient atrocities.
The riots in China are based on racist, nationalist hatred inflamed by the rhetoric of self-serving politicians looking to increase the importance of the military or distract from leadership squabbles/the economy. Vilifying the Japanese is easy, and rallies people around the government and the flag
The mayor of Tokyo is doing the same thing of course. He has helped force this issue to the main stage precisely for the purpose of DOMESTIC politics. No doubt he's considering a run for national office or distracting from some association with the Fukushima debacle, and looking to be the number one politician trusted by Japanese with a politically nationalist sentiment.
It saddens me to see so many TL'ers broadly categorizing 'the Japanese' or 'the Chinese' as unified blocs incapable of individualistic thought. This very tendency to paint everyone in a society with the same brush is the foundation of the racism inherent in this controversy.
The riots & anti-Japanese feelings aren't a result of a minor territorial dispute or WW II war crimes. They're pure political manipulation that's gotten out of hand mixed with good old-fashioned racism. Racism that doesn't necessarily claim the Japanese are inferior - but inherently militaristic and expansionist.
And of course many Japanese' own feelings of Nipponese superiority and the same manipulation for domestic political reasons are also a problem. Not as big a problem of course - the nationalist anti-Japanese movement in China is much larger than the nationalist movement in Japan.
And here are many TL'ers, people from around the world, arguing about who was more brutal when and what country/race is more to blame for... anything. The people that committed WW II crimes are dead.* Grow up, y'all.
*(ok, 99.9% of them) Countries outlive people. Countries DO get judged by the actions of people who are long dead, because the cultural, social, and political environment that result in the behavior of countries do not just disappear after a single generation. Your idealistic view of individualism does not explain why, for example, the victorious allies imposed severe restrictions, reparations, etc. on COUNTRIES rather than individuals. Why did we throw atom bombs on civilian cities in Japan when it was the emperor and his cabinet who were responsible for the war? Why did the German people have to pay for what their leaders did? A country is not just a single generation of people. First of all - the atomic bombs were war crimes, whether or not anyone was convicted. Yet I do not owe the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki an apology. There is no possible way for me to have affected the outcome of those events - I was not born. Nor has being born in the United States magically induced me into having a personality that thinks it makes sense to kill hundreds of thousands. Yes, cultures can be corrupt. Yet they also change. Just as I am not responsible for the nuclear war against the Japanese, you bear no responsibility for slavery (I am assuming you have not enslaved anyone). There is plenty to criticize about U.S., Japanese, or Chinese culture. But to assume cultural attitudes are permanent and unchanging - is racism. The United States has a long history of believing in white supremacy. Such beliefs are part of our original Constitution. Yet we have amended that Constitution, as the Japanese have amended theirs. There are still white supremacists in the U.S., but such immoral (and stupid) beliefs are no longer part of our general culture. Yet by your logic, you bear responsibility for all the actions of the KKK? Of course you don't.* *(Again, assuming you are not a member of the KKK or some form of white supremacist.) You're missing the point. Americans don't deny that the atomic bombs got droppped, nor do you have no knowledge or completely shady knowledge of what happened. I really want to find this clip where Japanese civilians in Tokyo got interviewed on various topics and they were hopelessly clueeless. Its not that the apology is wanted, more the people want them to admit to and acknowledge what happened rather than trying to cover it up. You mean similar to those videos of American civilians where they can't place France on the world map? There's ignorant people everywhere. Anecdotal evidence can always be found... and inevitably refuted. Matters of geography are totally related to matters rooted this deep in peoples emotions and morales.. What I have to go by is anecdotal experience, from my experience living in Japan, from Japanese friends I've made overseas and from things I've read about textbook revisionism, and from the fact that these crazy nationalist politicians keep getting voted into power and have more say... all this leads to be thinking the general Japanese public are apathetic and intentionally ignorant(?)
Or did it ever come to your mind that maybe these Japanese nationalist politicians are telling the truth and your own politicans are believing the exaggerated revised history? Just saying.
|
On September 19 2012 07:58 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:53 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:45 calderon wrote: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. Hmm. Yes, I was wrong about Korean nationalization. Thanks for pointing that out. That's a big error. My apologies. Though Korea does still follow jus sanguinis. I mean, you're not wrong in principle, I think 99% of people in Korea are Koreans and true assimilation is very difficult for non-Koreans . I was merely pointing out that things are changing, all be it very slowly in comparison to the economy and other technological advances.
Yeah, but apparently things ARE changing. And that's an important point to make (thank you).
I noticed, for instance, when I did a quick wikipedia check of Korean citizenship, that the government is now officially acknowledging that matrilineal descent is equal to patrilineal descent for the purpose of citizenship. Which has a fairly large practical effect of including children of Korean national mothers who marry American servicemen in the Korean identity.
The very definition of the Korean race is changing, as seen right there.
|
ffs at this point japan shoudl just be like fuck this, this is a useless pos island lets be the bigger guys and give it up. there is huge momentum in China for that to happen and its not like you can tell millions of people to calm down too easily. and there isn't a reciprocal publicly riotous need for Japan to keep the islands.
itd just make things easier, esp if japan made apology too, like a "we were wrong about the whole raping and murdering thing" then they would be able to sell things to china again... money be important
|
On September 19 2012 08:01 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:19 calderon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:11 calderon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:25 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 06:15 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:01 MisterFred wrote:
I think the main thing a lot of people are forgetting is that World War II was SEVENTY YEARS AGO. Punishing people for what their parents did is stupid.
The Japanese alive today did not participate in the Rape of Nanking, they did not use comfort women, they didn't steal or make war. The Chinese alive today did not persecute Nestorian Christians out of existence, invade Korea, or commit other ancient atrocities.
The riots in China are based on racist, nationalist hatred inflamed by the rhetoric of self-serving politicians looking to increase the importance of the military or distract from leadership squabbles/the economy. Vilifying the Japanese is easy, and rallies people around the government and the flag
The mayor of Tokyo is doing the same thing of course. He has helped force this issue to the main stage precisely for the purpose of DOMESTIC politics. No doubt he's considering a run for national office or distracting from some association with the Fukushima debacle, and looking to be the number one politician trusted by Japanese with a politically nationalist sentiment.
It saddens me to see so many TL'ers broadly categorizing 'the Japanese' or 'the Chinese' as unified blocs incapable of individualistic thought. This very tendency to paint everyone in a society with the same brush is the foundation of the racism inherent in this controversy.
The riots & anti-Japanese feelings aren't a result of a minor territorial dispute or WW II war crimes. They're pure political manipulation that's gotten out of hand mixed with good old-fashioned racism. Racism that doesn't necessarily claim the Japanese are inferior - but inherently militaristic and expansionist.
And of course many Japanese' own feelings of Nipponese superiority and the same manipulation for domestic political reasons are also a problem. Not as big a problem of course - the nationalist anti-Japanese movement in China is much larger than the nationalist movement in Japan.
And here are many TL'ers, people from around the world, arguing about who was more brutal when and what country/race is more to blame for... anything. The people that committed WW II crimes are dead.* Grow up, y'all.
*(ok, 99.9% of them) Countries outlive people. Countries DO get judged by the actions of people who are long dead, because the cultural, social, and political environment that result in the behavior of countries do not just disappear after a single generation. Your idealistic view of individualism does not explain why, for example, the victorious allies imposed severe restrictions, reparations, etc. on COUNTRIES rather than individuals. Why did we throw atom bombs on civilian cities in Japan when it was the emperor and his cabinet who were responsible for the war? Why did the German people have to pay for what their leaders did? A country is not just a single generation of people. First of all - the atomic bombs were war crimes, whether or not anyone was convicted. Yet I do not owe the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki an apology. There is no possible way for me to have affected the outcome of those events - I was not born. Nor has being born in the United States magically induced me into having a personality that thinks it makes sense to kill hundreds of thousands. Yes, cultures can be corrupt. Yet they also change. Just as I am not responsible for the nuclear war against the Japanese, you bear no responsibility for slavery (I am assuming you have not enslaved anyone). There is plenty to criticize about U.S., Japanese, or Chinese culture. But to assume cultural attitudes are permanent and unchanging - is racism. The United States has a long history of believing in white supremacy. Such beliefs are part of our original Constitution. Yet we have amended that Constitution, as the Japanese have amended theirs. There are still white supremacists in the U.S., but such immoral (and stupid) beliefs are no longer part of our general culture. Yet by your logic, you bear responsibility for all the actions of the KKK? Of course you don't.* *(Again, assuming you are not a member of the KKK or some form of white supremacist.) You're missing the point. Americans don't deny that the atomic bombs got droppped, nor do you have no knowledge or completely shady knowledge of what happened. I really want to find this clip where Japanese civilians in Tokyo got interviewed on various topics and they were hopelessly clueeless. Its not that the apology is wanted, more the people want them to admit to and acknowledge what happened rather than trying to cover it up. You mean similar to those videos of American civilians where they can't place France on the world map? There's ignorant people everywhere. Anecdotal evidence can always be found... and inevitably refuted. Matters of geography are totally related to matters rooted this deep in peoples emotions and morales.. What I have to go by is anecdotal experience, from my experience living in Japan, from Japanese friends I've made overseas and from things I've read about textbook revisionism, and from the fact that these crazy nationalist politicians keep getting voted into power and have more say... all this leads to be thinking the general Japanese public are apathetic and intentionally ignorant(?) Or did it ever come to your mind that maybe these Japanese nationalist politicians are telling the truth and your own politicans are believing the exaggerated revised history? Just saying.
Of course, but when much evidence has been brought to light from many opinions in MANY different countries, I'm more inclined to believe that than the thoughts of ONE nation who has the most to lose from admitting what happened.
Also I'm more inclined to believe the stories my grandma told me than what some Japanese politician is spouting off.
|
On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote: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.
[quote]
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.
Whereas I pity you, that you must live with your depressing philosophy. Though to be fair, I've only seen a little of it.
|
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.
Don't worry. He is not Taiwanese. He's just an American living in Taiwan.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula 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. 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.
Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter?
Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth.
On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote: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.
[quote]
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.
Are you conscious of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general.
|
On September 19 2012 08:08 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula 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. 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. Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter? Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Are you consciously aware of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general.
Nationalism is an extension of tribalism. The two are branches of the same basic instinct, which I denote tribalism for the sake of it being primordial, while nationalism is recent. Why do I think this instinct is intrinsic? Because there was never a period of human history in which they did not operate as the prime drivers of human behavior.
When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that.
|
On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:
When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that.
Please Count Chocula, answer this.
think about how tribalism is involved in your life and how it manifests itself. Saying nationalism is an extension of tribalism is not that big of a stretch imo.
|
On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:08 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula 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.
[quote]
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. Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter? Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth. On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Are you consciously aware of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general. Nationalism is an extension of tribalism. The two are branches of the same basic instinct, which I denote tribalism for the sake of it being primordial, while nationalism is recent. Why do I think this instinct is intrinsic? Because there was never a period of human history in which they did not operate as the prime drivers of human behavior. When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that.
Humans always act as individuals, even those who bow to tribalist instinct. The two are not mutually exclusive.
More specifically, the two of us, members of the same tribe, are being pretty individualistic right this moment.
|
man you 2 have been going on and on about the philosophies between nations and people like a buncha dumbasses derailing this thread. None that shit even matters. People/Governments/Whatever all act the same, they do what is in their best interests. In this case, the chinese want what they believe to be theirs, whether it be these worthless islands or japanese reparations, and the japanese want to keep what's theirs, whether it be their own money or their dignity/reputation. None of your "philosophies" have any bearing in how the real world acts or behaves.
Edit: With regards to the current situation, damn shit is getting serious LOL. Both sides need to come to an agreement where both sides can save face. The result for the region is not gonna end well if China wins outright because it's gonna look like an expansionist bully or if Japan wins outright because it would make the incoming Communist leadership look hella weak and make them have to overcompensate in other areas. The thing that irks me the most is w/ regards the acquisition of natural resources, China has been quite subversive(some would say ingenious) in its dealings on its western front in places like Middles East and Africa but on the Eastern side they're acting like a bunch of jackass buffoons.
|
On September 19 2012 09:31 czylu wrote:
man you 2 have been going on and on about the philosophies between nations and people like a buncha dumbasses derailing this thread. None that shit even matters. People/Governments/Whatever all act the same, they do what is in their best interests. In this case, the chinese want what they believe to be theirs, whether it be these worthless islands or japanese reparations, and the japanese want to keep what's theirs, whether it be their own money or their dignity/reputation. None of your "philosophies" have any bearing in how the real world acts or behaves.
Edit: With regards to the current situation, damn shit is getting serious LOL. Both sides need to come to an agreement where both sides can save face. The result for the region is not gonna end well if China wins outright because it's gonna look like an expansionist bully or if Japan wins outright because it would make the incoming Communist leadership look hella weak and make them have to overcompensate in other areas. The thing that irks me the most is w/ regards the acquisition of natural resources, China has been quite subversive(some would say ingenious) in its dealings on its western front in places like Middles East and Africa but on the Eastern side they're acting like a bunch of jackass buffoons.
Hi! Nice to meet you. In what way are you acting in your own best interest by making that post?
|
On September 19 2012 09:31 czylu wrote:
man you 2 have been going on and on about the philosophies between nations and people like a buncha dumbasses derailing this thread. None that shit even matters. People/Governments/Whatever all act the same, they do what is in their best interests. In this case, the chinese want what they believe to be theirs, whether it be these worthless islands or japanese reparations, and the japanese want to keep what's theirs, whether it be their own money or their dignity/reputation. None of your "philosophies" have any bearing in how the real world acts or behaves.
Edit: With regards to the current situation, damn shit is getting serious LOL. Both sides need to come to an agreement where both sides can save face. The result for the region is not gonna end well if China wins outright because it's gonna look like an expansionist bully or if Japan wins outright because it would make the incoming Communist leadership look hella weak and make them have to overcompensate in other areas. The thing that irks me the most is w/ regards the acquisition of natural resources, China has been quite subversive(some would say ingenious) in its dealings on its western front in places like Middles East and Africa but on the Eastern side they're acting like a bunch of jackass buffoons.
From an external perspective, this is an obvious solution. However, the first nation to ask for compromise, is showing "weakness" in the eyes of the people (at least this is the case for China). There really is no middle ground without 3rd party intervention.
|
On September 19 2012 08:43 MisterFred wrote:
Humans always act as individuals, even those who bow to tribalist instinct. The two are not mutually exclusive.
More specifically, the two of us, members of the same tribe, are being pretty individualistic right this moment.
On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:
When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that.
See bolded. My contention is not that individuals do not exist, but that no person is just an individual.
The collective - be it the tribe, the ethnic group, the nation - is omnipresent. The existence of society is itself a case of collectivism taking priority over individualism, for societies require sacrifices from individuals that are not guaranteed to lead to benefits for said individuals.
You experience that each time you pay taxes.
|
On September 19 2012 11:04 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:43 MisterFred wrote:
Humans always act as individuals, even those who bow to tribalist instinct. The two are not mutually exclusive.
More specifically, the two of us, members of the same tribe, are being pretty individualistic right this moment. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:
When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that. See bolded. My contention is not that individuals do not exist, but that no person is just an individual. The collective - be it the tribe, the ethnic group, the nation - is omnipresent. The existence of society is itself a case of collectivism taking priority over individualism, for societies require sacrifices from individuals that are not guaranteed to lead to benefits for said individuals. You experience that each time you pay taxes.
Whether or not I agree with you on those points seem irrelevant to our earlier argument - about whether seeking to punish a society for the crimes of a dead generation is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
