|
On September 20 2012 04:32 Xiphos wrote:
Azarkon, S.Hands, and Caihead: by now you guys should have realized the massive trolling scheme that you got yourselves caught into by oneofthem.
If not, then I don`t know what to say.
Nah, I think the real one who's getting trolled here is oneofthem. Somewhere, a philosophy professor is feeding him this bullshit that enables him to somehow equate nationalism with rape, and oneofthem is feeding that professor his tuition money
|
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home.
|
On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home.
There is a crisis, but war is not inevitable, and the crisis is coming under control.
What we're waiting for now is to see the fallout.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 04:49 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:32 Xiphos wrote:
Azarkon, S.Hands, and Caihead: by now you guys should have realized the massive trolling scheme that you got yourselves caught into by oneofthem.
If not, then I don`t know what to say. Nah, I think the real one who's getting trolled here is oneofthem. Somewhere, a philosophy professor is feeding him this bullshit that enables him to somehow equate nationalism with rape, and oneofthem is feeding that professor his tuition money
it's called a thought experiment. but yes, this void of philosophy is a big problem in china i agree.
|
On September 20 2012 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
but yes, this void of philosophy is a big problem in china i agree.
How is this a problem? Honestly, curious.
|
Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it".
There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore?
On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home.
In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands.
Edit:
On September 20 2012 04:54 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. There is a crisis, but war is not inevitable, and the crisis is coming under control. What we're waiting for now is to see the fallout.
Totally contradicts what I just said >< lol
From the news I'm getting (South China, Standard, mainly from Chinese/Taiwanese news), more and more reports of violence here and there, despite the scale being much smaller than a few days ago, several new places are being hit. Just today a Japanese couple was attacked in Hong Kong.
|
On September 20 2012 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
but yes, this void of philosophy is a big problem in china i agree.
wait wait wait
a void of philosophy in china? you know you are talking about the country where various schools of thought originated from right?
|
On September 20 2012 05:30 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
but yes, this void of philosophy is a big problem in china i agree. How is this a problem? Honestly, curious.
I believe he's trying to say that the philosophical void in China is breeding Nationalism, but that's the opposite of the truth. And as the poster above me said - there is no such thing as a "void in Philosophy" in China, and reading his earlier posts he also seems to be misinformed on several issues in China.
Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience. On September 20 2012 04:35 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say? i don't see how you can be confused. the evolutionary advantages of rape does not confer it moral justification. replace rape with nationalism. btw, that the present society is pretty well regulated when it comes to rape would also mean it is possible to do without nationalism/tribalisms. this is again a straightforward analogy. Yes or no. Is rape bad?
Also my question was intentionally stupid - I knew what your stance is (I think) - but if I have to ask you that then surely you have to understand your argument isn't prima facie? In fact, it reads like a ramble.
|
On September 20 2012 05:32 Xpace wrote:Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it". There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore? Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands.
In a nutshell: Japan is the single biggest threat to security to China. Has been ever since the 1890s. Peaked as a security threat in 1937-1945. Still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping.
Until Japan stops becoming a security threat, China will remain forever vigilant. And if Japan ever deigns to repeat any aggressive behaviors, China will make sure the Japanese language is only spoken in Hell.
|
On September 20 2012 05:46 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:32 Xpace wrote:Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it". There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore? On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands. In a nutshell: Japan is the single biggest threat to security to China. Has been ever since the 1890s. Peaked as a security threat in 1937-1945. Still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping. Until Japan stops becoming a security threat, China will remain forever vigilant. And if Japan ever deigns to repeat any aggressive behaviors, China will make sure the Japanese language is only spoken in Hell.
Are these islands actually important or do you think this is a chance for the Chinese government to egg the Japanese on?
|
On September 20 2012 05:49 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:46 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 05:32 Xpace wrote:Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it". There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore? On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands. In a nutshell: Japan is the single biggest threat to security to China. Has been ever since the 1890s. Peaked as a security threat in 1937-1945. Still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping. Until Japan stops becoming a security threat, China will remain forever vigilant. And if Japan ever deigns to repeat any aggressive behaviors, China will make sure the Japanese language is only spoken in Hell. Are these islands actually important or do you think this is a chance for the Chinese government to egg the Japanese on?
Land is always important, it's a matter of sovereignty...
|
On September 20 2012 05:49 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:46 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 05:32 Xpace wrote:Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it". There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore? On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands. In a nutshell: Japan is the single biggest threat to security to China. Has been ever since the 1890s. Peaked as a security threat in 1937-1945. Still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping. Until Japan stops becoming a security threat, China will remain forever vigilant. And if Japan ever deigns to repeat any aggressive behaviors, China will make sure the Japanese language is only spoken in Hell. Are these islands actually important or do you think this is a chance for the Chinese government to egg the Japanese on?
Actually, I think Ishihara picked this moment to egg China on.
Why did Japan pick this moment, when China is in the middle of a leadership succession and the always sensitive Mukden Incident anniversary was looming, to take the provocative step of nationalizing the islands?
From the Guardian:
Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is – in Chinese eyes – nothing short of provocation.
Linus Hagström of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs further argues that:
Current Sino–Japanese tensions with regard to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands could thus be seen as a result of Ishihara orchestrating the idea to buy the islands. The dominant narrative that Japan was ‘weak’ and ‘lost’ in 2010 clearly facilitated this, because more assertive and proactive Japanese countermeasures seemed to be the logical and most sensible response.
The current Japanese government will probably maintain its cautious policy. Still, the consensus on Japan’s ‘weakness’ and Chinese ‘aggressiveness’ is likely to bring about tougher Japanese measures in the short to medium term — especially if the next general election (believed to take place soon) produces a new government formed by parties and politicians who have profited from criticising the DPJ government’s ‘weakness’. This tendency is stirred by Ishihara, who has stated he will publicly ask the candidates in the coming election for LDP president how they would develop the islands if they were elected and become prime minister.
Hagstrom goes on to write that the last time Diaoyu Islands was in the news, in 2010, the incident:
…was instrumental for Tokyo in eliciting more explicit US reassurances in regard to the islands in the fall of 2010; enhancing the Japanese people’s ‘realisation’ of ‘the necessity’ to maintain US bases on Okinawa; and launching important changes to Japanese security policy in the revised National Defence Program Guidelines in December 2010.
Then after that US SecDef Panetta says
“I’m pretty frank with people: I don’t think that we’d allow the U.S. to get dragged into a conflict over fish, or over a rock,”
So basically it boils down to Ishihara wanting political points, trolling China and risking Japan's safety to get it, then the US stepping in and saying "nope Japan we're not backing you on this", and then China's leaders giving the green light to three days of merry anti-Japanese funmaking.
|
On September 20 2012 04:39 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience. On September 20 2012 04:35 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say? i don't see how you can be confused. the evolutionary advantages of rape does not confer it moral justification. replace rape with nationalism. btw, that the present society is pretty well regulated when it comes to rape would also mean it is possible to do without nationalism/tribalisms. this is again a straightforward analogy. Yes or no. Is rape bad?
Oneofthem said it was bad in his post. "does not confer it moral justification" implies it is not morally justifiable = 'bad'.
His argument is pretty simple, and not at all as convoluted as you make it out to be.
1)Arzakon says nationalism is a product of natural evolutionary processes, therefore cannot be considered bad.
2)Oneofthem says that Arzakon's reasoning is dumb, because there are plenty of examples of behavior resulting from natural evolutionary processes that are bad = not morally justifiable.
3)Oneofthem's example of a behavior resulting from natural evolutionary processes that is bad is rape.
(By the way, I agree with Oneofthem: Arzakon's logic insists that rape is not inherently bad. Oneofthem and I say Arzakon is wrong, rape must be considered bad.)
4)And therefore, we are perfectly justified in making a moral judgment on nationalism or even tribalism. Or at least the idea that tribalism or nationalism is a result of evolution and therefore cannot be judged is really stupid.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i have a rather low opinion of whether some of the 'school of thought' stuff in china qualifies as philosophy.and believe it or not this is a pretty live issue. (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/32595-chinese-philosophy) i do think the masters have some nice ideas, but there is no continuous 'philosophical' engagement with those ideas from the subsequent generations. the imperial practice of codifying confucian thought is one such example of non-philosophical engagement.
but anyway, i was not talking about whether china has ever had philosophy. (i would say yes. not everything has to be organized as the west does it) but whether the present, modern state of culture lacks it. i find that it does. but this is not that different from saying some parts of the U.S. is lacking in culture. they do.
i guess it would be another way of saying, there is a lack of respect for the rule of law as a regulative principle of daily living. i do not mean to say ordinary people in china do not reason. i mean they know reasoning, justice etc is uselesss and go with the more practical power-money axis instead. at the very least, the respect for process of reasoning governing civil and government practices is characteristic of a rational society. there's not much institutional support of that in china atm. having a culture that respects reasoning etc will engender stronger demand of such institutions.
but yea i did write my posts in a casual manner. deal with it.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 06:04 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:39 McFeser wrote:On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience. On September 20 2012 04:35 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say? i don't see how you can be confused. the evolutionary advantages of rape does not confer it moral justification. replace rape with nationalism. btw, that the present society is pretty well regulated when it comes to rape would also mean it is possible to do without nationalism/tribalisms. this is again a straightforward analogy. Yes or no. Is rape bad? Oneofthem said it was bad in his post. "does not confer it moral justification" implies it is not morally justifiable = 'bad'. His argument is pretty simple, and not at all as convoluted as you make it out to be. 1)Arzakon says nationalism is a product of natural evolutionary processes, therefore cannot be considered bad. 2)Oneofthem says that Arzakon's reasoning is dumb, because there are plenty of examples of behavior resulting from natural evolutionary processes that are bad = not morally justifiable. 3)Oneofthem's example of a behavior resulting from natural evolutionary processes that is bad is rape. (By the way, I agree with Oneofthem: Arzakon's logic insists that rape is not inherently bad. Oneofthem and I say Arzakon is wrong, rape must be considered bad.) 4)And therefore, we are perfectly justified in making a moral judgment on nationalism or even tribalism.
Yeah, exactly.
Azarkon's fallacy in his defence of nationalism in (1) pops up commonly enough that it even has a name--the naturalistic fallacy. To be fair, the debate on nationalism is still open. And because Azarkon's defence contains a fallacy, we are perfectly justified in making a moral judgment on nationalism.
I still maintain that nationalism is only justified in cases where the nation or ethnic group is being persecuted or invaded i.e. Jews in WW2, Chinese in WW2. I, for one, find Shady Sands's view of Japan being "still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping" to be ridiculous.
|
On September 20 2012 05:46 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:32 Xpace wrote:Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it". There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore? On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands. In a nutshell: Japan is the single biggest threat to security to China. Has been ever since the 1890s. Peaked as a security threat in 1937-1945. Still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping. Until Japan stops becoming a security threat, China will remain forever vigilant. And if Japan ever deigns to repeat any aggressive behaviors, China will make sure the Japanese language is only spoken in Hell.
I have to disagree with your analysis. I think it's more realistic to state that currently the Japan-US alliance is the biggest threat to China's regional dominance. There is an important distinction between that and security threat. It is unreasonable for China to fear an invasion by Japan or the United States. It is reasonable for China to fear Japan and the U.S. blocking aspects of China's foreign policy.
|
On September 20 2012 06:14 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:46 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 05:32 Xpace wrote:Why does every single page have a new poster coming in and saying "the past is the past, get over it". There are literally hundreds of comments in this thread, spread over 80+ pages, answering and refuting that comment. Do people not even read comments anymore? On September 20 2012 04:53 Joedaddy wrote:
Here in the U.S. I'm not hearing much of anything about this "crisis." How big of a deal is it really? Are they really on the brink of war, or just having a pissing contest?
Just curious since my immediate feelings after reading the OP is "war inevitable" vs the lack of coverage on it here at home. In a nutshell, tensions are really, really high, and it's not unlikely that something will spark a confrontation, which will definitely result in escalated conflict. It's way, way more complicated than that, but that's the situation around the islands. In a nutshell: Japan is the single biggest threat to security to China. Has been ever since the 1890s. Peaked as a security threat in 1937-1945. Still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping. Until Japan stops becoming a security threat, China will remain forever vigilant. And if Japan ever deigns to repeat any aggressive behaviors, China will make sure the Japanese language is only spoken in Hell. I have to disagree with your analysis. I think it's more realistic to state that currently the Japan-US alliance is the biggest threat to China's regional dominance. There is an important distinction between that and security threat. It is unreasonable for China to fear an invasion by Japan or the United States. It is reasonable for China to fear Japan and the U.S. blocking aspects of China's foreign policy.
Invasions don't simply just occur and so yes I would agree with you that "Japan invading China" isn't an issue. However, Japan acquiring islands that are already disputed near the anniversary of the 1931 invasion is about as heated as diplomacy comes. It would be like if America interfered with Japanese's oil intake, which in itself might lead to war - oh, wait that actually happened.
Of course, no one is saying that this is the likely course of events and the circumstances surrounding the events that led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor are considerably different. Considerably. But Japan's actions are not leading away from such a an event and I don't want to put words in Shady's mouth but I think he is saying that if it ever came to war, China won't be very nice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw, ive not said anything about japan. it seems like they have some recalcitrant right wingers running amok as well. that is just as condemnable as similar behavior in china, especially on account of the infirm colonial contract japan believes is deciding on the isles. but this matter is rather trivial and i don't really care who gets some island. the real issue is the rampant and pernicious nationalism running amok.
|
I wouldn't find it THAT problematic if not for the following reason, sure China demands the Islands etc BUT lets say they come to an agreement over it, there is 100's of other islands which has the exact same problem with all other countries and China in particular. Vietnam, Phillippines etc, so even if Japan were gonna say FK IT let them just have it for tension to lessen, China will go on to the next island, and the next one and so on. So no matter what Japan does it's gonna keep tensions high, so it's in Chinas hands to stop this from escalating as Japan can't do shit about it.
The nationalism and also Maoism in China is rather unfortunate as well, if the school system doesn't change this, it's going to be a long period of unstability. In Europe we're pretty much over the Germans a very long time ago, as well as Russia/Soviet but teaching policies and distorted views in China in particular is going to cause trouble for some time onward.
|
On September 20 2012 06:13 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 06:04 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 04:39 McFeser wrote:On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience. On September 20 2012 04:35 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say? i don't see how you can be confused. the evolutionary advantages of rape does not confer it moral justification. replace rape with nationalism. btw, that the present society is pretty well regulated when it comes to rape would also mean it is possible to do without nationalism/tribalisms. this is again a straightforward analogy. Yes or no. Is rape bad? Oneofthem said it was bad in his post. "does not confer it moral justification" implies it is not morally justifiable = 'bad'. His argument is pretty simple, and not at all as convoluted as you make it out to be. 1)Arzakon says nationalism is a product of natural evolutionary processes, therefore cannot be considered bad. 2)Oneofthem says that Arzakon's reasoning is dumb, because there are plenty of examples of behavior resulting from natural evolutionary processes that are bad = not morally justifiable. 3)Oneofthem's example of a behavior resulting from natural evolutionary processes that is bad is rape. (By the way, I agree with Oneofthem: Arzakon's logic insists that rape is not inherently bad. Oneofthem and I say Arzakon is wrong, rape must be considered bad.) 4)And therefore, we are perfectly justified in making a moral judgment on nationalism or even tribalism. Yeah, exactly. Azarkon's fallacy in his defence of nationalism in (1) pops up commonly enough that it even has a name--the naturalistic fallacy. To be fair, the debate on nationalism is still open though. And yes, because Azarkon's defence contains a fallacy, we are perfectly justified in making a moral judgment on nationalism. I still maintain that nationalism is only justified in cases where the nation or group of people is being persecuted or invaded i.e. Jews in WW2, Chinese in WW2. I, for one, find Shady Sands's view of Japan being "still a security threat today due to the US-Japan security relationship (Kadena AFB), and the JMSDF's capability to interdict China's merchant shipping" to be ridiculous.
It seems we agree on much! I already edited the reply you quoted no give a nod to the debate on nationalism being justified.
You also make a good point about nationalism being justified in the case of a targeted group. Though the example you gave presents an interesting problem of who has more power in defining the groups involved, the exploiting group or the exploited group(s). Jewish nationalism became reinvigorated as a result of Nazi persecution, yet there did not develop a more general 'Undesireable' nationalism where those persecuted by the Germans all banded together. (Though again one could argue with my point, saying the support given to civil rights movements by Jewish activists and voters in the United States is exactly that sort of 'Undesireable' nationalism.) Edit: wow, that's off topic.
And of course, we posted our disagreement with the quoted statement by Shady Sands at the same time.
This has been an unexpectedly interesting thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
