Pro-China, Anti-Japan Protests - Page 85

On September 20 2012 06:21 MisterFred wrote:


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.

On September 20 2012 06:13 CountChocula wrote:

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 03:46 ShadeR wrote:

It is not just a stupid rock. This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China. Annoying anti-Japanese sentiment? lol i bet it was probably mildly annoying for the girls who were raped, impregnated, infected with disease and then vivisected.

But hey somehow having Japanese products means you can't have grievances about unacknowledged war time atrocities.
You have absolutely no sense of perspective. Your opinions on this topic are without merit.

On September 20 2012 06:04 MisterFred wrote:


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.

On September 20 2012 07:34 Azarkon wrote:


I am saying that from what I've read of your posts, you have not even considered the different sides of nationalism to make a meaningful judgment on it, morally or otherwise. Your understanding of nationalism amounts to marshaling a series of self contradicting individualist slogans for why collectivism is bad. I have given you a proper critique of everything that is wrong with your perspective. The best that you've done to mine is to compare it to rape.

I'm disappointed.

On September 20 2012 07:43 MisterFred wrote:


Lol, is that what you think you, I did?
It's pretty silly of you to be disappointed.

In the second century, C.E., Epictetus wrote:
If someone handed over your body to any person who met you, you would be vexed; but that you hand over your mind to any person that comes along, so that, if he reviles you, it is disturbed and troubled–are you not ashamed of that?

On September 20 2012 07:28 Azarkon wrote:


The naturalistic fallacy version of the argument is that 'nationalism is moral because it is natural.' My argument is that nationalism / tribalism played a role in human survival, and that calling it inherently evil is forgetting the role that it played in survival, which from the perspective of moralistic principles is a matter of necessary cause. As students of rhetoric well know, the naturalistic fallacy is applicable only when the logical fallacy is capable of being described. An appeal to nature is not inherently a naturalistic fallacy - though it does not stop the uninitiated from throwing it out, as seen here.

The analogy with rape is ridiculous.

The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case.

Appeal to Nature. One aspect of the Naturalistic Fallacy is the (false) idea that whatever is natural cannot be wrong. Hence, if we can find an example of a certain behavior "in nature," then that behavior should be acceptable for human beings.

On September 20 2012 07:44 Azarkon wrote:


It's pretty silly of me to think I'd get a better answer than this from random posters on the internet.

On September 20 2012 08:28 CountChocula wrote:

Azarkon, you never fail to impress me with your tenacity and stamina for obfuscation. You write nationalism/tribalism played a role in human survival, but that's certainly not true. It may have been true for the latter, but you trying to pass off nationalism as well without any supporting argument (any arguments that come to mind seem so far-fetched) makes it look like you're trying to substitute in nationalism wherever you see tribalism, which is dishonest.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Naturalistic fallacy


http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm

Those two quotations are from CSU, Northridge and CSU, San Marcos respectively. Are you claiming that an appeal to nature is justified in some circumstances and is not a fallacy? Do you claim to have solved the is-ought problem, oh master of rhetoric, Azarkon?

Even granting you fairly recent development of nationalism has saved mankind from certain extinction (a far-fetched idea if I've ever heard one), just the fact alone does not grant nationalism moral justification.

It's amazing how you can remain so condescending while obfuscating every single time you get called out on holes in your arguments.

On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them.

On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:
yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered.

On September 20 2012 02:52 oneofthem wrote:
most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics

On September 20 2012 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
... this void of philosophy is a big problem in china i agree.

On September 20 2012 08:39 Azarkon wrote:


I've already given examples of nationalism playing an important role in the survival of societies in a previous post, and given that I see nationalism as the modern manifestation of tribalism - an idea that, again, I've stated in a previous post, it is strictly disingenuous for you to accuse me of obfuscating the argument when the problem is simply that you don't accept my logic with regards to the parallels between nationalism and tribalism, which I have given.



I am claiming that you do not understand what a naturalistic fallacy is. A naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy wherein a form of behavior accepted to be morally correct because it is natural, or conversely, that a behavior is morally incorrect because it is unnatural. My argument is that tribalism has been vital to the survival of mankind, and therefore is not inherently evil. That which saves man from extinction is, by virtually every moral code out there - minus nihilism - not inherently evil. The accusation of it being a naturalistic fallacy is unfounded and demonstrates a principle misunderstanding of logic.

Given that both you and MisterFred love the analogy oneofthem came up with - answer this: is / was rape vital to the survival of mankind? Is / was rape vital to the survival of East Asian societies in the 19th-20th centuries? Is / was rape responsible for the economic miracles of Japan and Korea?

Because nationalism, in all of these cases, was.



When it comes to the end does not justify the means arguments, it is my observation that no practical moral system has ever erred on the side of extinction.



That would require you to establish that I'm obfuscating first. You have not done so.

My argument is that tribalism has been vital to the survival of mankind, and therefore is not inherently evil. That which saves man from extinction is, by virtually every moral code out there - minus nihilism - not inherently evil.

On September 20 2012 09:02 CountChocula wrote:
You're using survival of mankind in two different ways. When you say


you are actually talking about extinction of mankind as a species.

When you are using "survival of mankind" with nationalism, you're not even using the same definition: you talk about individual nations using nationalism in order to survive, which is drastically different from "extinction of mankind as a species". That's one reason I don't accept your argument.

As your argument stands now, I can agree with you that tribalism is not inherently evil. With regards to nationalism, you pointed out some good uses of nationalism, which I also highlighted on the previous page, so I am in agreement with you on that too, but I remain skeptical of nationalism in general, the type in China at the moment since they are not in any security risk as Shady Sands seems to think.

Keep in mind that the only reason the naturalistic fallacy doesn't apply to your argument as it stands now is that you've subtly removed any mention or hint of an appeal to nature in your argument, which was not so with your initial argument, which is what caused MisterFred and I to call out your argument on the previous page:

"The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning."

"People have been arguing against nationalism for ages, yet nationalism, an extension of tribalism, is intrinsic to the human experience."

"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 20 2012 09:05 oneofthem wrote:
i think i've explicitly said chinese nationalism is just as bad as japanese militant nationalism and so forth. when i talk about china i was talking in terms of factual assertions, not judgements that, for instance, violent hysteria found in china is worse than violent hysteria found in japan or the u.s. or whatever, if they do exist.

but yea i htink azarkon wiki'd naturalistic fallacy just in time to move the goal post. let us proceed with the new revised argument that nationalism was politically expedient in the rise of post colonial communities. this is a substantive point that may be okay. it does not however mean that the nationalism found there is blameless in all of its activities. we are seeing the blameworthy side of it right now, and it'd be willful blindness to ignore it.

but, to me, the very need to argue over whether virulent nationalism is defensible at all is shocking. it's well recognized that in-group bias is very hard to justify. there is always the alternative of union without exclusion, which is ultimately the positive argument on the anti-nationalism side.

put it this way, anything positive that is found in nationalism can be extracted and replicated by thoughtful people in a more inclusive community. the expansion of the tribal circle definition of 'we' is the hallmark of progress. to a certain extent, one like azarkon is still committing a naturalistic fallacy of a different kind, that of presuming the matter of fact nature of existing social phenomenon, when these can be easily changed and have in fact been changed. nationalism does not have to live, nor will it.


in-species evolution may not be about survival of the species btw. it's about dominating the weak. what did conan say, "crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet -- to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best." let us not indulge in this easy fantasy that evolution is teleological. sometimes, the bad guys win. you want to stop that. k?

On September 20 2012 09:58 leveller wrote:
It is just unfair to judge a group or a nation that has been spoonfed lies for generations and is incited to rally against the opponent... You see it in every country, for the crook leader to stay in power they need a scapegoat, whether its communism, islam, capitalism, america china russia iran... It is just an engineered manipulation of the people to distract them from their own leader's incompetence and hate someone else. Makes it easier to send your people to die as well, or voluontarily give up their rights.

On September 20 2012 10:35 Azarkon wrote:
Practically speaking, tribalism and nationalism both have their up sides, and to pretend that these up sides do not exist - the way MisterFred did - is to be willfully blind.