|
On September 20 2012 08:28 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:28 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 06:13 CountChocula wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. "An appeal to nature is not inherently a naturalistic fallacy - though it does not stop the uninitiated from throwing it out, as seen here." Show nested quote +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. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Naturalistic fallacyShow nested quote +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. http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htmThose 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? Those quotations seem to disagree with you that while a naturalistic fallacy is not always an appeal to nature, an appeal to nature is always a naturalistic fallacy. 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 (an "is") does not grant nationalism moral justification (an "ought"). Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:44 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 07:43 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 Azarkon wrote: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. Or at least the idea that tribalism or nationalism is a result of evolution and therefore cannot be judged is really stupid. 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. Lol, is that what you think you, I did? It's pretty silly of you to be disappointed. It's pretty silly of me to think I'd get a better answer than this from random posters on the internet. It's amazing how you can remain so condescending when you resort to obfuscation every single time you get called out on holes in your arguments through the use of strawmen (when MisterFred's argument was clearly against nationalism and not tribalism in general, but he didn't call you out when you did your sleight of hand), appeals to nature and now appeals to authority (making it sound like you are the only one who knows what logical fallacies are). It's like you've never considered you might be wrong.
This is such an extraordinarily accurate statement from my experiences of debate with azarkon that it's not even worth dealing with him.
I thought I'd just throw that out there because it seems he has managed to clutter this thread, too.
|
Azarkon, in my view, is correct. His reasoning is very solid. Its funny how when people get trumped in debates they say shit like the post above me.
|
On September 20 2012 11:01 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Another thing I never did... you need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. Don't assume what isn't there, especially in this kind of discussion.
Is that why you called nationalism 'inherently evil' and kept insisting that countries are mass delusions when confronted?
|
On September 20 2012 11:22 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:01 MisterFred wrote: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.
Another thing I never did... you need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. Don't assume what isn't there, especially in this kind of discussion. Is that why you called nationalism 'inherently evil' and kept insisting that countries are mass delusions when confronted?
*shrug* take those words out of context, keep them in context, it doesn't matter. They don't deny the possibility of an "up side." At a base level they're positive statements not negative statements, lol.
reading comprehension...
|
On September 20 2012 11:27 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:22 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 11:01 MisterFred wrote: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.
Another thing I never did... you need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. Don't assume what isn't there, especially in this kind of discussion. Is that why you called nationalism 'inherently evil' and kept insisting that countries are mass delusions when confronted? *shrug* take those words out of context, keep them in context, it doesn't matter. They don't deny the possibility of an "up side." At a base level they're positive statements not negative statements, lol. reading comprehension...
I'm sorry, but I never saw a single moderating statement about 'upsides' in nationalism / tribalism from you till today. It's hard to ask for reading comprehension on this subject after you declared that everyone who believes in the existence of countries is delusional.
|
On September 20 2012 11:42 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:27 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 11:22 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 11:01 MisterFred wrote: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.
Another thing I never did... you need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. Don't assume what isn't there, especially in this kind of discussion. Is that why you called nationalism 'inherently evil' and kept insisting that countries are mass delusions when confronted? *shrug* take those words out of context, keep them in context, it doesn't matter. They don't deny the possibility of an "up side." At a base level they're positive statements not negative statements, lol. reading comprehension... I'm sorry, but I never saw a single moderating statement about 'upsides' in nationalism / tribalism from you till today. It's hard to ask for reading comprehension on this subject after you declared that everyone who believes in the existence of countries is delusional.
You didn't see a moderating statement about 'upsides' because I didn't write one. That doesn't mean you should assume I deny the possibility. Especially in a short-form format like this one.
Speaking of which, I never declared everyone who believes in the existence of countries delusional. And I'd remind you I specifically removed states and governments from the definition of country.
If you want to disagree with me, well fine. If you want to disagree with the imaginary me, well, don't mind if I'm over here laughing at you.
Your last post boils down to: "I made an assumption, what, it wasn't correct? Insult to cover up my mistake."
Which is freaking HILARIOUS.
|
These idiot rioters make me ashamed to be Chinese.
|
On September 20 2012 11:56 KevinIX wrote:
These idiot rioters make me ashamed to be Chinese.
I'm Chinese too... or rather an ABC... same
it also makes me facepalm
|
On September 20 2012 11:49 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:42 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 11:27 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 11:22 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 11:01 MisterFred wrote: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.
Another thing I never did... you need to work on your reading comprehension, dude. Don't assume what isn't there, especially in this kind of discussion. Is that why you called nationalism 'inherently evil' and kept insisting that countries are mass delusions when confronted? *shrug* take those words out of context, keep them in context, it doesn't matter. They don't deny the possibility of an "up side." At a base level they're positive statements not negative statements, lol. reading comprehension... I'm sorry, but I never saw a single moderating statement about 'upsides' in nationalism / tribalism from you till today. It's hard to ask for reading comprehension on this subject after you declared that everyone who believes in the existence of countries is delusional. You didn't see a moderating statement about 'upsides' because I didn't write one. That doesn't mean you should assume I deny the possibility. Especially in a short-form format like this one. Speaking of which, I never declared everyone who believes in the existence of countries delusional. And I'd remind you I specifically removed states and governments from the definition of country. If you want to disagree with me, well fine. If you want to disagree with the imaginary me, well, don't mind if I'm over here laughing at you. Your last post boils down to: "I made an assumption, what, it wasn't correct? Insult to cover up my mistake." Which is freaking HILARIOUS.
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.
Your words, not mine. You tell me how to interpret that except as 'people who think of a country as anything but a mass delusion is a fool.'
How do you wish to be seen on an internet forum except through what you say?
|
On September 20 2012 11:58 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:56 KevinIX wrote:
These idiot rioters make me ashamed to be Chinese. I'm Chinese too... or rather an ABC... same it also makes me facepalm
Yep, my mainland friends are quick to call them SB(傻屄) fucktards who are taking advantage of an excuse to loot and break things that they don't own because they are jealous.
Apparently they are also a reason for some to compare China to Nazi Germany's level of ultra-nationalism.
|
On September 20 2012 11:59 Azarkon wrote:
How do you wish to be seen on an internet forum except through what you say?
Hah, that'd be a refreshing change.
|
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/
|
On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/
China doesn't go all aggro against others, Koreans are siding with China as well this time and taiwan is just laying low for nw (they wanna claim the island is theirs by printing special stamps)
china also used a very interesting way to see the island belongs to the Chinese, something along the line with:
"the island belongs to China's republic of Taiwan, and therefore it is part of the chinese nation"
What japan did was kinda surprising and almost confusing. They acted as if the island really has an owner and can just 'buy it out'
|
This thread has become so difficult to follow. Almost every post is a response of another post...
|
On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/
except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"?
+ Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
|
So we have this cute area full of identified and easy to develop resources. Whoever gets to control the land immediately pockets a huge profit and power. The chinese politburo apparatchiks can't wait to get bribed and hand out mining permits for ridiculous amounts to stuff their throats with more RMB to add a new house to their Pennsylvania real estate collection and cross the streets of Beijing in a new BMW.
The same goes for Japan, where the government mafia in power salivates over the prospects of huge campaign contributions from whichever company will be allowed to develop the area.
This story is not about the some non-existing imaginary concept like "nation" or "government" - or about the common Chinese or Japanese guy who won't see shit from the profits there will be made. He will never go and see the islands, he will not see a single dime from the oil, the islands will never influence his life in any way whatsoever. In the end he will go to the gas station and buy fuel for the market price and it does not matter to him if it company extracted it by bribing one gang or the other.
The governments just brain wash the mass by throwing in the "national", "state" propaganda nonsense to create a feeling in the common idiot that the islands are somehow his. And in reality it is the common frustrated idiot in the streets, destroying all he can get his hands on to get a dopamine rush and dope his damaged brain.
All normal Chinese people you talk to will explain that they have better things to do - go to work, take care of their families and not be a puppet in the hands of a gang of power hungry sociopaths from the party.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 10:06 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 09:02 CountChocula wrote:You're using survival of mankind in two different ways. When you say 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. 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. Given that you accept tribalism is fundamental to human survival because it is fundamental to the survival of tribes in competitive settings, and given that you accept my premise - which, to be fair, I do not know whether you accept - that nationalism is the modern version of tribalism, it is trivial to accept that nationalism is vital to the survival of modern societies in competitive settings. Of course, whether one particular society survives does not altogether determine whether the species itself survives. But that is irrelevant because the premise is that those societies that do not adopt nationalism are the ones that perish. Ergo, survival depends on nationalism. What you fail to see is that I am not making a blanket assertion of tribalism:survival::nationalism:survival without evidence. I have given the mechanisms and processes by which tribalism was crucial to survival in the ancient world – specifically, that of the competitive advantages it conferred to groups of humans over other humans. In the same vein, I have given the mechanisms and processes by which nationalism is crucial to human survival in the modern world, again echoing the competitive advantage argument, which I carefully articulated via the organizational and productive benefits nationalism confers. This argument is not entirely in the abstract. My examples of pre-modern societies that have struggled against nationalism - and in the end, perished or adopted nationalism themselves - simply serve to fortify the case.
Why your argument fails: + Show Spoiler +"Tribalism is fundamental to human survival." (1)
What does that first sentence even mean? Its meaning is extremely vague, and I can imagine it meaning anything from "10,000 years ago, your ancestors had to form a tribe or else they would get eaten by the woolly mammoth" (2) to "modern nations must embrace nationalism to avoid being conquered by more powerful nations" (3). Do you see how the validity of the former is completely unrelated to that of the latter? The reason that you made the fallacy of attempting to go from (1) to (3) is because of the vague formulation of (1) and some handwavey substitution of "tribalism" by "nationalism". This is just an example of how convoluted and impossible it is to debate these matters without making proper definitions.
Your ambition with this topic seems limited to stating that through history, there has been a tendency for big countries to invade small countries, so nationalism is essential for survival. Maybe this was true back in the first half of the 20th century, but how relevant is it today (and to this thread)? Nowadays we have something called the UN which serves to deter and stop the invading country (examples include Korean War, the First Gulf War, etc.). Aside from that, I already said I agree with you that nationalism is good for survival, but only in cases where people are being persecuted or invaded (because your argument doesn't hold water while your use of examples were good). However to just remember the upside to nationalism without recalling the horrors of 20th century nationalism would be tragic. I will admit I may have been a bit idealistic when quoted Einstein saying, "Nationalism is an infantile disease" and dismissed nationalism en masse, but I still think nationalism is the bad way to go in general.
Understand this - the naturalistic fallacy is a moral fallacy. I was not here to argue about morality, and still isn't, except when I'm forced to do so. When I talk about the efficacy of nationalism, I am talking about its practical value. I make no statement about whether practicality ought to trump ethics, only that those who continuously dismiss it need to be attentive to the objective dimensions of the debate, and not content themselves with the refrain that 'nationalism is an infantile disease' / 'nationalism is intrinsically evil' / 'nationalism is for retards.'
Nationalism is the way of the world not because the world is stupid, but because the world is practical. Whether your own high minded ethics allow you to accept practicality is another story. But saying that nationalism is inherently evil because it does not match your utopian views of individualism - that does invite a rather lengthy diatribe from me.
Another word for morality is right and wrong. If we're not going to discuss whether it's right for Chinese rioters doing some good, old Japan-bashing out of nationalistic fervor and whether nationalism is justified there, what are we doing in this forum? It sounds to me like you're pushing your own flavour of ethics called "efficiency = good", "everyone for themselves", "survival of the fittest" Azarkon-brand ethics and trying to pass it off as simply being practical.
If you don't want to ever think about ethical matters and consider such a topic to be too "high-brow", you should at least read what someone who has lived through nationalist movements of the 20th century thinks about it (an entertaining read for everyone else as well): http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
|
On September 20 2012 07:30 Mykill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 03:46 ShadeR wrote:On September 20 2012 03:28 Mykill wrote:
I can't believe chinese are still arguing over a stupid rock in the middle of the ocean. You can't even live on it and the oil reserves arent confirmed. This anti-Japanese sentiment is so annoying, it's just because WWII isnt 100 years ago that people are still arguing about this. My classmates all hate on Japan because they've been taught that Japan is bad despite them driving Lexus/Toyota vehicles and using Sony laptops and eating sushi.
In 50 years time people will barely remember the details of the war just like how we've forgotten about the details in the american revolution and the rule of the mongolians.
“Our generation is not wise enough to find a common language on this question, our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all.” Deng Xiaoping
He was most definitely wrong, the new generation is just more angry and spiteful. 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. Rape is something that happens during war. Nanking massacre was not a good thing however the people have been executed as they should. People need to move on. My opinions on this topic are merited because we don't have anti-german sentiments. It IS a rock, this is about pride, ego and which nation is "better" China has committed many atrocities in war on others and their own which have been recorded as well they are just more ancient. Most of the anti-Japanese sentiment comes from victor's justice. China got their ass kicked and then America bombed Japan so in the end they "won" but not without suffering large casualties. In addition the Chinese are talking about killing Japanese people publicly at an Audi dealership. What is right about that?
It has been discussed to death why there are anti-Japan sentiment and why there are not anti-German sentiments. I'll leave it up to you read the last 70 pages.
Rape with the absurdly high participation rates as in the Japanese army during WWII does not just happen during war. The rape of Nanking and sex slaves (lol comfort women) is entirely unique to Japan at the time.
Maybe my phrasing wasn't great but "raped, impregnated, infected with disease and then vivisected." This shit happened in sequence. Things were so fucked up.
I don't even know if you are responding to me. Your just throwing random things out there. Where on earth did i say death threats at the audi dealership are right??
WTF at victors justice.
When did i say it is not a rock? It is not just a stupid rock. This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
SKorea Taiwan and China all stand together in opposition to Japan buying those islands.
|
On September 20 2012 13:35 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:30 Mykill wrote:On September 20 2012 03:46 ShadeR wrote:On September 20 2012 03:28 Mykill wrote:
I can't believe chinese are still arguing over a stupid rock in the middle of the ocean. You can't even live on it and the oil reserves arent confirmed. This anti-Japanese sentiment is so annoying, it's just because WWII isnt 100 years ago that people are still arguing about this. My classmates all hate on Japan because they've been taught that Japan is bad despite them driving Lexus/Toyota vehicles and using Sony laptops and eating sushi.
In 50 years time people will barely remember the details of the war just like how we've forgotten about the details in the american revolution and the rule of the mongolians.
“Our generation is not wise enough to find a common language on this question, our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all.” Deng Xiaoping
He was most definitely wrong, the new generation is just more angry and spiteful. 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. Rape is something that happens during war. Nanking massacre was not a good thing however the people have been executed as they should. People need to move on. My opinions on this topic are merited because we don't have anti-german sentiments. It IS a rock, this is about pride, ego and which nation is "better" China has committed many atrocities in war on others and their own which have been recorded as well they are just more ancient. Most of the anti-Japanese sentiment comes from victor's justice. China got their ass kicked and then America bombed Japan so in the end they "won" but not without suffering large casualties. In addition the Chinese are talking about killing Japanese people publicly at an Audi dealership. What is right about that? It has been discussed to death why there are anti-Japan sentiment and why there are not anti-German sentiments. I'll leave it up to you read the last 70 pages. Rape with the absurdly high participation rates as in the Japanese army during WWII does not just happen during war. The rape of Nanking and sex slaves (lol comfort women) is entirely unique to Japan at the time. Maybe my phrasing wasn't great but "raped, impregnated, infected with disease and then vivisected." This shit happened in sequence. Things were so fucked up. I don't even know if you are responding to me. Your just throwing random things out there. Where on earth did i say death threats at the audi dealership are right?? WTF at victors justice. When did i say it is not a rock? Show nested quote +It is not just a stupid rock. This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China. SKorea Taiwan and China all stand together in opposition to Japan buying those islands.
I disagree with some of your statements, but let me just limit this post to fact check.
SKorea does not stand together with Taiwan/China in opposition to Japan buying those islands. Regardless of the strong sentiment that SKorea wants to be anti-Japan at every single issue possible, SKorea has never taken side on this Senkaku issue.
|
This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions.
There is no sovereignty issue here.
There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
