EPTNo good reason.
Chinese government rules on criticism - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
No good reason. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On August 08 2007 19:51 5HITCOMBO wrote: Anyone who ever ends anything they've written with "QED" is too arrogant to convince that they're wrong. I will attempt to show you anyway. I find it absolutely retarded that you go on about how "parties in various countries" and "Europe and the Middle East... stereotype Americans, insult us, and treat us poorly". I might have missed something, but doesn't your exact argument apply both ways? You're too caught up defending yourself to notice that "hey, everything I just said about them is true about me". YOU'RE the one stereotyping "Europe and the Middle East". Haven't you ever thought about that? Your right about one thing. Americans who insult and stereotype foreigners are assholes. IT does work both ways. But see you don't mean to imply that I'm insulting, stereotyping, or treating anyone poorly because they are members of a specific country or group. For you will fine no evidence of this. I try to qualify all my statements so I'm not stereotyping. Did you see how that statement was qualified? Occasionally I misstep and I don't see a stereotype anywhere but If you find one I'm sorry in advance. I urge you to actually critically read what people write before you flame them. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On August 08 2007 20:38 aRod wrote: Your right about one thing. Americans who insult and stereotype foreigners are assholes. IT does work both ways. But see you don't mean to imply that I'm insulting, stereotyping, or treating anyone poorly because they are members of a specific country or group. For you will fine no evidence of this. I try to qualify all my statements so I'm not stereotyping. Did you see how that statement was qualified? Occasionally I misstep and I don't see a stereotype anywhere but If you find one I'm sorry in advance. I urge you to actually critically read what people write before you flame them. ... What? I simply do not understand what the crux of your post was. Sure, I get the general idea, that you don't think you're as wrong as I say you are, but you didn't really back yourself up well. How am I supposed to "fine... evidence"? Find? Okay, I've figured out the first part of the puzzle (horrible spelling and writing in general), but I still can't find anything that really makes any sort of decent argument. You just kinda blanket statement that you're not stereotyping people and try to qualify your statements, even though the post that I quoted basically said "everyone hates America because of communism", which is completely untrue. People hated America long before communism. But could I ask you to proofread your posts before they go up? It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle only to realize that it's one of those magic eye things where you have to defocus your eyes to get the picture. | ||
|
Ruins
141 Posts
On August 08 2007 18:43 aRod wrote: xM(Z i feel your example servers almost no rhetorical purpose. I could be wrong here, but just show me some evidence of random U.S. bombing. Something other than Iraq please. Name something the U.S. has done that pissed you off. As an American I would really like to know what, in particular, we're despised for. Honestly, looking at the history of U.S. troop deployment and involvement in armed conflict... I just don't see any evidence of random incessant bombing were so famous for. I'm open to change my views. Just show me some U.S. military policy that pissed you off. Don't use the latest Iraqi war if you can avoid it. Have a read, just a sample of US bombings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#Post_Cold_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(April_1986) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6705607.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3297575.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3613702.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight25/4182449.stm And there are many more. I found these in ~2 minutes of Wikipedia and BBC searches. Also, "Strategic" bombing still causes "Collateral" damage, ie, it kills innocent people. The fact that there is an aggressive and "pre-emptive" military policy in place for a while now in the US, as opposed to one which simply defends the US without invading other countries, pisses a lot of people off. | ||
|
Ruins
141 Posts
On August 08 2007 20:06 HeadBangaa wrote: It is much easier to make sweeping statements about countries in the Middle East, and even most European nations, simply because the populations there are far more homogeneous, both culturally and ethnically. How is the culture or ethnicity in Europe or the Middle East more homogeneous? Most European cities have a large mix of cultures and people from different parts of the world, and there are more Muslims, Atheists and Non-Christian people in Europe than the US. The Sunni-Shia fighting between different Muslim groups clearly show that even in a small country like Iraq, things are not homogeneous. Having been to the states, I can say that the racial and cultural heterogeneity of US culture is complete overblown. To outsiders (myself excluded in this case most of the time), most US people seem very similar. I guess the generalization works both ways. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On August 08 2007 20:51 5HITCOMBO wrote: ... What? I simply do not understand what the crux of your post was. Sure, I get the general idea, that you don't think you're as wrong as I say you are, but you didn't really back yourself up well. How am I supposed to "fine... evidence"? Find? Okay, I've figured out the first part of the puzzle (horrible spelling and writing in general), but I still can't find anything that really makes any sort of decent argument. You just kinda blanket statement that you're not stereotyping people and try to qualify your statements, even though the post that I quoted basically said "everyone hates America because of communism", which is completely untrue. People hated America long before communism. But could I ask you to proofread your posts before they go up? It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle only to realize that it's one of those magic eye things where you have to defocus your eyes to get the picture. The initial crux of my post was, people who stereotype and treat (edit, see another qualifier) "all" Americans like shit are assholes. I agreed with you it works both ways. Americans who stereotype and treat Foreign nationals like shit are assholes as well. You made the claim "that you don't think you're as wrong as I say you are," I don't see what you told me I was wrong about. Please elaborate. I have to point out, you failed to do as I requested. You failed to provide any evidence I was stereotyping as you claimed with "YOU'RE the one stereotyping "Europe and the Middle East"" I never said anything like, and I quote you, "everyone hates America because of communism." I said communism was the first source of true anti-American sentiment. Before the second world war American foreign policy was mostly isolationist. Previously, no anti-American bias existed in any extreme form similar to what was seen in the communist rallies. This is a historical fact. The U.S. Communism conflict is considered the beginnings of Anti-Americanism. There was a huge propaganda war going on between USSR and the United States. The USSR won a lot of support with their arguments as did the U.S. The Muslim world generally sided more with USSR as did China and European countries closer to the USSR. Countries in the Americas as well as countries in eastern Europe and the south Pacific generally took pro-American attitudes. At least this is what I remember from history :_;. There were a few exceptions like Cuba, but generally this is considered the beginnings of Anti-Americanism. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
I have to point out that each of the conflicts mentioned were legitimate conflicts where no one can reasonably object to U.S. bombings and presence. | ||
|
Ruins
141 Posts
On August 08 2007 21:26 aRod wrote: Ruins thank you for posting those articles. It's horrible when innocents get caught in the crossfire. It's no comfort to the victims to say mistakes happen. I have to point out that each of the conflicts mentioned were legitimate conflicts where no one can reasonably object to U.S. bombings and presence. The thing you have to understand is, "legitimate" either means approved by the US-government, NATO or rarely the UN. All of these bodies, are controlled by Western interests, and when war is concerned, driven primarily by the US. Much like the "Alliance of the Willing", which apart from being redundant in its wording, pretty much means "The US and whoever will tag along", these bombings are US acts. One man's legitimate act is another man's genocide (Yes, Godwin's law again, sorry). | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On August 08 2007 21:26 aRod wrote: Ruins thank you for posting those articles. It's horrible when innocents get caught in the crossfire. It's no comfort to the victims to say mistakes happen. I have to point out that each of the conflicts mentioned were legitimate conflicts where no one can reasonably object to U.S. bombings and presence. Legitimacy as defined by the U.S. has become increasingly sketchy, though. We need to get back to our roots - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can we attempt to help other countries when we can't even solve our own problems? Let's get rid of poverty and other social problems like healthcare, the national deficit, education, prejudice and intolerance within the U.S. before we start spending resources to help others. Maybe the day will come, one day. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
It steals my thundar. | ||
|
Ruins
141 Posts
On August 08 2007 21:33 5HITCOMBO wrote: RUINS, STOP POSTING THE EXACT SAME THING I DO BEFORE I DO. It steals my thundar. C.C.C.C.COMBO BREAKER | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
Iraq is yes genocide, but I would never argue Iraq was legitimate. But come on Lybia and Afghanistan? hardly genocide and clearly legitimate. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
For clarity, here's the word history of "sanction": Word History: Occasionally, a word can have contradictory meanings. Such a case is represented by sanction, which can mean both "to allow, encourage" and "to punish so as to deter." It is a borrowing from the Latin word sanctio, meaning "a law or decree that is sacred or inviolable." In English, the word is first recorded in the mid-1500s in the meaning "law, decree," but not long after, in about 1635, it refers to "the penalty enacted to cause one to obey a law or decree." Thus from the beginning two fundamental notions of law were wrapped up in it: law as something that permits or approves and law that forbids by punishing. From the noun, a verb sanction was created in the 18th century meaning "to allow by law," but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that it began to mean "to punish (for breaking a law)." English has a few other words that can refer to opposites, such as the verbs dust (meaning both "to remove dust from" and "to put dust on") and trim (meaning both "to cut something away" and "to add something as an ornament"). | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On August 08 2007 21:02 Ruins wrote: How is the culture or ethnicity in Europe or the Middle East more homogeneous? Most European cities have a large mix of cultures and people from different parts of the world, and there are more Muslims, Atheists and Non-Christian people in Europe than the US. The Sunni-Shia fighting between different Muslim groups clearly show that even in a small country like Iraq, things are not homogeneous. Having been to the states, I can say that the racial and cultural heterogeneity of US culture is complete overblown. To outsiders (myself excluded in this case most of the time), most US people seem very similar. I guess the generalization works both ways. I was digressing from the topic to take a quick jab at conventional American political-correctness, specifically, the default-abhorrence of grouping/stereotyping/correlating based solely on demographic attributes. Concerning your assertion about US populace: you draw from personal experience, which isn't very reliable. No offense, but you're wrong. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On August 08 2007 21:32 Ruins wrote: The thing you have to understand is, "legitimate" either means approved by the US-government, NATO or rarely the UN. Umm, welcome to post-WWII, glad you could catch up. (Not saying that the state of the world is positive at all, I don't feel comfortable with the configuration, but for all intents and purposes, this is the reality of the twentieth century). | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
 .It's time to rise up, my brothers, the government is fucked and it's up to us to fix it. Start thinking, and start writing. | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
ahahaha | ||
|
yangstuh
United States120 Posts
On August 08 2007 20:52 Ruins wrote: Have a read, just a sample of US bombings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#Post_Cold_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(April_1986) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6705607.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3297575.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3613702.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight25/4182449.stm And there are many more. I found these in ~2 minutes of Wikipedia and BBC searches. Also, "Strategic" bombing still causes "Collateral" damage, ie, it kills innocent people. The fact that there is an aggressive and "pre-emptive" military policy in place for a while now in the US, as opposed to one which simply defends the US without invading other countries, pisses a lot of people off. Lets not look at the numbers of causalities in absolutes. Here's a hypothetical scenario, we're in the very beginning of WW2. Hitler is in a hotel. We have the chance to bomb the hotel he's staying in.. innocent civilian casualties are estimated in the hundreds. What will you do? If you understand what I'm getting at there, then you understand the importance of preemptive warfare. I don't have to teach everyone here a history class to explain why a defense policy doesn't work. I will however give you guys a few examples. Since we're on the topic of China.. I'll use The Great Wall. The Great Wall of China can also be named The Great FAILURE of China. The 'Wall' cost hundreds of years to make.. it cost millions of Chinese lives to make. The 1 fundamental goal it was supposed to do was prevent a Mongol invasion. With all the immense costs involved in human blood, recourses, and time.. it failed at that 1 goal it was made for, it failed big time. China was invaded and controlled by the Mongols at one point in its history don't forget. Heres another example.. WW2, France.. the French Maginot Line. A long line of concrete fortifications of bunkers and walls to defend against a possible future invasion by the Germans post WW1... FAILED. The best defense is a good offense. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Lets not let another Hitler pop up in this century guys.. or ever again. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
I mean, we can't always be correct, but we can always try to repent. | ||
|
yangstuh
United States120 Posts
We failed in Vietnam because of the same reason the British failed in the Colonies. We have repeated that mistake in Iraq but to a somewhat lessor degree and we are improving and fixing that as we speak. Now even saying that we went into Iraq wrongfully, the fact is that we can't allow ourselves to fail there. We were fortunate that the Soviet Union collapsed on itself in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, but Islamic Extremism and the dictators that use it as their war machine in the middle east will not if we pull out of Iraq. Iraq will become a proxy terrorist state for Iran. The ramifications of our pullout will be so severe that we will find ourselves back in Iraq for a 3rd time and the job will be 10 times harder... it will make the current conflict look like a Sunday picnic. Failure is not an option. | ||
| ||
