The General Conversation Area
- Thread starter Tachi
- Start date
Tachi said:Wow, i don't post a minimum of 3 posts a day and suddenly i'm strikken from the history books?
Who're you again? Why are you here? Who let him through the gates more importantly? GUARDS, oh wait, i am one.
So what do i get for being on here since 2005, posting just over 5.5k, and being promoted to admin? if i don't at least get to own an island, or have one named after me, i will be disappointed. A gundam/mech of some sorts wouldn't go amiss either.
Vashdaman
Za Warudo
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012- ... s-top-spot
lool, I see you Illmae! Don't worry shun, they just playahating you, you still the big dawg.
On a separate note, I've been reading Shintaro Ishihara's (the governor of Tokyo) wiki. wowsers, take a look at the 'Views on foreigners in Japan' and 'Controversial statements' sections. He sounds so bigoted I would have actually believed it was a joke.
He was insane enough to make this statement in a womens magazine :
The man is also a firm denier of Nanking massacre and must be off his rocker, yet he's been Governor since 1999 :?
lool, I see you Illmae! Don't worry shun, they just playahating you, you still the big dawg.
On a separate note, I've been reading Shintaro Ishihara's (the governor of Tokyo) wiki. wowsers, take a look at the 'Views on foreigners in Japan' and 'Controversial statements' sections. He sounds so bigoted I would have actually believed it was a joke.
He was insane enough to make this statement in a womens magazine :
!!!! And to help smooth things over afterwards, he then goes and accuses the people who criticized that statement of being
The man is also a firm denier of Nanking massacre and must be off his rocker, yet he's been Governor since 1999 :?
ayase
State Alchemist
I read Ishihara's wiki article myself a while back after being linked to it from the article on Yukio Mishima, due to there being a picture of the two of them together (wiki walks and their timewasting, damn it). I did have a hearty chuckle at the hilariously un-PC "old women" comment. Still, that's the kind of leader you get if you want to preserve your country's national identity vash! ;P
Alarming though some of his views may be, it's not as though he's actually in much of a position to do anything about them as Governor of Tokyo (one wonders if his Party pointed him towards that position to keep him happy and in the public spotlight but away from national politics, a bit like the Tories have done with Boris). Still, his Nationalist views are in some ways understandable as I don't imagine any of us can comprehend what it's like to see your country reduced from a strong, flag-waving militaristic Empire to an occupied country which to this day isn't allowed it's own army under a constitution written by the Americans. Personally I'm surprised there isn't more Nationalism in Japan. It may of course be the case that there is, and that it's just kept hidden under the surface... until it's time to elect the Governor of Tokyo?
Alarming though some of his views may be, it's not as though he's actually in much of a position to do anything about them as Governor of Tokyo (one wonders if his Party pointed him towards that position to keep him happy and in the public spotlight but away from national politics, a bit like the Tories have done with Boris). Still, his Nationalist views are in some ways understandable as I don't imagine any of us can comprehend what it's like to see your country reduced from a strong, flag-waving militaristic Empire to an occupied country which to this day isn't allowed it's own army under a constitution written by the Americans. Personally I'm surprised there isn't more Nationalism in Japan. It may of course be the case that there is, and that it's just kept hidden under the surface... until it's time to elect the Governor of Tokyo?
ayase
State Alchemist
War is war, I think if people are to stand any chance of winning honour has to go out the window. For good or ill, the Geneva Convention is the reason wars are virtually unwinnable now.Mutsumi said:
And Pearl Harbour wasn't exactly provoked in the first place, was it? Nor was a declaration of war served beforehand. Even if you hold the view that the American refusal to supply oil to Japan was justification enough, the way the Japanese had been behaving in their colonies and the war with China was hardly "honourable".
I don't defend what the Japanese have done in other wars either. The ends rarely justify the means. In the case of bombing civilians, it is not justified. The US should have bombed military targets, not civilian ones; military personnel signed up for these risks, civilians are innocent.
ayase
State Alchemist
We intentionally bombed Berlin before any British city had been specifically targeted. Encouraging the enemy to bomb cities also has the effect of splitting their attacks between military and civilian targets, rather than being 100% focused on the military targets (and therefore more effective). It's good for your military if the enemy is attacking civilian targets instead. Our leaders sacrificed many civilians in several countries including our own in order to win the War (not to mention the fact that most of the military then was conscripted anyway - how is it any more justifiable to attack conscripted soldiers than civilians?) Was any of it morally justifiable? Probably not. Am I glad they did it? Yes I am.
Like I say, war is war. It's not some sort of game with rules to be followed like cricket or chess, even if that's how current international law treats it. It's a lot easier for a general to win a war if they're instructed to employ any means in order to do so, rather than being instructed to win as long as they follow a certain set of rules. The side which tends to win in such a situation tends to be the one which doesn't follow the rules. If your back is against the wall you don't say "fair enough chaps, you win this war", you keep fighting using as many dirty tactics as you can. You might say the Americans used dirty tactics from the beginning - Fair enough criticism, but they also won!
Like I say, war is war. It's not some sort of game with rules to be followed like cricket or chess, even if that's how current international law treats it. It's a lot easier for a general to win a war if they're instructed to employ any means in order to do so, rather than being instructed to win as long as they follow a certain set of rules. The side which tends to win in such a situation tends to be the one which doesn't follow the rules. If your back is against the wall you don't say "fair enough chaps, you win this war", you keep fighting using as many dirty tactics as you can. You might say the Americans used dirty tactics from the beginning - Fair enough criticism, but they also won!
MaxonTreik
Chuunibyou
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Et0Bssnm1mw?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Et0Bssnm1mw?version=3&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
"We'll free the **** out of you!".
"We'll free the **** out of you!".
Vashdaman
Za Warudo
Well haven't English men of a similar age seen a slightly similar sort of thing. They've gone from seeing a globe dominated by British flags to a world where Britain practically acts as a whipping boy for the states. Still doesn't excuse that guys utter stupidity, I mean claiming the Nanking massacre was anti Japanese propaganda created by the Chinese isn't much different from claiming that the Jews made up all the stories about concentration camps (maybe aside from the fact that admittedly the actual number of lives lost in Nanking is a real point of contention).
But yeah it is true that much like Boris, he doesn't have any considerable power, though it still boogles my mind that people are voting him. I think there is still a fair bit of nationalism in Japan (though it's probably 90% from the older generations). I mean the whole situation with China is just ridiculous, why can they still not bring themselves to properly apologize for some of the horrendous things they did, but instead a surprising amount of politicians just out an out deny things like the Nanking massacre ever happening.
I also have to agree with Muts on the issue of civilian causalities in war, I don't think it's justified, and I certainly don't think America's dropping of the atomic bomb was justified. But then, these things seem to happen in every large scale war, and that's probably why I'm more of a pacifist at heart. I don't believe that if we continue indiscriminately killing 'enemies' just for the sake of it that anything will ever change in the long run. And I certainly don't buy the ******** people usually spout about war being necessary to effect any kind meaningful change.
ayase
State Alchemist
I think it's a bit different here because there's the acknowledgement that we gave up the Empire to save the country after the War - we simply couldn't afford it any more. Loss of Empire was the price we paid in order to win a war, it was the price Japan paid for losing. There's bound to be some resentment of that, and there is also a victor to blame for it. Britain doesn't have that, as granting the colonies independence was in most cases our decision.
Denial of things which can be proved is a difficult one. I've always held to the line that if people should be locked up for Holocaust denial, they should be locked up for denying evolution as well. People can (and do) believe whatever they want regardless of the facts.
I agree we shouldn't start wars, and we certainly shouldn't be the aggressor against other countries which have taken no aggressive action against us. But once you're in a war, you're in it to win. People might keep up a pretence of rules and morals but ultimately there aren't any, really, when that much is at stake. Even in terms of an individual, if your life or that of someone you care about was at stake. Would you follow the rules? Rules are something humanity has created for itself, not something governed by the laws of the universe, and as such they are very easily broken.
Denial of things which can be proved is a difficult one. I've always held to the line that if people should be locked up for Holocaust denial, they should be locked up for denying evolution as well. People can (and do) believe whatever they want regardless of the facts.
I agree we shouldn't start wars, and we certainly shouldn't be the aggressor against other countries which have taken no aggressive action against us. But once you're in a war, you're in it to win. People might keep up a pretence of rules and morals but ultimately there aren't any, really, when that much is at stake. Even in terms of an individual, if your life or that of someone you care about was at stake. Would you follow the rules? Rules are something humanity has created for itself, not something governed by the laws of the universe, and as such they are very easily broken.
Vashdaman
Za Warudo
Well strictly speaking Evolution has a lot less hard evidence to call on than the Holocaust does ( not that I necessarily completely refute evolution- it's more that I'm just not all that interested by it). Though obviously I wouldn't want either of those people locked up, their just absolute nutcases (the holocaust deniers, not necessarily the evolution deniers) , which was all my point was. Mind you I'm sure many would call me a nutcase due some of my beliefs lol! However, the difference would be that those who call me a nutcase would be wrong :|
I agree that human morals and rules are not that of nature, but then I would also argue that most people's natural unconditioned reaction to vast amounts of unnecessary murder would be one of disgust. And anyway, as fully sentient humans we have the option to not be slaves to our more unsightly impulses and choose a higher path. Thats what separates us from animals.
I agree that human morals and rules are not that of nature, but then I would also argue that most people's natural unconditioned reaction to vast amounts of unnecessary murder would be one of disgust. And anyway, as fully sentient humans we have the option to not be slaves to our more unsightly impulses and choose a higher path. Thats what separates us from animals.
ayase
State Alchemist
I don't really want to get into how anyone with half a brain who is actually willing to study evolution would come to the conclusion that it is obviously provable, and if they don't they are either lying to themselves and others in order to protect otherwise held beliefs, or simply too stupid to understand it. But it looks like I have. Whoops. Also, we can actually observe it happening which unless you invent a time machine you can't do with genocides from 70 years ago. If people really have to believe in a creator the very least they can do is to believe that said creator put evolution into action, so far-gone is disbelieving evolution in the incomprehensible self-delusion stakes.
Non-violence and the response to violence is something which has always bothered me. The problem I see with pacifism and turning the other cheek is that in the face of an enemy who doesn't practice those beliefs, you're dead. "Fine" you might say, "if they kill me then so be it" But then just as dead is your pacifist philosophy, your society's children will grow up learning not the ways of pacifism, but the ideology of the aggressor. This being the case, I think the most sensible way to go about war is to not go looking for fights, but if threatened we need to be able to offer a response equal to (or ideally greater than) that of those who would initiate hostilities. Mutual Assured Destruction worked quite well I thought. The Soviets and the Americans knew that if they pressed that button, they were just as done for as their enemy, and so neither interfered in each other's way of life for fear of provoking that all around destruction. It's fairly obvious why Iran and North Korea want the Bomb - Not with the intention of destroying anyone but to stop other countries thinking they can meddle in their affairs. It's also the reason I think everyone should carry a gun - You don't need to use it unless somebody tries to f*ck with you, but that way nobody f*cks with anyone because they don't want to die. The guns stay in their holsters, the missiles stay in their silos and everybody is safer as a result.
Yes, I've got unpopular opinions by the boatload for you today.
Non-violence and the response to violence is something which has always bothered me. The problem I see with pacifism and turning the other cheek is that in the face of an enemy who doesn't practice those beliefs, you're dead. "Fine" you might say, "if they kill me then so be it" But then just as dead is your pacifist philosophy, your society's children will grow up learning not the ways of pacifism, but the ideology of the aggressor. This being the case, I think the most sensible way to go about war is to not go looking for fights, but if threatened we need to be able to offer a response equal to (or ideally greater than) that of those who would initiate hostilities. Mutual Assured Destruction worked quite well I thought. The Soviets and the Americans knew that if they pressed that button, they were just as done for as their enemy, and so neither interfered in each other's way of life for fear of provoking that all around destruction. It's fairly obvious why Iran and North Korea want the Bomb - Not with the intention of destroying anyone but to stop other countries thinking they can meddle in their affairs. It's also the reason I think everyone should carry a gun - You don't need to use it unless somebody tries to f*ck with you, but that way nobody f*cks with anyone because they don't want to die. The guns stay in their holsters, the missiles stay in their silos and everybody is safer as a result.
Yes, I've got unpopular opinions by the boatload for you today.
neptune2venus
Hunter
ayase said:
Ah, gun ownership. A very debatable issue - considering the BBC has posted up a news story covering the very recent shooting in Finland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18217282
I agree, there would be a degree of stablity if everyone had access to the same amount of firepower - thereby going into a 'checkmate' status. However, the world isn't equal (however much I'd like it to be), there will always be someone who has a weapon more powerful and would - in the 'right' circumstances - use it. That is the very basis of war, us humans by our very nature are competitive and aggressive. The main focus of war will nearly always be religious in nature - but more often than not it is about resources. In this modern age where finite sources of fuel are going to run out and food is going to be in short supply, more aggressive tactics will be enforced to ensure society will be reduced to a pecking order of the fittest.
Vashdaman
Za Warudo
Personally I don't have a major problem with the idea of evolution, as I agree with you that it doesn't really disprove anything (except maybe the story of genesis). But I'm not convinced by Darwinian evolution either, and don't think people who disbelief it are "delusional", any such claims that they are are usually from the intellectual mainstream who like to believe they are superior. I haven't studied it in any depth, but the idea that we came from chimps (or chimp like animals) doesn't really overly resonate with me. Mainly due to the fact that there is such a huge gap and difference between us and our so called evolutionary family members. Why did chimps stay as they are? I don't doubt we do adapt and evolve over time, but as I said, Darwin's theory doesn't seem to make complete sense to me.
I can and have met individuals who have experienced the holocaust first hand, I have not seen a human evolve from a chimp. So I think it's pretty obvious which statement has more actual legitimate evidence in it's favour.
I can completely understand using violence in regard to self defence, and you bet anything that I will never turn the other cheek if someone tries to use violence on me or attacks anyone else that's around me unfairly. I will try to beat them. But I don't believe in revenge, and I'd class America's dropping of the atomic bomb as completely disproportional revenge. Did it work? Most definitely. Was it necessary? No.
I also strongly disagree with those that say change can only come through violence, and especially in countries like the one we live in or in the states for example. Those who say that people like Martin Luther King did not really achieve anything significant through peaceful protest are wrong, as far as I'm concerned. They did, and really, if enough people in the UK of America really wanted to change the system we absolutely could, and through non-violent means. Which is why I disagree with you on Gun ownership in the states, the guns themselves are pretty damn useless, if enough people wanted a revolution then they could have one, and wouldn't need guns.
In other countries I can understand the use of violence a lot more, but even in those countries a pacifist revolution may be possible, if enough people chose to sacrifice themselves. The oppressors can't kill everyone, or else they would have no one to oppress![/quote]
ayase
State Alchemist
There'll always be nutters, that's for sure. But both they and criminals seem to have a knack for getting hold of guns no matter what the law, and then find themselves in a situation where no-one else is armed - Fish in a barrel springs to mind. If nobody around has weapons, the perpetrator often has time to reload and carry on with their killing; if at least somebody else around was armed, the minute an indiscriminate shooter finished a magazine they wouldn't get the chance to do any more damage. If everybody else was... How many shots do you reckon they'd manage before they were brought down? Not many I'd reckon.neptune2venus said:
I guess the fact that Finland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe was the reason he decided to shoot from a distance and not spend long. And the kind of cowards who do this sort of thing pick schools for a reason - there are never any guns there.
neptune2venus
Hunter
ayase said:
I can see your point about weapons in self defence. However, many of the perpetrators who shoot innocents do so because in their minds there is usually some warped sense of injustice. In their mind set, it doesn't matter if someone is holding a weapon or not, they want to go off with a 'bang' literally. In most cases, they use up all their bullets and leave one so that they can kill themselves. There is always a chance they will be careless and reload while out in the open, but these crimes are usually meticulously planned out with little room for error.
Of course if a few more people were armed, there is more chance to take down the perpetrator. However, if these were civilians who have little practice in the shooting range - then they may as well have no weapons at all - as it would be a great risk to try and take down the perpetrator who has the advantage.
I don't condone weapons entirely as there is a need to enforce the laws of society but I necessarily don't agree with the 'fight fire with fire' stance either. Negotiations and non-lethal disarming should always be a first call of defence before resorting to more lethal ways of stopping someone where possible.