Japanese hostages "got what they deserved".

[PainRack]

That's even more tinfoilish.

I think you mistook my meaning.

What I'm saying is this. The Japanese government is now launching a massive campaign against the hostages, saying they shouldn't be there etc etc etc, so as to sustain public opinion for the JSDF deployment in Iraq.

And that's certainly plausible.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

That, or things are exactly as they seem on the face of it, and cultural differences make the "obvious" (to the Japanise) look wierd to you.
Suicide bombers seem wierd to me, but within the culture that produces them it seems quite "normal."
The very concept of "face" seems wierd to me, but it is par for the corse.
So is "honor" killing.
Letting a seeing eye dog into an Islamic resteraunt seems horrific to the propriator, and forbidding it seems horific to a secular modernist.

[PainRack]

That, or things are exactly as they seem on the face of it, and cultural differences make the "obvious" (to the Japanise) look wierd to you.
Suicide bombers seem wierd to me, but within the culture that produces them it seems quite "normal."
The very concept of "face" seems wierd to me, but it is par for the corse.
So is "honor" killing.
Letting a seeing eye dog into an Islamic resteraunt seems horrific to the propriator, and forbidding it seems horific to a secular modernist.

Exact that this whole "honour" crap started popping up a day after the family made public appeals for the withdrawal of JSDF forces in Iraq. Emotional strings were being played up and several members of the opposition had appeared to say this is exactly why the JSDF shouldn't be there and so on and forth.

[Darth Yoshi]

That's pretty fucked up.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

That's fucking sick.

Its akin to charging a kidnapped woman the price of a hostage rescue because she was walking in a shitty part of town against some advisory.

Ugh. We recognize just who is the actual victim here anyway.

I don't totally agree on anything but who the nominal victim is.

Suppose that the hostage rescue didn't only cost money, but the life of a very valuable and highly-trained officer? Or two? Or ten?

The women certainly had the right to go into the dangerous area, but IMHO, she had a duty, both to herself and everyone else, to avoid a marked Danger Area.

The dead officer fulfilled his own sworn duty, to protect the citizens as best as he could. The women did not fulfill even the duty to self-preserve (which any animal should have). The dead officer's 's not a victim? Not a victim caused by the women's impertinence?

In wasting the taxpayer's money on their rescue, in an admittedly very minor way, the hostage victimizes every person that paid the taxes, which might otherwise have gone to something more productive but didn't due to their own impertinence. Certainly it is one way to look at all of this.

A Danger Area, whether domestic or international, is an admission by the government it feels it cannot keep you in reasonable safety in that area, so it issues an Advisory to inform you that little fact.

It is like going into an area marked Minefield, and expecting people to happily rescue you after you realized you are trapped by nine adjacent mines with no room to maneuver.

[Keevan_Colton]

I don't totally agree on anything but who the nominal victim is.

Suppose that the hostage rescue didn't only cost money, but the life of a very valuable and highly-trained officer? Or two? Or ten?

So, you're into the game of who's life is more valuable...great. Those officers have chosen to serve, that service entails risk, such is their choice.

The women certainly had the right to go into the dangerous area, but IMHO, she had a duty, both to herself and everyone else, to avoid a marked Danger Area.

The dead officer fulfilled his own sworn duty, to protect the citizens as best as he could. The women did not fulfill even the duty to self-preserve (which any animal should have). The dead officer's 's not a victim? Not a victim caused by the women's impertinence?

You're back to the hostages being victims, because people who chose to serve would be be risked serving...

In wasting the taxpayer's money on their rescue, in an admittedly very minor way, the hostage victimizes every person that paid the taxes, which might otherwise have gone to something more productive but didn't due to their own impertinence. Certainly it is one way to look at all of this.

These people have also paid taxes to the government, one of the primary returns on which is the protection of that government.

A Danger Area, whether domestic or international, is an admission by the government it feels it cannot keep you in reasonable safety in that area, so it issues an Advisory to inform you that little fact.

And so, most wont go, but that does not by itself absolve a government of responsibility for its citizens and taxpayers...

It is like going into an area marked Minefield, and expecting people to happily rescue you after you realized you are trapped by nine adjacent mines with no room to maneuver.

No, it's more akin to paying for insurance against things like this all your life then having someone call you a shithead for calling it in...or do you not think a government has a duty to it's citizens to protect them?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

So, you're into the game of who's life is more valuable...great. Those officers have chosen to serve, that service entails risk, such is their choice.

And in walking into the clearly delineated Danger Zone, the to-be Hostage knows the risk. Unlike the officer, they demand someone else to save them from their own mistake. Even if it is the Rescuer's Duty, don't you think such a request is rather Selfish and Improper?

You're back to the hostages being victims, because people who chose to serve would be be risked serving...

They chose to serve, but their lives are being wasted rather meaninglessly, don't you think? Do you prefer to die saving the life of someone who does his best preserving himself and still got into a scrape, or saving someone who damn nearly brought it onto herself?

No, it's more akin to paying for insurance against things like this all your life then having someone call you a shithead for calling it in...or do you not think a government has a duty to it's citizens to protect them?

We can do this insurance thing. But let's add a little more. Suppose that guy came asking to be recompensed after he crashed doing 200MPH in a twisting 50MPH zone in pouring rain and near non-existent visibility? If you are that man processing his request, are you still that willing to approve the application and pay up?

The government does have a duty to protect them to the best of its ability. But that's not the issue, because in both the Japanese and this allegorical example, they were ultimately saved, no? I'd call that fulfilling their own end of the bargain reasonably well.

But in both cases, IMHO the hostages did not fulfill their duty to Self-Preserve (and we are only demanding vigilance in not deliberately into marked minefields here), and thus fell into shit as a result, thus inconveniencing everyone else.

Think of it this way. Parents have an obligation (developed through moral as well as evolutionary principles) to protect their children too. They often set down rules and advice to prevent them from doing something. If your children disobeyed you and got into deep shit, you might save them, but I doubt you would refrain from showing your displeasure. No?

[Durandal]

Remember people, we can't judge their culture, even if its traditions cause undue pain and suffering on people who were already traumatized by being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.

It's not bad, just different. If you say it's bad, then you're racist and intolerant.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Remember people, we can't judge their culture, even if its traditions cause undue pain and suffering on people who were already traumatized by being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.

It's not bad, just different. If you say it's bad, then you're racist and intolerant.

I can actually agree with you on that. While I feel that the hostages failed to take responsibility for their own safety (and did cause trouble as a result), I can agree the hostage experience is bad enough that recrimination can be put off.

[Darth Wong]

The only difference between this and the way people react to this kind of thing in other countries is the fact that the Japanese will say it openly and to your face. Don't pretend that when some jackass does something stupid and gets killed, people in our society don't say "well, the dumbfucks were asking for it." They just don't say it to the dumbfucks' faces.

[PainRack]

The only difference between this and the way people react to this kind of thing in other countries is the fact that the Japanese will say it openly and to your face. Don't pretend that when some jackass does something stupid and gets killed, people in our society don't say "well, the dumbfucks were asking for it." They just don't say it to the dumbfucks' faces.

Ergo, the gal who was crushed by a bulldozer in Palestine.

[MKSheppard]

Remember people, we can't judge their culture, even if its traditions cause undue pain and suffering on people who were already traumatized by being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.

It's not bad, just different. If you say it's bad, then you're racist and intolerant.

Hey thanks for justifying my stance in the "Genocide Wanking thread"