"There is nothing at all in Korean culture to be proud

[AniThyng]

Taiwan doesn't resent Japan? Hello, this is the very same Taiwan that just a few months ago, had a minister threaten war with Japan over the issue of fishing rights.

What was it he said again? "Rather die in battle than be humiliated?" I remember all those news agencies in Taiwan pouncing on him and showing the comparison of the ROC navy and the JSDF navy, indicating how absurd his position was.

Just shows that stupid people exists everywhere.

So...how exactly does this disprove my statement? It sounds like most people and the media thought it was an utterly silly idea.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

The fact that Japanese courts do award compensation to Chinese victims from left over munitions would suggest that treaties regarding war compensation isn't quite as iron clad as you make out. Moreover IIRC failed in claims results the court saying they don't have enough power over Japanese actions in foreign nations, and NOT because it happpened a long time ago.

Well, "outside their jurisdiction" is a valid legalistic move AFAIK.

And why should it matter that the victims are old? It sounds a variation of the "they are going to die anyway" arguments so its ok to screw them up. Are you seriously suggesting that if you knew you were going to die in a few years that winning the lottery would be "useless" to you.

Moreover what they do with their money ( lets say they decide to "fatten up" up their relatives) is their business. The question is whether they deserve to be compensated, not what they will do with the compensation money (which is a red herring).

To me, it matters a great deal. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of a compensation is that the Guilty spits out something to soothe the pain of the Victim. As both Gulity and Victim grow older and die off, both parts of this equation decay.

It increasingly becomes the case of a American "African-American" deciding to sue for compensation on the basis that 150 years ago his great-great-great grandfather was a slave. I don't think many such cases would pass, and the Japan-China thing IMO is approaching this point.

A modern case of someone touching a hidden 60-year old IJA munition and losing his arm at least satisifies one branch of this equation.

Do they deserve to be compensated? Yes, on principle. But sometimes, it is difficult to close an injustice without opening another injustice, so it is best to forget the old one (whose effects on the present have been damped by time). This would arguably have been the case with our "African-American" and I think that this is also reaching the point.

I am aware that Taiwan was a Japanese colony, my using the name Formosa was deliberate

But then again, Korea was a Japanese colony as well - it's interesting that the level of resentment is so dramatically different. Taiwanese acceptance of Japanese pop culture is a stark example, to start...I also thought Hong Kong was also surprisingly lenient on the Japanese, until I heard of the anti-japan riots recently...

I would suppose that might have to do with the relative gain and losses of colonialism. For example, most Hong Kong people AFAIK did not hate their colonial era.

[PainRack]

So...how exactly does this disprove my statement? It sounds like most people and the media thought it was an utterly silly idea.

Well, the media did support the Taiwanese side of the issue. They just laughed at the idea of going to war with Japan.....

And at the moment, or just after the minister made his declearation, the ROC navy set off to sea in a series of military exercises near the disputed territory, in a naval show of force. It was a period of escalation with Japan, resolved when Japan simply ignored the naval exercises and extended trade talks in an attempt to resolve the issue.

[mr friendly guy]

The fact that Japanese courts do award compensation to Chinese victims from left over munitions would suggest that treaties regarding war compensation isn't quite as iron clad as you make out. Moreover IIRC failed in claims results the court saying they don't have enough power over Japanese actions in foreign nations, and NOT because it happpened a long time ago.

Well, "outside their jurisdiction" is a valid legalistic move AFAIK.

The point of my post was to say that the "it happened a long time argument" was no barrier to compensation. The "outside their jurisdiction" argument was a barrier sometimes, but not all.

To me, it matters a great deal. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of a compensation is that the Guilty spits out something to soothe the pain of the Victim. As both Gulity and Victim grow older and die off, both parts of this equation decay.

1. Since monetary compensation would soothe pain despite being old, your point would only have validity if the victim was dead.

2. Legal precedent would disagree with you here on the guilty being dead part. Modern Germany recompense Jewish victims, despite the fact Hitler and his ministers are long dead. It would seem as long as the victim is still alive compensation does occur. The same situation applies with some Chinese victims - ergo they are still alive.

It increasingly becomes the case of a American "African-American" deciding to sue for compensation on the basis that 150 years ago his great-great-great grandfather was a slave. I don't think many such cases would pass, and the Japan-China thing IMO is approaching this point.

The Chinese victims are still alive. The African-American victims of slavery have been long dead. These are objective differences. And crucial one if I go by various precedents -We know countries have compensated victims years after the fact, there is no legal case I know of where countries compensate victims relatives after the victim is long dead.

Now its your turn to justify your claim besides appealing to your own opinion.

BTW - for all you know, I might support African-American compensation (I am currently undecided having not heard detail arguments). However because I see the 2 situations being significantly different, each case would use different arguments as to why they shouldn't be compensated.

A modern case of someone touching a hidden 60-year old IJA munition and losing his arm at least satisifies one branch of this equation.

So does WWII compensation. They both have victims who are still alive. The crime was committed during Japan's invasion for both cases.

Do they deserve to be compensated? Yes, on principle. But sometimes, it is difficult to close an injustice without opening another injustice, so it is best to forget the old one (whose effects on the present have been damped by time). This would arguably have been the case with our "African-American" and I think that this is also reaching the point.

Justification for "difficult to close an injustice without opening another one". Which is the second injustice that is opened? And why should this second injustice affect compensation for the first one (presumably it must be worse than the first one).

The concept of it being dampened by time is a red herring. It only wouldn't be one if the victim decided not to seek compensation because times effects truly have dampened it. That is not the case because some victims with Japanese lawyers have continually taken the case up in japanese courts.

Moreover did it occur to you that compensation and an apology might also dampen "effects on the present". Do you think Chinese protesters would be able to get so worked up (lets be generous and even assume the CCP helps spread anti-Japanese sentiment) if Japan suddenly said, "We were wrong and here is the compensation of similar amount to what Germany paid its victims". Hows that for dampening "effects on the present".

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

1. Since monetary compensation would soothe pain despite being old, your point would only have validity if the victim was dead.

2. Legal precedent would disagree with you here on the guilty being dead part. Modern Germany recompense Jewish victims, despite the fact Hitler and his ministers are long dead. It would seem as long as the victim is still alive compensation does occur. The same situation applies with some Chinese victims - ergo they are still alive.

Actually, even Germany, everyone's role model in this thing, is supposedly only going to compensate people till the year 2015.

At that point, the Holocaust would be in the ballpark of 75 years old. As of 2001, a German can be expected to live 78 years - quite a long expectancy indeed.

It is thus hardly out of the question that there might be a surviving latecomer that somehow never got his money, a 85 year old supported by his son into the courtroom. But in principle, he would be rejected because they just stopped handing compensations. Is this fair?

At some point, you just have to decide to cut.

The Chinese victims are still alive. The African-American victims of slavery have been long dead. These are objective differences. And crucial one if I go by various precedents -We know countries have compensated victims years after the fact, there is no legal case I know of where countries compensate victims relatives after the victim is long dead.

That's why I say that they are approaching that point, not that they are completely on it.

BTW - for all you know, I might support African-American compensation (I am currently undecided having not heard detail arguments). However because I see the 2 situations being significantly different, each case would use different arguments as to why they shouldn't be compensated.

IMO, they are actually remarkably similar things on different points on the same scale. It is a simple question of the nature of compensation. If you believe the sins of the father is to be repaid by their sons, then yes. But I don't believe in this policy. The African-American is just further along the scale than the Chinese.

So does WWII compensation. They both have victims who are still alive. The crime was committed during Japan's invasion for both cases.

But one has a "victim" in the prime of his life. Compensation to him would be clearly useful to him. The other has one reaching its end - so it is not so clear.

Justification for "difficult to close an injustice without opening another one". Which is the second injustice that is opened? And why should this second injustice affect compensation for the first one (presumably it must be worse than the first one).

Let me ask you. How do you feel being asked to pay for the sins of your father or your grandfather? How is this justice? You weren't the guy that raped someone over at Nanking, but you are asked to pay for it, and you know damn well that all the money is simply to go to his son.

At best this is a counterinjustice. I don't believe in counter-injustice.

The concept of it being dampened by time is a red herring. It only wouldn't be one if the victim decided not to seek compensation because times effects truly have dampened it. That is not the case because some victims with Japanese lawyers have continually taken the case up in japanese courts.

Effect always reduces over time. The imprint is always there, but the effect on your life reduces.

Moreover did it occur to you that compensation and an apology might also dampen "effects on the present". Do you think Chinese protesters would be able to get so worked up (lets be generous and even assume the CCP helps spread anti-Japanese sentiment) if Japan suddenly said, "We were wrong and here is the compensation of similar amount to what Germany paid its victims". Hows that for dampening "effects on the present".

It probably will. But then it becomes an appeasement that fattens the next generation, not a compensation.

As for whether they should have paid compensation. I think they should have paid it 50 years ago, or even 10-20. But then, for this one can only blame the Chinese government. They decided to forgive reparations - Japan has apparently paid reparations to those governments who wanted it, like the Phillipines.

Now, just too late - similar to Jews that might want something from Germany post 2015, or the African-Americans of America. Because the compensation ceased to be justice, but a counterinjustice.

[mr friendly guy]

Actually, even Germany, everyone's role model in this thing, is supposedly only going to compensate people till the year 2015.

At that point, the Holocaust would be in the ballpark of 75 years old. As of 2001, a German can be expected to live 78 years - quite a long expectancy indeed.

It is thus hardly out of the question that there might be a surviving latecomer that somehow never got his money, a 85 year old supported by his son into the courtroom. But in principle, he would be rejected because they just stopped handing compensations. Is this fair?

At some point, you just have to decide to cut.

Lets put this another way. Its too hard to compensate, and we might miss some. So lets decide not to give any in the first place. I don't know about you, but something is better than nothing, and Germany at least is ensuring that victims will get something. Japan hasn't even made the effort (with regards to Chinese).

Life isn't always fair. But thats why we try to make it as fair as possible. Should we stop trying because we are not going to get it perfect. Again compensation some (and hopefully most) is better than none.

That's why I say that they are approaching that point, not that they are completely on it.

But you are applying the same judgment to both when they aren't at the same point. Lets apply your logic to another situation. Since the difference between being old and alive, and being dead isn't large enough to apply a different set of rules, old people may as well have the same rights as dead people. Because compensation for a wrong done to you is a right.

IMO, they are actually remarkably similar things on different points on the same scale. It is a simple question of the nature of compensation. If you believe the sins of the father is to be repaid by their sons, then yes. But I don't believe in this policy. The African-American is just further along the scale than the Chinese.

I will address this point when you bring it up again.

But one has a "victim" in the prime of his life. Compensation to him would be clearly useful to him. The other has one reaching its end - so it is not so clear.

Lets extend you logic. Old people shouldn't get compensation because it won't be as useful to them. The reason why that statement is flawed is because compensation isn't just to be useful to the victim. Its also for pain and suffering and because they are rightfully entitled to it.

Lets use this analogy. If you were old, filthy rich and your accountant embezzled from you a shit load of money, but not enough that it would cause much financial hardship. Would you demand the money back? By your reasoning you wouldn't since the money isn't useful to you.

In fact, I am pretty sure there are legal cases where the money goes to relatives (and none to the victim - because they are dead) even though it won't be "useful" to them because they are financially well off. How about the OJ simpson wrongful death suit. And I am willing to bet this type of judgment further extends into medical negligence cases as well.

Let me ask you. How do you feel being asked to pay for the sins of your father or your grandfather? How is this justice? You weren't the guy that raped someone over at Nanking, but you are asked to pay for it, and you know damn well that all the money is simply to go to his son.

At best this is a counterinjustice. I don't believe in counter-injustice.

You do realise that argument is logically inconsistent with your previous claim that compensation should only be given prior to the 1990's right? The rape of Nanking was in the 30s, if compensation was to be paid in the 1980s, it would already require the next generation to pay, with the benefits likely to go the victims son (heard of the little emperor syndrome in regards to Chinese first born sons).

In fact, by that logic compensating straight after WWII would also be unfair to most of the Japanese taxpayers, since they didn't rape anyone at Nanking either.

You can either have one or the other, or you might realise that the "sins of the father - sins of the son" argument doesn't quite transfer when we are not talking about organisations, like Governments (and companies for that matter).

Effect always reduces over time. The imprint is always there, but the effect on your life reduces

How does that refute my point that the effect hasn't reduced that much with time that compensation is no longer justified?

It probably will. But then it becomes an appeasement that fattens the next generation, not a compensation.

You know, it only becomes an appeasement if they aren't entitled to the money in the first place.

As for whether they should have paid compensation. I think they should have paid it 50 years ago, or even 10-20. But then, for this one can only blame the Chinese government. They decided to forgive reparations - Japan has apparently paid reparations to those governments who wanted it, like the Phillipines.

From your own link

Under Treaty of Taipei in 1952, ROC(Taiwan) relinquished it's right to request reparation. With continuity from ROC to PRC claimed by the PRC, PRC's right to request reparation was recognized to be relinquished. In 1972, PRC reaffirmed the relinquishment with 'Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China'.

But that was Chang Kai Shek's fault for forgiving reparations. And it was Mao Zhedong's fault for reaffirming it. Hu Jintao didn't sign it. Do you think its fair that the sins of the father should be passed to the son?

Now, just too late - similar to Jews that might want something from Germany post 2015, or the African-Americans of America. Because the compensation ceased to be justice, but a counterinjustice.

I am interested in how you decide when its too late. It certainly isn't because of the life expectantly since the Jewish victims would also be quite old by 2015. It certainly isn't the length of time between the events and time to pay compensation either. Since claiming compensation for the Rape of Nanking now is still within the time limit Jews have to claim compensation for the holocaust. So what objective measures do you use to make that claim.[/quote]

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Lets put this another way. Its too hard to compensate, and we might miss some. So lets decide not to give any in the first place. I don't know about you, but something is better than nothing, and Germany at least is ensuring that victims will get something. Japan hasn't even made the effort (with regards to Chinese).

Something is going to the point of "counterinjustice".

But you are applying the same judgment to both when they aren't at the same point. Lets apply your logic to another situation. Since the difference between being old and alive, and being dead isn't large enough to apply a different set of rules, old people may as well have the same rights as dead people. Because compensation for a wrong done to you is a right.

I'm not sure whether rights are rightfully compared to compensation. You are also confusing a digital situation with an analogue reality.

Lets extend you logic. Old people shouldn't get compensation because it won't be as useful to them. The reason why that statement is flawed is because compensation isn't just to be useful to the victim. Its also for pain and suffering and because they are rightfully entitled to it.

When I said "useful", I was counting in the effect of money to soothe old pains and suffering. If I merely counted the physical, they might have lost the right by maybe 1950, certainly after one of those murderous movements in China that fratricide off a comparable amount as Japan killed.

Lets use this analogy. If you were old, filthy rich and your accountant embezzled from you a shit load of money, but not enough that it would cause much financial hardship. Would you demand the money back? By your reasoning you wouldn't since the money isn't useful to you.

Honestly, if it won't bother me? Maybe I won't. If I'm that old, the money isn't worth the effort to get back - he probably even needs it more than I do. I certainly won't try and extort his SON to get my money back (the counterinjustice).

A better analogy is that 60 years ago you beat me to a pulp and broke all my bones. I've mostly recovered, but somehow it just ain't quite the same as before (bones are funny that way), and of course the memory of the experience is nasty. Needless to say, you hadn't apologized for it. Every so often, you say you didn't break my leg, or that we were really fighting and it wasn't a case of you just brutally ambushing me. Now I'm like 80 and I'm suffering from arthritis. You are now retired and may not even remember the fact you broke my bones. Quite obviously, you are quite a turd. However, would it be proper for me to go and demand compensation that would be footed by your (who is BTW, on proper business - at least you did a fair job of teaching your kid, though you did keep your mafia past from him) son? Not in my book. Maybe I would still try, but I know that even if I win, it is really stacking a counterinjustice. It is only justice in the sense "affirmative action" is - not.

In fact, I am pretty sure there are legal cases where the money goes to relatives (and none to the victim - because they are dead) even though it won't be "useful" to them because they are financially well off. How about the OJ simpson wrongful death suit. And I am willing to bet this type of judgment further extends into medical negligence cases as well.

And I'm not really sure of the morality basis of this.

You do realise that argument is logically inconsistent with your previous claim that compensation should only be given prior to the 1990's right? The rape of Nanking was in the 30s, if compensation was to be paid in the 1980s, it would already require the next generation to pay, with the benefits likely to go the victims son (heard of the little emperor syndrome in regards to Chinese first born sons).

It is perfectly consistent in principle. The only thing is that you are nitting exactly when this inevitable transition took place.

In fact, by that logic compensating straight after WWII would also be unfair to most of the Japanese taxpayers, since they didn't rape anyone at Nanking either.

At least one can say they contributed to the war effort. It still isn't perfectly fair, but at least there is still some justification for it, and if it was already unfair then, then how fair is it now, when they had way less to do with it?

How does that refute my point that the effect hasn't reduced that much with time that compensation is no longer justified?

I broke your leg 60 years ago. You are living quite well, but you still scream for compensation. It is clear if I compensated when I broke your leg what amends I'm making, now it is not so clear.

But that was Chang Kai Shek's fault for forgiving reparations. And it was Mao Zhedong's fault for reaffirming it. Hu Jintao didn't sign it. Do you think its fair that the sins of the father should be passed to the son?

But this is part of the government continuity of the CCP. It is still the same government. Besides, even if you use this logic, all I have to do is mention that the Chinese did not choose to renege. In other words, each succeeding Chinese leader quietly allowed it to stand.

I am interested in how you decide when its too late. It certainly isn't because of the life expectantly since the Jewish victims would also be quite old by 2015. It certainly isn't the length of time between the events and time to pay compensation either. Since claiming compensation for the Rape of Nanking now is still within the time limit Jews have to claim compensation for the holocaust. So what objective measures do you use to make that claim.

Laws, among other things, tend to turn analogue morality problems of the reality into the abstract digital rules. For example, the analogue morality that kids will only eventually gain judgment adequate for full usage of Rights is turned into a hard line where 17y 364d = minor and 18y 0d = adult. In reality, all the factors I mentioned and you mention aggregate, slowly making it less and less appropriate. The Germans merely decided to "digitalize" that decision as the year 2015.

[Lord of the Farce]

In another comic book, "Introduction to China," which portrays the Chinese as a depraved people obsessed with cannibalism

The people behind this comic book must be pretty damned desperate for (and bad at making) bullshit, if they have to come up with something as silly as portraying Chinese as "a depraved people obsessed with cannibalism".

a woman of Japanese origin says: "Take the China of today, its principles, thought, literature, art, science, institutions. There's nothing attractive."

Come on, the China of today comes up with doors. With locks. See?

[mr friendly guy]

Lets put this another way. Its too hard to compensate, and we might miss some. So lets decide not to give any in the first place. I don't know about you, but something is better than nothing, and Germany at least is ensuring that victims will get something. Japan hasn't even made the effort (with regards to Chinese).

Something is going to the point of "counterinjustice".

How does this address my point that just because compensation isn't going to get theoretically every one, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try compensating some? And yes I am aware you have various different objections, however I address the "counterinjustice" separately, so its pointless bringing it up to refute my argument which doesn't even deal with that.

I'm not sure whether rights are rightfully compared to compensation. You are also confusing a digital situation with an analogue reality..

I am talking about your right to receive compensation. If a wrong is done to you, you deserve the right to recompense.

Lets extend you logic. Old people shouldn't get compensation because it won't be as useful to them. The reason why that statement is flawed is because compensation isn't just to be useful to the victim. Its also for pain and suffering and because they are rightfully entitled to it.

When I said "useful", I was counting in the effect of money to soothe old pains and suffering. If I merely counted the physical, they might have lost the right by maybe 1950, certainly after one of those murderous movements in China that fratricide off a comparable amount as Japan killed.

This refutes my point that reasons for compensation is more than just based on "usefulness", how exactly?

Honestly, if it won't bother me? Maybe I won't.

Saying maybe is avoiding the point. So how about I phrase it again.

If someone steals from an old man (you), is the old man entitled to the money back even though he is financially loaded and old. Yes or no.

If I'm that old, the money isn't worth the effort to get back

Red herring. Difficulty in getting justice done has nothing to do with whether justice should be done in the first place.

- he probably even needs it more than I do.

Irrelevant - Entitlement does not always follow from need. A welfare cheat certainly will need the money, but he is not entitled to it.

I certainly won't try and extort his SON to get my money back (the counterinjustice).

Funny I don't remember mentioning a son in the analogy. In fact since the analogy was designed to show that ONLY that you do not lose entitlement because you are old and NOT meant to be a direct analogy to the Japan WWII compensation this is just another red herring.

A better analogy is that 60 years ago you beat me to a pulp and broke all my bones. I've mostly recovered, but somehow it just ain't quite the same as before (bones are funny that way), and of course the memory of the experience is nasty. Needless to say, you hadn't apologized for it. Every so often, you say you didn't break my leg, or that we were really fighting and it wasn't a case of you just brutally ambushing me. Now I'm like 80 and I'm suffering from arthritis. You are now retired and may not even remember the fact you broke my bones. Quite obviously, you are quite a turd. However, would it be proper for me to go and demand compensation that would be footed by your (who is BTW, on proper business - at least you did a fair job of teaching your kid, though you did keep your mafia past from him) son? Not in my book. Maybe I would still try, but I know that even if I win, it is really stacking a counterinjustice. It is only justice in the sense "affirmative action" is - not.

Since the analogy was designed to address one of your particular arguments only (ie old people somehow lose certain entitlements if they can live without it) you are just trying to change the topic. Moreover I already addressed the point, that debts being passed down to successive governments is not the same as debts being passed down to individuals.

Any one arguing that government can get out of an obligation to pay debts because the current leader wasn't responsible for what the old leader did, must also be prepared to argue why countries can not simply break treaties using the same rationale.

In fact, I am pretty sure there are legal cases where the money goes to relatives (and none to the victim - because they are dead) even though it won't be "useful" to them because they are financially well off. How about the OJ simpson wrongful death suit. And I am willing to bet this type of judgment further extends into medical negligence cases as well.

And I'm not really sure of the morality basis of this.

It was just a "side note" from my main argument. It shows that compensation money can bypass the victim and go straight to the relatives even though the relatives are well off - which was one of your main reasons against compensation.

You do realise that argument is logically inconsistent with your previous claim that compensation should only be given prior to the 1990's right? The rape of Nanking was in the 30s, if compensation was to be paid in the 1980s, it would already require the next generation to pay, with the benefits likely to go the victims son (heard of the little emperor syndrome in regards to Chinese first born sons).

It is perfectly consistent in principle. The only thing is that you are nitting exactly when this inevitable transition took place.

And if I was addressing your "its too late principle" I would be off base. Except, I wasn't. I was addressing your (new and different) argument that that its wrong to pass the debts on the father to the next generation, also applies to successive governments.

If its wrong for the debts to pass to the next generation, it shouldn't matter how many generations. It should be wrong straight after the first one, but you say its only wrong after the 2nd. So its apparent that your main critique is because you think its too late, not with the next generation paying the debt when its "not too late".

At least one can say they contributed to the war effort. It still isn't perfectly fair, but at least there is still some justification for it, and if it was already unfair then, then how fair is it now, when they had way less to do with it?.

Because its more unfair to the victims. Because if you didn't pay the money and used it for 50 years, the money could have grown more than inflation and your descendents would already be ahead than if you paid it up front.

I broke your leg 60 years ago. You are living quite well, but you still scream for compensation. It is clear if I compensated when I broke your leg what amends I'm making, now it is not so clear.?

And this is just repeating your earlier unsupported assertion that "it is not so clear"

But this is part of the government continuity of the CCP. It is still the same government. Besides, even if you use this logic, all I have to do is mention that the Chinese did not choose to renege. In other words, each succeeding Chinese leader quietly allowed it to stand.

The point was to illustrate that if successive governments must abide by treaties signed by previous ones, it also follows they must abide by debts. (And I thought I addressed the treaty several posts ago - given that Japanese courts are willing to compensate despite it ).

Laws, among other things, tend to turn analogue morality problems of the reality into the abstract digital rules. For example, the analogue morality that kids will only eventually gain judgment adequate for full usage of Rights is turned into a hard line where 17y 364d = minor and 18y 0d = adult. In reality, all the factors I mentioned and you mention aggregate, slowly making it less and less appropriate. The Germans merely decided to "digitalize" that decision as the year 2015.

So what? Legal precedent would say that at this level of "less appropriate" (with our best attempt at reaching an objective decision) is still enough to compensate. If you are going to argue why at the same level it isn't appropriate, you have to show significant differences between the 2 cases. All you have done is point out "problems" which also existed with the German decision (ie old victims who won't have long to live) and then claiming they are somehow significant.

You argument that it creates a counter injustice because its too late and its too late because it creates a counter injustice is purely circular.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Taiwan doesn't resent Japan? Hello, this is the very same Taiwan that just a few months ago, had a minister threaten war with Japan over the issue of fishing rights.

So...how exactly does this disprove my statement? It sounds like most people and the media thought it was an utterly silly idea.

The attitude of Taiwan to Japan and China is 50/50.

Most native Taiwanese ("native" here loosely meaning immigrants from China before WWII) are more friendly to Japan than to China.

This is mainly because under the Japanese reign Taiwan was modernized and everything was better than China. When the ROC troops arrived after WWII people saw very corrupt troops and government officials. This IMHO seeded the "Japan good, China sucks".

However, since large proportions of mainland people who moved to Taiwan after WWII, we also have a bunch of people leaning to China.

I don't wanna add in Hakkas, Aborigines and other situations to complicate this, but that's loosely how it is. Which is probably why we have political fundies

As for Japanese/Korean entertainment. I'll just mildly say that the Chinese/Taiwanese equivalents (with exception of HK) aren't well done so...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I am talking about your right to receive compensation. If a wrong is done to you, you deserve the right to recompense.

Yes, you did have the right to recompense, but only from the person or group that harmed you. Which is why I was willing to give it out earlier. However, as a practical matter, a compensation now is a game of the new generation, or maybe even as you say two generations down the line.

Funny I don't remember mentioning a son in the analogy. In fact since the analogy was designed to show that ONLY that you do not lose entitlement because you are old and NOT meant to be a direct analogy to the Japan WWII compensation this is just another red herring.

But that's another point. I like to deal with everything in one big lump.

Since the analogy was designed to address one of your particular arguments only (ie old people somehow lose certain entitlements if they can live without it) you are just trying to change the topic. Moreover I already addressed the point, that debts being passed down to successive governments is not the same as debts being passed down to individuals.

Any one arguing that government can get out of an obligation to pay debts because the current leader wasn't responsible for what the old leader did, must also be prepared to argue why countries can not simply break treaties using the same rationale.

Actually, the government in this case was already released from that obligation by the Chinese government (both of them). You might note that in the case of a major governmental break, the new government may have to REAFFIRM the old commitment, like the PRC reaffirmed the ROC's decision.

And if I was addressing your "its too late principle" I would be off base. Except, I wasn't. I was addressing your (new and different) argument that that its wrong to pass the debts on the father to the next generation, also applies to successive governments.

But successive governments are funded by successive people. What's so hard about this to understand?

It is really the same argument, presented slightly differently. One of the factors of additional time is this "debt to next generation" problem.

If its wrong for the debts to pass to the next generation, it shouldn't matter how many generations. It should be wrong straight after the first one, but you say its only wrong after the 2nd. So its apparent that your main critique is because you think its too late, not with the next generation paying the debt when its "not too late".

Precisely. I see we agree. The only thing is that you disagree when that transition took place. If you think the first one transitioned mostly to the second earlier, then the timeframe moves up.

Because its more unfair to the victims. Because if you didn't pay the money and used it for 50 years, the money could have grown more than inflation and your descendents would already be ahead than if you paid it up front.

So your solution is to rip off the next generation?

You argument that it creates a counter injustice because its too late and its too late because it creates a counter injustice is purely circular.

No, I'm saying the reality of where the money is taken and where it goes to creates a counterinjustice that would not have been had the compensation was paid earlier. I believe in settling injustice, and agree Japan was wrong not to have settled it (though the Chinese certainly didn't help themselves), just not with "counterinjustice".

If you really want to nitpick over a few years rather than over principle, I might point out that the Japanese started in about 1931, and Chinese average a few years shorter in life than Germany. Between these two, it brings up the compensation date. But since I'm thinking of the meaning of the precedent rather than the exact line in which one particular country does this, I didn't.

[mr friendly guy]

Yes, you did have the right to recompense, but only from the person or group that harmed you. Which is why I was willing to give it out earlier. However, as a practical matter, a compensation now is a game of the new generation, or maybe even as you say two generations down the line.

emphasise mine. Group that harmed you = Japanese government.

But that's another point. I like to deal with everything in one big lump.

Hmm. Point by point debate kind of is the norm for this board is it not? But surely bringing up a "better analogy" in reference to mine would tend to mean that you are contesting that particular point, no, as opposed to as you say"another point" because you just happen to like lumping everything together.

Actually, the government in this case was already released from that obligation by the Chinese government (both of them). You might note that in the case of a major governmental break, the new government may have to REAFFIRM the old commitment, like the PRC reaffirmed the ROC's decision.

I see that you decided to just comment on one my points then huh? However AFAIK the treaty prevents the PRC government from suing. And guess what , they haven't. Individual citizens still do, and certainly the Japanese courts awarding damages to Chinese individuals for WWII actions (not related to the Rape of Nanking) would suggest that the treaty itself isn't the problem with individual law suits (its other things I previously mentioned).

But successive governments are funded by successive people. What's so hard about this to understand?.

But you didn't have a problem with that until a certain arbitarily time limit.

Precisely. I see we agree. The only thing is that you disagree when that transition took place. If you think the first one transitioned mostly to the second earlier, then the timeframe moves up.

Lets cut straight to the chase. What constitutes too late? All your other objections are essentially a function of it being too late. I base my reasoning roughly on the German case which shows comparable time limits where all these objections (eg the same counterinjustice) are already inherent in the compensation package yet did not impede the compensation itself. How do you decide its too late? It seems mainly because you "don't think so?".

Because its more unfair to the victims. Because if you didn't pay the money and used it for 50 years, the money could have grown more than inflation and your descendents would already be ahead than if you paid it up front.

So your solution is to rip off the next generation?.

You need to read that post again.

You argument that it creates a counter injustice because its too late and its too late because it creates a counter injustice is purely circular.

No, I'm saying the reality of where the money is taken and where it goes to creates a counterinjustice that would not have been had the compensation was paid earlier.

How is this not my similar to my above statement about circularity, just phrased differently.

If you really want to nitpick over a few years rather than over principle, I might point out that the Japanese started in about 1931, and Chinese average a few years shorter in life than Germany. Between these two, it brings up the compensation date. But since I'm thinking of the meaning of the precedent rather than the exact line in which one particular country does this, I didn't.

The Rape of Nanking started in Dec 1937. Attacks against Jews had already started in 1941. If Germany stopped compensating in 2015, its comparable to Chinese victims wanting compensation now. But it comes back to this. Why should the "cut off date" not be in line with previous legal precedent. The burden is on you to show why it shouldn't.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

emphasise mine. Group that harmed you = Japanese government.

The previous one, or this one? There is a nice big occupation as a firebreak in between. Or the group is the Imperial Japanese Army, which no longer even exists.

I see that you decided to just comment on one my points then huh? However AFAIK the treaty prevents the PRC government from suing. And guess what , they haven't. Individual citizens still do, and certainly the Japanese courts awarding damages to Chinese individuals for WWII actions (not related to the Rape of Nanking) would suggest that the treaty itself isn't the problem with individual law suits (its other things I previously mentioned).

Occasionally, and only for things in the present (like tripping over a munition). I don't see them mass handing payouts for crimes committed under a different government 60 years ago.

But you didn't have a problem with that until a certain arbitarily time limit.

Understand this. There is no arbitrary time limit. Rather, factors conspire to make it less and less suitable, so like the Germans I provisionally drew some lines in the dirt (digitalizing an analogue reality). You are in fact changing my mind towards the idea that the transition may have come earlier than I thought.

Lets cut straight to the chase. What constitutes too late? All your other objections are essentially a function of it being too late. I base my reasoning roughly on the German case which shows comparable time limits where all these objections (eg the same counterinjustice) are already inherent in the compensation package yet did not impede the compensation itself. How do you decide its too late? It seems mainly because you "don't think so?".

Too late, in my book, comes from the increasing aggregation of it ceasing to be some kind of justice (Guilty pays Victim) and into Counterinjustice. The Germans plotted the point at 2015, and I'd say they are pretty generous. I originally plotted the crossover somewhere in the 90s, but you are convincing me maybe I should have put the dot earlier.

You need to read that post again.

How? The meat comes down to if you force them to pay now, what really pays is an innocent next (or maybe next-next but the innocent part is the same) generation.

How is this not my similar to my above statement about circularity, just phrased differently.

How is the idea that forcing the next generation to pay a justice?

The Rape of Nanking started in Dec 1937. Attacks against Jews had already started in 1941. If Germany stopped compensating in 2015, its comparable to Chinese victims wanting compensation now. But it comes back to this. Why should the "cut off date" not be in line with previous legal precedent. The burden is on you to show why it shouldn't.

OK, so by your reckoning, it is still in the region of 3-4 years earlier. Then you add the shorter life expectancy of Chinese (about 6 years right now, and I'd guess a larger gap in the past), so they die out a little faster and the transition goes a bit faster. Between these two, the deadline gets brought up - to right about NOW, even by German standards.

[Shinova]

The sooner they accept they have skeletons in their closet like every other nation and people on the planet, the sooner they can get off that high horse.

The Japanese like being on that high horse though.

Ah well, hypocrisy and the Japanese have been bedfellows for a long while.

[Ypoknons]

Hong Kong anti-Japanese riots are not the mainstream of young Hong Kong society. Amongst adults there is much more anti-Japanese sentiment due to greater awareness of politics and closer proximity to WWII, but no more than personal boycotts are really happening.

[Ypoknons]

As for Japanese/Korean entertainment. I'll just mildly say that the Chinese/Taiwanese equivalents (with exception of HK) aren't well done so...

Oh certainly Jay Chou is better than the Boyz!

[mr friendly guy]

<snip>

Lets summarise your arguments

1. Old people lose their right to compensation. One would have thought since rights are a function of being alive, you lose them when you die (except if you of course violate someone elses rights, but I am just being pedantic here). Suggesting less rights for older people is discrimination.

2. Someone even if entitled on principle to receive compensation should not receive it if won't be useful to them. Useful in this case is strangely defined as ability to "soothe pain". Since its defined this way, if something else soothes the pain (supposedly time) monetary compensation doesn't just get reduced, it gets stopped altogether.

One would have thought the usefulness of money would be defined by ability to improve standard of living, or ability to satisfy needs and wants, but then thats just me.

So I will ask this question again, geez only for the 3rd time

If an old man has his money stolen, should he receive the money back even though he is well off and old. Yes, no or call my analogy false.

If you applied your above 2 arguments, you think one would say NO. But I will let you answer that.

3. The logic that its unfair for the son to pay for the fathers sins also applies to governments.

You seem to like constantly throwing this up like a broken record even though I showed examples where this logic doesn't transfer to governments.

How about Germany compensating Jews up to 2015

Or modern Japan compensating for left over WWII explosives, after all the modern government didnt' order those explosives placed there.

(Wait for it, you are going to point out some differences even though an analogy isn't meant to compare every single detail, it can even only compare one particular detail - in this case that successive governments do incur debts from previous one even when they didn't cause the debt).

Or any country choosing to break treaties by the same logic (ie they didn't sign the treaty, so why should they be bound by it). Come on, Iran might want to say fuck the anti nuclear proliferation treaty, and your logic would say its ok, since the current government didn't sign the treaty.

4. Its too late because now it will cause an injustice, and the reason why it will cause an injustice is related to it being too late.

When I point out this reasoning is circular you simply repeat it differently. When I point that out, you just start using a different argument.

How is this not my similar to my above statement about circularity, just phrased differently.

How is the idea that forcing the next generation to pay a justice?

Yep, start using argument 3 when I was pointing out that your fourth argument is circular.

I see that you decided to just comment on one my points then huh? However AFAIK the treaty prevents the PRC government from suing. And guess what , they haven't. Individual citizens still do, and certainly the Japanese courts awarding damages to Chinese individuals for WWII actions (not related to the Rape of Nanking) would suggest that the treaty itself isn't the problem with individual law suits (its other things I previously mentioned).

Occasionally, and only for things in the present (like tripping over a munition). I don't see them mass handing payouts for crimes committed under a different government 60 years ago.

The point of my post is that 1) the treaty doesn't stop individuals suing for WWII related crimes and 2) the reasons suits have not succeeded are due to other factors (which I mentioned previously). How does your statement refute this? By agreeing that other non-treaty related factors lead to failed lawsuits?

You need to read that post again.

How? The meat comes down to if you force them to pay now, what really pays is an innocent next (or maybe next-next but the innocent part is the same) generation.

How? Presumably you scroll up the page to where I originally wrote the post and read it again?

Seriously, you missed my point completely. Read it again and if you still don't get it, I will explain it next post.

OK, so by your reckoning, it is still in the region of 3-4 years earlier.

Well going by absolute time, comparing say Rape of Nanking to the Holocaust, we would expect around 2011-2012.

Then you add the shorter life expectancy of Chinese (about 6 years right now, and I'd guess a larger gap in the past), so they die out a little faster and the transition goes a bit faster. Between these two, the deadline gets brought up - to right about NOW, even by German standards.

Hmm. I only used absolute time as my marker. Why would we consider life expectancy vs absolute time? Even if a country extended compensation several years past any reasonable expectation that the victims would still be alive, it just means there will be no victims collecting after in the interim.

But since you obviously think life expectancy + absolute time is more accurate why not stop with average life expectancy of a country. Wouldn't life expectancy of gender (since the only chinese suing Japan for the Rape of Nanking are women), and by provinces be more accurate. I think you will then find that the numbers then tip against you.

And if I continue to argue for compensation several years down the track using the same arguments, feel free to repeat your statement and smack me down. Until then previous legal precedent supports my position that they deserve to be compensated NOW.

My position is that your right to compensation disappears when you die (if someone is trying to argue that relatives should receive the money which was never awarded to the victim in life I they should use different arguments - I would be interested in them, but I don't have any at present).

I used the German example as a benchmark. If the Chinese cases also fits into their criteria, legal precedent support me. If I wanted to argue beyond that (no need) the burden would be on me to show why it should be extended.[/quote]

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

1. Old people lose their right to compensation. One would have thought since rights are a function of being alive, you lose them when you die (except if you of course violate someone elses rights, but I am just being pedantic here). Suggesting less rights for older people is discrimination.

OK, I'd concede this one and go on other moral grounds.

One would have thought the usefulness of money would be defined by ability to improve standard of living, or ability to satisfy needs and wants, but then thats just me.

Money comes in useful for many things, utilitarian and emotional. You are the person who IIRC first specifically included "soothing pain" as a function, which I accepted. However, on this issue, the usefulness decreases in all respects with time passage.

If an old man has his money stolen, should he receive the money back even though he is well off and old. Yes, no or call my analogy false.

Not at the cost of getting it from his son. Since this is what's happening, your analogy is actually also rather irrevelant, as I've explained posts ago.

3. The logic that its unfair for the son to pay for the fathers sins also applies to governments.

Before we get any further, tell me this. Even if I agree with you, since the money used from compensation from a government really comes from its people, and by dodging the point about people you agree at least that it is unfair for the son to pay for the father. So how do you morally justify that an exception is to made on the governmental level, even though the real losers are still the people. Remember that this is a moral and not a legal one, and a precedent may not necessarily be on moral grounds.

How about Germany compensating Jews up to 2015

Or modern Japan compensating for left over WWII explosives, after all the modern government didnt' order those explosives placed there.

See Point 2. In any case, if they wanted to pay, I'm not stopping them. If Germany wants to pay through the year 2300, that's fine by me. If nothing else, it is good PR. I'm just saying they don't really have to.

Also note the counterexample - in a major governmental break, treaties may have to be reaffirmed. Various treaties signed with the Soviet Union IIRC also had to be reaffirmed by Russia. If you want to reaffirm some or all, sure.

Or any country choosing to break treaties by the same logic (ie they didn't sign the treaty, so why should they be bound by it). Come on, Iran might want to say fuck the anti nuclear proliferation treaty, and your logic would say its ok, since the current government didn't sign the treaty.

According to most precedent, a small governmental change - for example, changing the President or General Secretary does not seem to be big enough. A major delta may well be. In any case, apparently Iran made the mistake of reaffirming NPT about 1995, though I must admit I was one of the minority that wasn't absolutely mortified at Iran getting nukes - not that I think it is great, I'm just not mortified or thinking that we are doomed to WWIII if Iran gets nukes.

4. Its too late because now it will cause an injustice, and the reason why it will cause an injustice is related to it being too late.

Front half right. Back half not. Try "...and the reason why it will cause an injustice is because time caused too many factors to change."

Yep, start using argument 3 when I was pointing out that your fourth argument is circular.

1) That's because you created a circle, when the "too late" can be considered more of a thesis, with reasons and factors behidn it.

The point of my post is that 1) the treaty doesn't stop individuals suing for WWII related crimes

But that makes it cease to be a two-way governmental interaction, under which Alternate Laws do apply, and apply they do even in the 20th century.

and 2) the reasons suits have not succeeded are due to other factors (which I mentioned previously). How does your statement refute this? By agreeing that other non-treaty related factors lead to failed lawsuits?

What is so hard to see that many reasons conspire, of which they chose the most expedient one?

Hmm. I only used absolute time as my marker. Why would we consider life expectancy vs absolute time? Even if a country extended compensation several years past any reasonable expectation that the victims would still be alive, it just means there will be no victims collecting after in the interim.

Absolute time is one. But since part of it involves by your calc compensating live victims, a nation with a lower life expectancy would have its victims die earlier too, which is why I took it into account. Not that it is important (see end).

But since you obviously think life expectancy + absolute time is more accurate why not stop with average life expectancy of a country. Wouldn't life expectancy of gender (since the only chinese suing Japan for the Rape of Nanking are women), and by provinces be more accurate. I think you will then find that the numbers then tip against you.

I would have thought Chinese are suing for far more, even if you only count the Nanking era. I also won't know if Nanking people average especially long in China.

Besides, if you split it into men and women, then are you saying that men deserve a few years less compensation than females?

My position is that your right to compensation disappears when you die (if someone is trying to argue that relatives should receive the money which was never awarded to the victim in life I they should use different arguments - I would be interested in them, but I don't have any at present)

Come to think of it, I now agree with you on principle. I just don't agree with the idea that you can "compensate" yourself by ripping off the next generation. And even if you use the differences in government activity as a shield, when one remember who really funds the government, this is what de facto happens.

I used the German example as a benchmark. If the Chinese cases also fits into their criteria, legal precedent support me. If I wanted to argue beyond that (no need) the burden would be on me to show why it should be extended.

Do you really want to use an argument that would expire on 2015 (since I somehow really don't think they'd be getting compensation during the next ten years whether they should or not), even by your own standards?

I'm not really using either life expectancy OR absolute time. Rather, because you seem to confuse the Principle with the Law, I merely proposed a couple of factor changes to show you how meaningless the line (becuase it is a foggy mix of many factors) is versus the principle. I honestly thought you would see this instead of saying "So? I can propose counternits!" If you had read what I was writing a few posts up you would know it too.

[Edward Yee]

The Koreas, China, and Japan hate each other. They have for the last 500 years. They will probably still be hating each other 100 years from now.

Partly because it politically works.

Maybe the comic book artist ought to be reminded who, by that logic, built the Japan of today.

And this is why I dismissed the 'thesis' of the comic outright.

Sorry if I seem detached, just that I'm too busy ":roll:"-ing at the premise on which the comic is built. Incidentally, my running high school history theory was that the Meiji Restoration was never really about modernization, but more like an attempt to in the long term militarily "drive out" the West and correspondingly the external impurity in their social order. Doesn't help that in the early days after Perry's arrival, some of the 'revolutionaries' were xenophobes more pissed at the shogunate's inability to drive out the foreign 'invasion'...

Personally, except for this nonsense, what really irritates me is how chinese people are portrayed in anime and manga. For heaven's sake, I DO NOT wear traditional Chinese clothing even at the height of the lunar new year celebrations, much less every day

*sweatdrop, but is reminded of Li Shaoran and Fushigi Yuugi and nods* I never do. Call me a banana, but being a banana's actually a defense against that "image." >_>

I blame fetishization of the image of Chinese (in particular) as feminine... would I be wrong to refer to these particular mangaka and anime creators (whether Japanese or Western -- yeah, the latter exist as culprits too, but as mangaka/anime artists in particular) as *ahem* "rice queens"?

1) We can't come out in this kind of thread. We'd be sent to HoS and then Parting Shots before we know it, even relatively well-established members.

And this -- albeit not re: this thread -- is why I don't take a hard position on stuff most of the time, ESPECIALLY not politics. >_>

OFF-TOPIC: *props to Lusankya for his sig on DBZ*

[jegs2]

When I was stationed in Korea for a year, don't remember seeing an abundance of Japanese products.

[Mobius]

okay so Torihada Minoru will be the new emperor, if his statement are becoming mainstream in japanese society...

[Edward Yee]

First China, then the Koreas... does this mean that Japan will work itself into PACCOM's to-do list? [/not exactly serious]

[mr friendly guy]

1. Old people lose their right to compensation. One would have thought since rights are a function of being alive, you lose them when you die (except if you of course violate someone elses rights, but I am just being pedantic here). Suggesting less rights for older people is discrimination.

OK, I'd concede this one and go on other moral grounds.

No problems.

Money comes in useful for many things, utilitarian and emotional. You are the person who IIRC first specifically included "soothing pain" as a function, which I accepted. However, on this issue, the usefulness decreases in all respects with time passage.

But you seem to use soothing pain as the only function. But lets take it a bit further. Assuming the usefulness (in terms of pain soothing) lessens during time but doesn't disappear altogether (your own example of me breaking your leg has your leg not quite the same) why does it follow that no compensation is given. It should just mean less (and since I am not arguing an amount, getting into how much would just be tangential).

If an old man has his money stolen, should he receive the money back even though he is well off and old. Yes, no or call my analogy false.

Not at the cost of getting it from his son. Since this is what's happening, your analogy is actually also rather irrevelant, as I've explained posts ago.

Since the analogy was only meant to illustrate argument one and two (of which one point you already conceded) as I have explained posts ago calling it irrelevant is like saying evolution is irrelevant because it can't explain how the first life came about.

3. The logic that its unfair for the son to pay for the fathers sins also applies to governments.

Before we get any further, tell me this. Even if I agree with you, since the money used from compensation from a government really comes from its people, and by dodging the point about people you agree at least that it is unfair for the son to pay for the father. So how do you morally justify that an exception is to made on the governmental level, even though the real losers are still the people. Remember that this is a moral and not a legal one, and a precedent may not necessarily be on moral grounds.

My position is that your right to compensation disappears when you die (if someone is trying to argue that relatives should receive the money which was never awarded to the victim in life I they should use different arguments - I would be interested in them, but I don't have any at present)

Come to think of it, I now agree with you on principle. I just don't agree with the idea that you can "compensate" yourself by ripping off the next generation. And even if you use the differences in government activity as a shield, when one remember who really funds the government, this is what de facto happens.

I decided to bring these 2 points together since they essentially argue the same thing.

Now as to why governments (and other organisations such as companies for that matter) could inherit debts I would argue that its a practical compromise to ensure the workings between governments and other individuals / organisations. If any debts could not be passed between successive governments, would you want to have dealings (read do business) with them? What's to stop them reneging when they feel like it? Inheriting previous debts and resolving them is part of the responsibility of the government. The benefit of this would outweigh costs to the individuals (re : taxpayers). However, the burden on the next generation isn't quite as exaggerated as you fear as I will explain below.

Now you could make a case that its unfair for the son to pay for his fathers debts of his father if he did not inherit a cent of his father's assets. However I am willing to bet this isn't true. Even if Japanese individuals didn't inherit, the government certainly "inherits" assets when they change. In effect, the son is getting money which he should never be entitled to in the first place (since it should have gone to the victims).

Every year that he makes use of the money creates a counterinjustice which keeps on building up until 1) the debt is repaid (in which case the injustice is wiped clean) or 2) the creditor dies (in which case the level of injustice stays the same, and for all intents and purposes can no longer be resolved).

As to why I don't think the burden isn't as great on the next generation, its a combination of 2 factors. 1) less victims to compensate as only a few remain and 2) Japan on average has experienced strong growth since WWII ended meaning they invested their money well. If the strong growth is greater than inflation + interest rates, they would have end up with more money than if they had paid the compensation earlier because the compensation money is itself earning them interest.

Of course, to my position difficulty in compensating shouldn't be a barrier if the debt is owed. However I just think in this case the burden on the next generation isn't that great.

1) That's because you created a circle, when the "too late" can be considered more of a thesis, with reasons and factors behidn it.

Alright. So the "too late" part presumably is related to your arguments which I will address individually. Ignore my circularity argument for the present.

But that makes it cease to be a two-way governmental interaction, under which Alternate Laws do apply, and apply they do even in the 20th century.

Well since its an individual suing government, one would expect it NOT be a two way governmental interaction.

Absolute time is one. But since part of it involves by your calc compensating live victims, a nation with a lower life expectancy would have its victims die earlier too, which is why I took it into account. Not that it is important (see end).

I'm not really using either life expectancy OR absolute time. Rather, because you seem to confuse the Principle with the Law, I merely proposed a couple of factor changes to show you how meaningless the line (becuase it is a foggy mix of many factors) is versus the principle. I honestly thought you would see this instead of saying "So? I can propose counternits!" If you had read what I was writing a few posts up you would know it too.

If its (life expectancy) not important I won't go further into it. I didn't even consider it since the longer you extend the period of compensation, the less chance that you will miss someone.

Presumably this foggy mix of factors relate to your other points, which I will continue to discuss.

Do you really want to use an argument that would expire on 2015 (since I somehow really don't think they'd be getting compensation during the next ten years whether they should or not), even by your own standards?

I realise the chances of Japan compensating are as likely as Osama deciding to compensate 9/11 victims. However whether they deserve it is another matter which I thought it was obvious I was debating the latter.