stormthebeaches wrote:
A double standard? Of course there are different standards for private individuals (except for in extreme cases) and for national governments. Governments have much more responsibility than private individuals and therefore must be held to a higher standard. Furthermore, people take the words of governments far more seriously than they do the words of individuals ranting on the internet.
This does not refute the argument you are replying to.
When did I defend other governments bringing up the past. I did not so thing. In fact, in my last post I quite clearly said that such behavior is not okay and governments that do so are usually trying to score cheap political points on the international arena.
You sure fooled us with your one sided criticism of China.
So what did you mean when you said "I am saying it strangely is ok for OTHERS (including yourself) to dredge up the past, but its somehow not ok for China to do so." because that to me seemed to imply that private individuals and national governments should be held to the same standard. Which is just absurd.
Actually what I said it meant. Comparison of one aspect and not every aspect as you state.
I never claimed that China bringing up the past "automatically" leads to people dying. That is yet another strawman argument from you.
Nice back pedal. You claim it will raise tensions and raising tensions will lead to wars or death. Don't believe me, lets look at the conversation.
What I said - I am saying it strangely is ok for OTHERS (including yourself)
to dredge up the past, but its somehow not ok for China to do so.
Your reply had this gem - "When international diplomacy between neighbouring countries goes sour,
people die, often in large numbers"
This was a fucking direct reply to my point. So yes you did say it will lead to death. You said it right
here. Concession accepted.
Are you seriously disputing that increasing tensions in an already tense region increases the chance of violence breaking out or trade wars erupting?
This was addressed several posts ago. You are literally just repeating the same line after conceding you have no evidence to back your claim up that this particular action (ie saying fuck you, aggressive rhetoric etc) will lead to war. Thanks for playing.
The problem is that Jester obviously feels that increasing tensions and harming relations can be justified when it comes to current issues like an on going human rights abuse. I do not agree with this view as I believe that good relations should be maintained in all but the most extreme of circumstances. However, I recognize that there is a substantial difference between risking relations of a current issue and an issue that is three generations in the past. I do not agree with him on this issue but I recognize that there is enough of a difference to avoid branding him a hypocrite.
Ah, so now avoiding raising tensions is not the be all and end all. And that sometimes its worth arguing over an issue even if it does raise tension. OMG, welcome to the view I have espoused since page fucking one.
Here is the underlined part of your quote: "despite of course that such a move may raise tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, and it may affect Australia's interests, which is continued economic growth." What part of that is suppose to explain why you think that I was arguing that the killings of millions was worse than one man being held without trial?
Are you serious? Let me join the dots for you. China raises an issue related to the killing of millions and its bad because it increases tensions. You, er I am sorry you apparently felt that raising the issue of one man being held without trial despite it increasing tensions isn't so bad. Therefore you behave as if that the latter is more important than the former, because we should raise the latter issue even if it does heighten tensions, but we don't do so with the former. Seriously, have you kept track of what you are saying?
Lets take a trip down memory lane and summarize the arguments we have made:
You: "The WW2 Japanese were brutal. They were worse than the Nazis."
Me: "I would be careful about saying that Japan's war crimes were worse than Nazi war crimes."
You: "Oh, so your saying that Japan's war crimes weren't that bad?"
Me: "I never said. I only said that saying that it is somewhat controversial to say that Japan's war crimes were worse than Nazi war crimes."
You: "I see that you are engaging in the common rhetorical trip of comparing something bad to something even worse in order to down play it."
Me: "I never attempted to do that. And you were the one who brought up the comparison between Nazi German and Imperial Japan."
You: "Sure you didn't. I would like a cake and want to eat it too while you are at it."
Really, do I have to explain how dishonest you are being here?
Mate, you don't dispute the Japanese killed more than the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. All you can do is spin that killing more isn't as bad somehow..
I never said that ALL domestic actions AUTOMATICALLY have less impact than ones done at the UN.
But its implicit in your position. Are you seriously this stupid. Let me give you an example of your mindset.
You : Only two people could have done that. Greg and Tim. I know Tim didn't do it because he was with me.
Me : So you are saying Greg did it then.
You : This I strawman, I never said Greg did it. Quote me saying that.
Lets apply your logic now.
You : What China is doing is worse.
Everyone else : It seems to be of the same vein as Japan or the United states are doing.
You : But its worse because it was aimed internationally, while Japan does it for a domestic audience.
Me : Hang on a minute, didn't you just say you never claimed "ALL domestic actions AUTOMATICALLY have less impact than ones done at the UN." In that case, why are you using that "domestic" argument in the first place. Because China's action isn't necessarily worse just because its aimed internationally according to what you just typed. So yes, you just contradicted your own position.
Once again you are engaging in a strawman. I recognise that plenty of domestic actions will have more impact than international actions. Civil wars, for example, are usually domestic affairs but they have a huge amount of impact on the international sphere.
In that case, why did you waste my fucking time talking about how Japan's actions weren't so bad, because they were aimed domestically.
This is called shifting the goal posts buddy. You were caught making a bullshit statement, and you cover it up with another bullshit statement, but are too goddamn stupid to see that it contradicts the first statement. Man, you cannot make this shit up. The comedy is literally writing itself.
Seeking justice for WW2 victims and criticizing historical revisionism is not "shitty behavior". Using the past to gain leverage on the international stage and justify territorial claims is.
Ignoring for a moment how the hell you expect people to evaluate territorial claims without mentioning the past... how do you reconcile the fact that seeking justice for WWII victims will allow a country to gain leverage on the international stage.
stormthebeaches wrote:
I will humour you. Allow in this context indicates "following your rules". So again if China is the only country that follows you guidelines and every other country from Japan, to Britain etc do not, its at a disadvantage. Its like a pacifism. Its great, unless you are the only one who follows it. But that's ok, they should rise above.
If Britain or Japan picks a fight with China they will be at a huge disadvantage. Japan is a rapidly declining power and, as Stas pointed out, Britain needs to trade with China but China does not need to trade with Britain. If a country of roughly equal power (like the USA) or a significant coalition of nations that can collectively challenge China start bringing up China's past the best course of action would be to say something along the lines of: "We all have skeletons in the closet, what has happened has happened and let us not let the past get in the way of prosperous relations in the present." If they keep at it it would be best to accuse them of warmongering by point out that historically claims of reclaiming lost land or righting past wrongs have been frequently used as justifications for war.
The fact that China has other advantages in the pursuit of its interests than say Japan or Britain, does not refute my point that if China is only country that follows your guidelines, they will be automatically giving an advantage to every other country in the world which refuses to follow your rule. Nice red herring.
When representative storm out of a UN summit future diplomacy can still be maintained through the proper channels the next day. When diplomats are recalled from nations future diplomacy with said nation becomes very difficult because the proper channels have now to severed.
Until the diplomats are returned, and until they decide to go through a third party, and until.... Yeah your claim is bullshit and fails even under your own criteria. You making claims which don't jive with reality is par for the course. You making claims which contradicts your own rules.. now that takes a special kind of stupid.
I said that they couldn't pay for large scale reparations. I never said that they couldn't pay at all.
The bullshit is strong in this one. Only problem is you kept on going with this can't pay, er I mean can't pay "large scale reparations" even when people gave you fucking figures which you later admit is not beyond their ability to pay.
2. If you recall, it was you who compared them to Britain by saying they can't pay, but Britain can. I used Britain to illustrate a different concept, that debts are handed over from a previous government are still paid. The reason I chose Britain (which anyone reading the thread but you would get), is to illustrate that not all debts handed over are because of crimes by the previous government, and that... now listen carefully... and that no one ever bats an eyelid about this type of debt, and no one ever cares that a) "its a long time ago" or b) "its a different government" when paying this type of debt. The point is if this is accepted, despite points a) & b), there shouldn't really be a reason to refuse to compensate victims from crimes even if points a) & b) apply. Unless of course you believe all government debts automatically get cancelled out when criteria a) or b) is reached. See, that wasn't difficult was it. Well for you maybe.
It was you who first compared Japan to Britain by bringing up British war debt that Britain payed for.
I already told you. I brought up Britain to show that debts through the generations, and on one complains about debt, but strangely when its debt in the form of compensation and reparation some people do. It was you who wasted time by trying to say Britain can pay, Japan can't, and then conceded Japan can pay.
The implication seemed to be that Japan not paying reparations was on par with Britain not paying its war debts.
Thats because you can't read. The implication is that no one gives a shit about non compensation debts, non reparation debts even though its from several generations ago, so why should they care about compensation debts even if it is from several generations ago?
All I said was that there was a difference between the two (not that Japan should never pay). That is all. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference, because that was the point I was trying to make the whole time.
Do you acknowledge that this difference you keep on pontificating on about is irrelevant, because I wasn't comparing British debt to Japanese reparations. It was a stupid interpretation on your part.
So you admit that there is a sufficient break in continuity between modern Japan and Imperial Japan? Good. As for the next point. I never said that Japan shouldn't pay.
1. You lied when you said that Japan shouldn't pay. All you can do is nitpick to say that "cannot pay large scale reparations" is the not the same for all intents and purposes as saying "shouldn't pay." Too bad you aren't fooling anyone.
2. I know you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, but who gives a shit if the break in continuity its "sufficient"? This is just a bullshit face saving exercise on your part. Seriously, in the context of paying debts, what is the difference between "sufficient break in the continuity between modern Japan and Imperial Japan?", as opposed to an insufficient break. Since you have already conceded they should pay even if there is a "sufficient break" between previous governments, its a worthless point to argue about. I mean, if it was an insufficient break, does that mean Japan has to pay even more. Does it make a difference in terms of requiring them to pay? Do tell. BTW - thats what I mean by arguments about break in continuity is invalid. It doesn't matter whether the break is "sufficient" (whatever criteria you use) or insufficient. Because at the end of the day, successive governments still take up that debt, which you now agree with.
You brought up the comparison between Britain and Japan to argue that since Britain paid its war debts Japan should pay for reparations. I merely argued that the comparison between Britain and Japan was flawed.
Lie. It was you who thought I was comparing Britain to Japan. I was comparing non reparation debt to reparation debt. Try again. Oh wait, you just sprout the same line even when I explained it again because you failed to read it properly the first time.
I brought up the issue of the high cost of reparations when I was under the impression that the reparations would be whole scale and made collectively. And it was Stas who posted the stuff about China calling for reparations for individuals instead of reparations made collectively, not you. The only "figures" you stated were vague stuff about Japanese reparations only being in the billions. Something I was skeptical of until my conversation with Stas.
So you conceded my point that reparations will likely be in billions is correct. But you still trying to argue because it wasn't me who convinced you of it, it was someone else. Wow, just wow.
Never said that my support was required. And I have already acknowledged that Japan can pay limited reparations. And it was you who first brought up QE.
Well actually you did say this gem "So it looks likely that the Japanese government will do something dumb in the future. This still
does not mean that I have to support it." No doubt it was some backhanded attempt to save face. But you know what, I won't argue that point any more because you already conceded they can pay. Anything else is just you trying to save face over some fucking minor point, like I brought up QE to explain how they can pay.
I never said that Japan was not capable of making war reparations. Only that they couldn't make "large scale" war reparations. I have been consist on this point throughout the thread.
The double speak is strong in this one young Padawan.
No I didn't. I merely used the "break in continuity" to explain that there was a difference between Japan and Britain.
A difference in continuity, which you used in the context to argue Britain able to pay its debts, whilst Japan not pay debts. You are just desperately trying to save face now because you now realise the break in continuity makes no difference whatsoever.
I never said that saying "fuck you" will automatically lead to conflict. Rather that it will increase tensions, which in turn will increase the probability of bad things happening in the region (skirmishes in contested areas, trade wars, actual wars). Are you disputing that increasing tensions increases the probability of bad things happening?
First you can't prove your claim (in the previous post), now you never made the claim. This joke has gone on long enough.
PS why are you asking whether I am disputing that increasing tensions increases the probability of bad things happening when I already answered the question. Is this supposed to be a rhetorical question, or are you just hoping I will waste my time with cut and paste of my previous post.
No back tracking at all. China' saying "fuck you" will raise tensions. How much the tensions are raised depends on the nature of the "fuck you".
So you are saying if Chinese leaders said fuck you it will lead to skirmishes, trade wars yada yada, even though at the time you weren't sure what saying "fuck you" will actually involve. I am sure in a million years you might actually work out why those positions are contradictory and stupid.
I said that China saying "fuck you" will increase tensions in the region. This in turn will increase the probability of bad things happening. Do you dispute this?
Ah yes, changing your position after it becomes untenable. After waxing poetry on how some aggressive rhetoric will lead to skirmishes and wars... we are now treated to, oh it will just increase the probability of bad things happening. Since you missed it the first time, people don't deny things can raise tensions. I do think its worth it even if raising tensions because.... drum roll here.... there is no evidence tensions will be raised sufficiently to reach your doomsday, er I mean worse case scenarios, thus the negative consequences will not outweigh the positive ones of raising such issues with another country.
In fact the evidence is against your proposition.
As I previously stated, the EU ban was implemented in direct response to Tiananmen square and was to remain in place until future leaders gather up enough political will to reject it. Its not like EU leaders meet each year and go, "nope, won't sell weapons to China this year".
You asked which countries are still using China's past actions against it, in particular in response the Tiananmen example I cited. I gave the answer - Britain. It has continually opposed ceasing the ban on arms sales based on those events, while France under Chirac was more amenable to it. I answered your question. Other countries bring up China's past in current disputes, China would be remiss not to do the same. But I can see the red herrings flowing like candy during Trick or Treat.
BTW - China has been asking for the ban to be revoked for the last ten years, so the EU leaders may or may not meet every year to discuss this, but their governments clearly do discuss this frequently enough. So you
lose again.
Quite the contrary, EU leaders are considering overturning the ban, so its not like it will be held indefinately. Perhaps if China's new reformist leader implements successful reforms the ban will be dropped altogether.
Maybe someday, but not today. Not that it refutes my point in any way - that countries will bring up the past in geopolitical discussions, Britain even does it in regards to China, thus its fair for other countries including China to do the same.
As for Britain, no, Britain does not use it as an excuse. British leaders are not going up on the international state and denouncing China for its human rights record. Nor are they making any arguments in the EU that the arms ban should be maintained. I asked you to name the national leaders who are denouncing China. You have not done so, instead you have brought up an old policy that is very likely to be abolished in the near future.
You lost buddy, and now you are just making up new retarded positions. Listen to yourself. Britain doesn't use Tiananmen as an excuse. Then why are they still for opposing arms sales because of Tiananmen? They are not making new arguments. Why do you need to make new arguments when the old ones seem to work fine. Britain isn't going up on the international state and denouncing China its human rights record. Really? Are this ignorant? They were bitching about it in
2009 when China executed a British drug smuggler. Which I guess also refutes your point of national leaders who are denouncing China, not that it was actually what you previously said. You asked national leaders that still bring up Tiananmen. I gave you a country which has continually use that as its reason for a particularly policy. If you are too stupid to work out the leader from the country, then it will take more than a few choice words for me to help you.
There is a huge difference between not using the past to gain international leverage because other countries do it, and abolishing your military. This is nothing more than an obnoxious slippery slope fallacy. I have already mentioned what China should do if other nations dig up its past to gain international leverage.
Actually I didn't say countries who don't dredge up the past end up abolishing their military. You clearly didn't read in your haste to find a flaw, any flaw.
So the CCP only partially admits to its criminal past. Likewise, Japan only partially admits to its criminal past. I see the two are quite a bit alike. But it is good of you to say that both sides should come clean. That is something I agree on.
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.
As I previously stated, if other countries start digging up the past for an advantage there are ways for China to deal with it without sinking to their level.
Ah in your words " If they keep at it it would be best to accuse them of warmongering by
point out that historically claims of reclaiming lost land or righting past wrongs have been frequently used as justifications for war. In other words, when countries dredge up the past, China has a much better way of countering that without sinking to their level of dredging up the past by... wait for it... wait for it...dredging up the past. Because what the fuck do you think pointing out revanchism has occurred in the past is an example of, if not dredging up the past. The stupidity just writes itself.
I can be opposed to a person (or a group of people) saying something but recognize that attempting to silence them would be a greater evil. Case to point, back in 2009 the British National Party (a xenophobic far right group) was allowed to speak at the BBC. This created a lot of controversy and there were protests over it. I personally find the BNP's rhetoric horrible and think Britain would be a better place if they kept their hateful words to themselves. However, I recognized that in a democracy you have to give people the right to speak, even if you find their view points repulsive and I found it immensely stupid that there were protests and even riots over the BNP being given the right to speak (the irony of anti fascist protestors rioting against free speech was not lost on me). To quote an old saying "I detest what you say but I will fight to defend your right to say it".
Oh good. China says fuck you to Britain. You say "I detest what you say, but I will fight to defend your right to say it." Which is what you have been doing in this thread. Oh wait.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
