China's New Leader Signals Signs of Economic Reform

[Spoonist]

... that does not mean that it is okay for other nations to engage in actions that will inflame tensions in the region.

Why?
Can you actually motivate this in generic terms? (Without condemning all international diplomacy since antiquity).

If country A believes that country B is doing something really really bad. Then why shouldn't country A raise tension to the point where country B at least listens to the complaint?

You don't even have to go into the morality of specific actions to see that increasing tension is one of the things a country will do to get attention to specific issues. Like trade embargos or displays of military close to disputed regions.
Check out all the different "fishing wars" as simplistic examples.

[stormthebeaches]

Why?
Can you actually motivate this in generic terms? (Without condemning all international diplomacy since antiquity).

If country A believes that country B is doing something really really bad. Then why shouldn't country A raise tension to the point where country B at least listens to the complaint?

You don't even have to go into the morality of specific actions to see that increasing tension is one of the things a country will do to get attention to specific issues. Like trade embargos or displays of military close to disputed regions.
Check out all the different "fishing wars" as simplistic examples.

There are some cases where raising tensions is acceptable. I personally feel that the threshold for doing so is very high (a nation actively committing genocide for example). In my mind Japan engaging in denalism over its WW2 past is not a big enough issue, especially in an already tense region. If China feels that it must confront Japan over its denalism it should do so in a manner that would present itself as a responsible party (such as at a UN summit), in order to keep tensions at an absolute minimum.

[Spoonist]

There are some cases where raising tensions is acceptable. I personally feel that the threshold for doing so is very high (a nation actively committing genocide for example). In my mind Japan engaging in denalism over its WW2 past is not a big enough issue, especially in an already tense region. If China feels that it must confront Japan over its denalism it should do so in a manner that would present itself as a responsible party (such as at a UN summit), in order to keep tensions at an absolute minimum.

Why should what you think is a big issue or not have any relevancy over what country A or B considers to be a big issue?
Why, if we have already established that raising tension is a diplomatic tool, should country A limit themselves to keep such tensions at an aboslute minimum? Wouldn't that undermine the whole point of raising tensions?

[stormthebeaches]

Why should what you think is a big issue or not have any relevancy over what country A or B considers to be a big issue?

I never said that my opinion has any relevance on what country A or B considers to be a big issue. I am merely explaining my opinion to you.

Why, if we have already established that raising tension is a diplomatic tool, should country A limit themselves to keep such tensions at an aboslute minimum? Wouldn't that undermine the whole point of raising tensions?

Let my clarify, I feel that raising tensions as a diplomatic tool is something that should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances (if a country is actively committing genocide for example). Most of the time, if a country has an objection to another country they should express this objection in a manner that will prevent any tensions from being raised, or at the very least, keep the tensions to an absolute minimum.

[mr friendly guy]

So individuals and national governments should be held to the same standard when it comes to past events? Sorry, but that is just absurd.

Amazing stormy, you are actually attacking my actual argument instead of the strawman that I hold individuals and governments to the same standards in everything. Which you repeated numerous times after I pointed out what I actually said, and the flaw in your interpretaion. Afterwards you then accused me of holding individuals and governments to the same standards in rhetoric, despite me pointing the same problem again. Now you finally attack my argument. Congratulations, we are making progress. Soon you will be able to read properly dumbass.

Only problem is your attack is an appeal to personal opinion. That was a bit of a letdown.

Once again your attempt to find me contradicting myself falls flat. In that first quote where I mentioned Japan and Iran, the two nations had engaged in similar things (denialism over past crimes against humanity). I was staying that Japan's denialism would be considered less offensive because it was done on domestically as opposed to on the international stage. At no point does this imply that all actions done domestically have less impact than actions done internationally, merely that similar statements and gestures will have a bigger international impact if they are done domestically than if they are done on the international stage. There is no contradiction between the two posts you quoted.

Tell me another one genius. Hey I can pretend Mitt Romney won the election too despite footage of Romney conceding. If I just believe hard enough, and say it enough times, it becomes true.

In that post I was referring to international relations going sour between neighboring countries leading to people dying. At no point did I say that raising tensions automatically leads to relations between neighboring countries going sour. You are distorting what I say so you can accuse me of contradicting myself.

One problem dipshit. Your post was in direct response to a question about why is not ok for China to dig up the past. When you answer a specific question with a specific reply, you cannot suddenly pretend the reply was in response to a totally different question. Especially when you use quote tags covering that specific question, followed by your answer. You ain't fooling anyone with this bullshit.

Except that they were not criticising China's human rights record. They were saying that China failed its human rights responsibilities in one specific case. Do you not understand the difference between attacking a countries human rights record and attack its human rights in one specific case? Also, you clearly didn't read what I posted because that "human rights record" was not a quote from the article, it was something I said.

This just says it all really. You are now saying a case does not constitute part of a record. The stupidity just writes itself.

As for the second part, as I have already stated that not abolishing an arms embargo but in place in 1989 is not the same thing as EU leaders bringing up Tiananmen now. When was the last time an EU leader (an actual leader of a nation, not the leader of some fringe party or a talking head in the news) brought up Tiananmen, or Mao, or China's human rights record in general and used it to attack China. I have been asking this again and again and you have still failed to provide any examples.

Literally when I provide examples of what I claim, you state I failed to provide examples of things I never claimed. What a lying cumstain you are.

I know that you were trying to demonstrate that some ideals don't match reality. The problem is that not dredging up the past is an ideal that can match reality whilst abolishing your military is an ideal that cannot match reality (for the most part, there are some exceptions to this, like Costa Rica).

If you really really knew I was just demonstrating that some ideals don't match reality, then why did you accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy of going from a) not digging up the past leading to b) abolishing the military? Idiot. If you knew what I was really trying to demonstrate, how the hell did you conclude it was a slippery slope, since the two ideas are totally different. * Oh wait. You misunderstood things yet again, and once again is just trying to save face and pretended that you understood, and I was saying something totally different.

* since Stormy too stupid to understand why the ideas are in polar opposites here is why. A slippery slope implies that A will eventually lead to Z no matter how much it doesn't match reality. Which contradicts the point that some ideas don't match reality. Game set match.

No, I did not say that China should point out skeletons in the closet of other nations. I said that China should say, and I quote: "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." At no point did that imply that China should point out skeletons in the closet of other nations. Just that China should make a blanket statement that all nations have skeletons in the closet and that no one should let the past interfere with good relations in the present.

The semantic whoring is strong in this one. To do what you propose by default causes the former. To point out everyone has skeletons in the closet automatically points out other nations have skeletons in the closet.

You are literally saying because you didn't use the exact words, it doesn't count, even though the meaning is the same.

You asked for a way to justify territorial disputes without bringing up the past, I gave you one. If the territory is uninhabited you could always justify your territorial claim on an economic basis (saying that you need the territory and its resources more than other nations). Alternatively you could justify your territorial claim on current ownership, or the fact that your companies are already exploiting the islands resources far more than neighboring countries.

You are too stupid to see the contradiction there.

Denialism isn't three generations ago, so even under your own criteria, you fail. Moreover Jester's criteria was its bad to raise tensions period. You just change the criteria to its bad to raise tensions for x,y,z condition, which allows you to essentially weasel out of anything by saying, see it matches the criteria. Except it doesn't even do that because denialism, provocating rhetoric is a current issue.

A generation is usually just over twenty years. You said as much back on the first page. Remember this?

The West routinely brings up Tiananmen even though that was a generation ago.

Tiananmen was twenty three years ago. By your criteria a generation would be twenty three years. Three generations would be sixty nine years so yes, Japanese war crimes were roughly three generations ago.

Once again you demonstrate why you fail at reading. Denialism isn't three generations ago you dipshit. War crimes were 3 generations ago, denialism isn't. Concession accepted dumbfuck.

Furthermore, Jester never said that it was bad to raise tensions under any circumstances. Here is quote from him:

Well then, I guess its up to him to state the exceptions with objective criteria. Oh wait.

Having your leadership stand up and scream YOU GOT US HOOKED ON DRUGS SO FUCK YOU is stupid and likely to further escalate tensions in a way that doesn't need to happen, no matter how much it soothes the ego of internet fatties.

Escalate tensions in a way that doesn't need to happen. Thus implying that sometimes it is necessary to escalate tensions. He obviously feels that it is okay to raise tensions with regards to current issue. And I am not changing the criteria of when it is bad to raise tensions. I have already stated that I do not agree with him on this, but I recognize that there is enough of a difference to avoid branding him a hypocrite.

I have stated sometimes its ok to raise tensions. You have stated it. He didn't even when pushed to it. He tried to weasel out using another track. You would think if this is what he really felt he would have said. Try again.

Edit - One wonders why stormthebeaches is hell bent on defending a position where he himself doesn't agree with. I can only speculate that since he is trashed on so many issues, he is just trying to win something, anything to soothe his battered ego.

As for your point point about denialism being a current issue, that is correct and I never said that Japan's denialism over its WW2 past is okay.

Yeah, you just said pretended above it wasn't a current issue.
You just said it somehow wasn't as bad due to bullshit reasons which you contradict when pressed.

And by using Britain and Japan as examples of reparations/compensation debt vs non compensation debts, you were inevitably comparing the two countries.

Still trying to save whats left of your fat face are you buddy? You are literally too proud to admit you failed to read what I wrote properly, and after being corrected several times, to protect your pride you have to pretend that what I wrote somehow also implies what you believe was written, even if I clearly didn't intend that.

While we on this topic, I am still waiting for you to tell me what difference a "sufficient" break in continuity between governments is supposed to signify as opposed to an "insufficient" break. I mean you said even a government with a sufficient break in continuity from a previous government still has to pay debts owed by the previous government, so whats the significance? Do tell. But you won't. You got creamed, you tried to change tact and got creamed again. And now you are not even replying to this part of the conversation any more.

[mr friendly guy]

There are some cases where raising tensions is acceptable. I personally feel that the threshold for doing so is very high (a nation actively committing genocide for example). In my mind Japan engaging in denalism over its WW2 past is not a big enough issue, especially in an already tense region. If China feels that it must confront Japan over its denalism it should do so in a manner that would present itself as a responsible party (such as at a UN summit), in order to keep tensions at an absolute minimum.

So despite saying that doing such things at a UN summit is more provocative than doing it domestically, and is more likely to raise tensions, you now suggest that bringing those issues out in an international stage will raise tensions LESS than a domestic stage? Do you seriously keep track what you are typing, or do you outsource your thinking to call workers?

[Iron Bridge]

... that does not mean that it is okay for other nations to engage in actions that will inflame tensions in the region.

Why?
Can you actually motivate this in generic terms? (Without condemning all international diplomacy since antiquity).

If country A believes that country B is doing something really really bad. Then why shouldn't country A raise tension to the point where country B at least listens to the complaint?

Most obviously because it might result in a lot of deaths, which usually are not worth the thing being complained about. This is of course not always true, if a country is attacking its neighbours, murdering people on a large scale, etc. Japan publishing inaccurate textbooks is not that, though. And by being a member of the UN, China has indirectly recognised Japan's right to publish inaccurate textbooks (within its own borders) without fear of military attack.

Condemning all (or at least most) international diplomacy since antiquity - why not?

[Metahive]

Most obviously because it might result in a lot of deaths, which usually are not worth the thing being complained about. This is of course not always true, if a country is attacking its neighbours, murdering people on a large scale, etc. Japan publishing inaccurate textbooks is not that, though. And by being a member of the UN, China has indirectly recognised Japan's right to publish inaccurate textbooks (within its own borders) without fear of military attack.

Condemning all (or at least most) international diplomacy since antiquity - why not?

A yes, inaccurate textbooks is all the matter is about and not, say, that said inaccuracies are about how Japan denis that it was busy painting chinese and korean cities red not that long ago and Japan's literal apotheosis of bloodthirsty war criminals. I mean, since they mostly killed 3/5ths of a person non-white foreigners it's barely worth remembering anyway, right?
Also, have either China or Korea threaten Japan with military aggression over the issue, so shove that hyporbolic BS back up your poop chute.

I never said that my opinion has any relevance on what country A or B considers to be a big issue. I am merely explaining my opinion to you.

Since your opinion comes all down just to purely personal taste, it's completely negligible and worthless. Hey, you have your opinion, China and Korea have theirs, you may now kindly shuffle off, Brainy Smurf.

[Iron Bridge]

Most obviously because it might result in a lot of deaths, which usually are not worth the thing being complained about. This is of course not always true, if a country is attacking its neighbours, murdering people on a large scale, etc. Japan publishing inaccurate textbooks is not that, though. And by being a member of the UN, China has indirectly recognised Japan's right to publish inaccurate textbooks (within its own borders) without fear of military attack.

Condemning all (or at least most) international diplomacy since antiquity - why not?

A yes, inaccurate textbooks is all the matter is about and not, say, that said inaccuracies are about how Japan denis that it was busy painting chinese and korean cities red not that long ago and Japan's literal apotheosis of bloodthirsty war criminals. I mean, since they mostly killed 3/5ths of a person non-white foreigners it's barely worth remembering anyway, right?

As I understand, the inaccurate school textbooks are the main issue here. The Japanese state does not dispute the status of war criminals as defined by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, nor is it responsible for the content of private books or statements.

I have not said Japan is right to use these textbooks, only that escalating military tensions is not an appropriate response.

Also, have either China or Korea threaten Japan with military aggression over the issue, so shove that hyporbolic BS back up your poop chute.

The downside of escalating tensions is that miltiary force is where the esclations lead. A peaceful protest or polite request to desist is not "escalating tensions"; setting fire to embassies and flags, raking up territorial disputes, spraying warships with water cannon, etc. - is

[mr friendly guy]

But Metahive, don't you get it. According to these people, simply saying bad words will lead to death and destruction. Oh noes. Oh BTW, I am going to say Avada Kedavra to everyone I hate now. Because saying bad words lead to skirmishes, deaths blah blah blah.

Those who have not sinned cast the first stone.

It's your sin if your father committed it.

Or your father's father.

Also, you cannot honor your father if he sinned, or your father's father.

You must condemn him, and all other heroes of your country for what he has done. You must throw stones at your ancestors before being allowed to throw stones at others.

I miss the Garden of Eden, everything was so simple then.

So buddy, where can I get a few of these metaphorical stones to cast? Oh wait, you are going to accuse me of being arrogant to think that I am without sin. But let me tell you buddy, its actually much worse than that. I simply don't believe your bullshit, and neither do you, because in telling people to throw stones at their ancestors, you have already cast judgement on someone (ie cast the first stone) despite the fact by definition, no human is without sin. And also the fact you troll up other threads so you lost the moral high ground of tell others not to cast stones.

[Thanas]

Its not like Israel doesn't milk the Holocaust, they just don't use it against Germany. IMO a similar thing will happen if Japan does the same thing Germany did. If the PRC government wants someone to blame, they will find someone else, just like Israel does.

Yeah, Israel does use the holocaust against Germany. They just use code words like "German debt to Israel" or "Germany being responsible for the safety of Israel due to the special past" etc.

[PainRack]

As I understand, the inaccurate school textbooks are the main issue here. The Japanese state does not dispute the status of war criminals as defined by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, nor is it responsible for the content of private books or statements.

Since..... when?
The school textbooks and even the visit to the war memorial has always been tied to the fact that Japan has not formally apologised and acknowledged the war crimes she committed to China and Korea.

Granted, China is pulling semantics on what constitute an apology, but damn it, so is JAPAN. Seriously. Just say I'm sorry, we did bad, we killed a lot of people back during WW2 in an war of aggression that we started. Sure, there were triggering factors and etc, teach that all you like but dude....... you the guys who pulled the damn trigger. A war didn't require a genocide.

The downside of escalating tensions is that miltiary force is where the esclations lead. A peaceful protest or polite request to desist is not "escalating tensions"; setting fire to embassies and flags, raking up territorial disputes, spraying warships with water cannon, etc. - is

So, what do you call it when citizens protest and the riot police is called out to calm people down?

[Iron Bridge]

As I understand, the inaccurate school textbooks are the main issue here. The Japanese state does not dispute the status of war criminals as defined by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, nor is it responsible for the content of private books or statements.

Since..... when?
The school textbooks and even the visit to the war memorial has always been tied to the fact that Japan has not formally apologised and acknowledged the war crimes she committed to China and Korea.

Granted, China is pulling semantics on what constitute an apology, but damn it, so is JAPAN. Seriously. Just say I'm sorry, we did bad, we killed a lot of people back during WW2 in an war of aggression that we started. Sure, there were triggering factors and etc, teach that all you like but dude....... you the guys who pulled the damn trigger. A war didn't require a genocide.

That is a reasonable request. But the post I replied to specifically was asking what was wrong with "escalating tensions" if the request is not fulfilled willingly - this is where we may disagree.

The downside of escalating tensions is that miltiary force is where the esclations lead. A peaceful protest or polite request to desist is not "escalating tensions"; setting fire to embassies and flags, raking up territorial disputes, spraying warships with water cannon, etc. - is

So, what do you call it when citizens protest and the riot police is called out to calm people down?

1. I am suspicious of "spontaneous patriotic demonstrations" in fascist dictatorships.

2. Whether it is individuals or states escalating tensions, it's good in neither case.

[ryacko]

Those who have not sinned cast the first stone.

It's your sin if your father committed it.

Or your father's father.

Also, you cannot honor your father if he sinned, or your father's father.

You must condemn him, and all other heroes of your country for what he has done. You must throw stones at your ancestors before being allowed to throw stones at others.

I miss the Garden of Eden, everything was so simple then.

So buddy, where can I get a few of these metaphorical stones to cast? Oh wait, you are going to accuse me of being arrogant to think that I am without sin. But let me tell you buddy, its actually much worse than that. I simply don't believe your bullshit, and neither do you, because in telling people to throw stones at their ancestors, you have already cast judgement on someone (ie cast the first stone) despite the fact by definition, no human is without sin. And also the fact you troll up other threads so you lost the moral high ground of tell others not to cast stones.

It's hard to tell if your missing my point entirely or not.

It's hard to criticize your ancestors for what they have done. Assuming you're an American, would you support the condemnation of President Jackson for genocide, and to remove any statues of him anywhere within the United States? It is somewhat relevant to a past discussion within this thread about Japan paying respect to past leaders who committed war crimes, as an action that ought to be condemned. The United States isn't without sin, and ultimately no nation is if one goes far enough back in history.

And to be pedantic, there are people without sin, those are saints, but I don't claim to be one.

I guess I'm asking for empathy for the plights of other nations. It isn't quite so simple.

[stormthebeaches]

Amazing stormy, you are actually attacking my actual argument instead of the strawman that I hold individuals and governments to the same standards in everything. Which you repeated numerous times after I pointed out what I actually said, and the flaw in your interpretaion. Afterwards you then accused me of holding individuals and governments to the same standards in rhetoric, despite me pointing the same problem again. Now you finally attack my argument. Congratulations, we are making progress. Soon you will be able to read properly dumbass.

Only problem is your attack is an appeal to personal opinion. That was a bit of a letdown.

Guess what, I never said that you were saying that national governments and individuals should be held to the same standard in everything. Engaging in a strawman argument by accusing me of strawmanning you, very original. Also, do I really have to explain the absurdity of saying that private individuals should be held to national governments when it comes to rhetoric?

Tell me another one genius. Hey I can pretend Mitt Romney won the election too despite footage of Romney conceding. If I just believe hard enough, and say it enough times, it becomes true.

Now your not even trying to argue. My position on this issue has been consisted since I first posted in this thread, just because you say otherwise that does not make it true.

One problem dipshit. Your post was in direct response to a question about why is not ok for China to dig up the past. When you answer a specific question with a specific reply, you cannot suddenly pretend the reply was in response to a totally different question. Especially when you use quote tags covering that specific question, followed by your answer. You ain't fooling anyone with this bullshit.

Go back and reread the post. I was clearly explaining why individuals and governments cannot be held to the same standard. Furthermore, I never stated that aggressive rhetoric or heightened tensions automatically lead diplomacy between neighboring countries going sour. That is all you.

This just says it all really. You are now saying a case does not constitute part of a record. The stupidity just writes itself.

I never said that a case does not constitute part of a record. That is yet another strawman from you. I said that pointing to Gordon Brown saying China failed its human rights obligations in one specific case (which, at the time of the article, had just happened) is not the same as attacking a nations human rights record. Lets recap, I asked for proof of EU leaders bringing up China's human rights record. You posted a link to Gordon Brown criticising China for one specific case (which had, at the time of the article, happened very recently). Can you not tell the difference between criticising one specific case and criticising an entire record?

Literally when I provide examples of what I claim, you state I failed to provide examples of things I never claimed. What a lying cumstain you are.

I asked for examples of EU leaders denouncing China for its human rights record (major leaders that is, not the leader of some fringe party or talking head on the news). You have failed to provide any.

If you really really knew I was just demonstrating that some ideals don't match reality, then why did you accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy of going from a) not digging up the past leading to b) abolishing the military? Idiot. If you knew what I was really trying to demonstrate, how the hell did you conclude it was a slippery slope, since the two ideas are totally different. * Oh wait. You misunderstood things yet again, and once again is just trying to save face and pretended that you understood, and I was saying something totally different.

* since Stormy too stupid to understand why the ideas are in polar opposites here is why. A slippery slope implies that A will eventually lead to Z no matter how much it doesn't match reality. Which contradicts the point that some ideas don't match reality. Game set match.

Well, well. After accusing me of dishonestly this entire thread you finally caught me misusing the term slippery slope fallacy. I guess sometimes the broken clock is right. To bad you failed to address my main point here, let me repeat it for you.

"The problem is that not dredging up the past is an ideal that can match reality whilst abolishing your military is an ideal that cannot match reality (for the most part, there are some exceptions to this, like Costa Rica)."

Care to address this?

The semantic whoring is strong in this one. To do what you propose by default causes the former. To point out everyone has skeletons in the closet automatically points out other nations have skeletons in the closet.

You are literally saying because you didn't use the exact words, it doesn't count, even though the meaning is the same.

This argument only works if you can't tell the difference between making broad statements about "all of us" and pointing out historical wrong doing in other countries. I even stated that I regard "bringing up the past" as focusing on the specific wrong doings of specific countries in a previous post so no contradiction here. Nice try though.

You are too stupid to see the contradiction there.

Guess what, referring to current ownership is bringing up the present, not the past.

Once again you demonstrate why you fail at reading. Denialism isn't three generations ago you dipshit. War crimes were 3 generations ago, denialism isn't. Concession accepted dumbfuck.

Wow, you have the nerve to accuse me of semantic whoring and then you pull this. You knew damn well that I was referring to Japan's WW2 crimes.

I have stated sometimes its ok to raise tensions. You have stated it. He didn't even when pushed to it. He tried to weasel out using another track. You would think if this is what he really felt he would have said. Try again.

Edit - One wonders why stormthebeaches is hell bent on defending a position where he himself doesn't agree with. I can only speculate that since he is trashed on so many issues, he is just trying to win something, anything to soothe his battered ego.

I am not trying to defend the Jester's position. I am merely trying to explain that there is enough difference between the two points to avoid branding him a hypocrite. Oh, and me getting trashed on so many issues, that is hilarious. This entire argument has been you desperately trying to prove that I am contradicting myself and failing miserably at it.

Yeah, you just said pretended above it wasn't a current issue.
You just said it somehow wasn't as bad due to bullshit reasons which you contradict when pressed.

When I said that Japan's denialism over its WW2 crimes wasn't a current issue, I meant that the WW2 crimes weren't a current issue.

Still trying to save whats left of your fat face are you buddy? You are literally too proud to admit you failed to read what I wrote properly, and after being corrected several times, to protect your pride you have to pretend that what I wrote somehow also implies what you believe was written, even if I clearly didn't intend that.

When you brought up Britain as an example with Japan, you ended up comparing the two countries.

While we on this topic, I am still waiting for you to tell me what difference a "sufficient" break in continuity between governments is supposed to signify as opposed to an "insufficient" break. I mean you said even a government with a sufficient break in continuity from a previous government still has to pay debts owed by the previous government, so whats the significance? Do tell. But you won't. You got creamed, you tried to change tact and got creamed again. And now you are not even replying to this part of the conversation any more.

I never stopped responding to this part of the conversation. The conversation drifted away from this topic because we both agreed that there was a break in continuity between Imperial Japan and modern Japan. And you never asked me to define a "sufficient" break vs an "insufficient" break. This whole paragraph is a red herring.

So despite saying that doing such things at a UN summit is more provocative than doing it domestically, and is more likely to raise tensions, you now suggest that bringing those issues out in an international stage will raise tensions LESS than a domestic stage? Do you seriously keep track what you are typing, or do you outsource your thinking to call workers?

I said that statements and gestures are more offensive when done on the international state as opposed to being done domestically. If two or more countries have a dispute then, guess what, it is now an international issue. In which case, it would be best for at least one of the countries to bringing in a third party mediator (like the UN, for example) to resolve the issue. The only way you could think of this as a contradiction would be to confuse gesture and actions with actual disputes between nations.

Since your opinion comes all down just to purely personal taste, it's completely negligible and worthless. Hey, you have your opinion, China and Korea have theirs, you may now kindly shuffle off, Brainy Smurf.

He asked for my opinion on the matter, I gave it to him. That is all.

[K. A. Pital]

Let me just interject with one small point as to how Japan's dredging up of the past is "not a current issue".

This will relate to Senkaku dispute (just to move away a bit from the WWII crimes and show that Japanese defence of imperialism has been incredibly consistent).

In 2010 the Ishigaki Municipal Assembly passed the ordinance to name January 14 "Pioneering Day" to "more clearly demonstrate to the international community that the Senkaku Islands have been historically an integral part of Japanese territory and to enlighten public opinions of the (Japanese) people." This relates to 14th of January, 1895. The time when (surprise) the Empire of Japan won Formosa and all other islands in vinicity from China. Which they later occupied for half a century.

Why would anyone in their sane mind celebrate an imperialist conquest of a territory as "proving that X has been historically an integral part of Japanese territory"? That's Japan for you, folks.

By the way, this is a domestic gesture. Do you think this is acceptable? And not inflaming tensions? Why, praytell, does daylight-clear Japanese revanchism get such a pat on the back, stormthebeaches?

So before you decry something from the past as "not important enough to inflame tensions over", just think again for a bit.

[stormthebeaches]

Let me just interject with one small point as to how Japan's dredging up of the past is "not a current issue".

This will relate to Senkaku dispute (just to move away a bit from the WWII crimes and show that Japanese defence of imperialism has been incredibly consistent).

In 2010 the Ishigaki Municipal Assembly passed the ordinance to name January 14 "Pioneering Day" to "more clearly demonstrate to the international community that the Senkaku Islands have been historically an integral part of Japanese territory and to enlighten public opinions of the (Japanese) people." This relates to 14th of January, 1895. The time when (surprise) the Empire of Japan won Formosa and all other islands in vinicity from China. Which they later occupied for half a century.

Why would anyone in their sane mind celebrate an imperialist conquest of a territory as "proving that X has been historically an integral part of Japanese territory"? That's Japan for you, folks.

By the way, this is a domestic gesture. Do you think this is acceptable? And not inflaming tensions? Why, praytell, does daylight-clear Japanese revanchism get such a pat on the back, stormthebeaches?

So before you decry something from the past as "not important enough to inflame tensions over", just think again for a bit.

Since Japan is now using the past to justify a territorial claim this is no longer a past issue but now a current one. And no, I do not think that this is acceptable. Also, I never said that actions done domestically have no impact.

[Spoonist]

... that does not mean that it is okay for other nations to engage in actions that will inflame tensions in the region.

Why?
Can you actually motivate this in generic terms? (Without condemning all international diplomacy since antiquity).

If country A believes that country B is doing something really really bad. Then why shouldn't country A raise tension to the point where country B at least listens to the complaint?

Most obviously because it might result in a lot of deaths, which usually are not worth the thing being complained about. This is of course not always true, if a country is attacking its neighbours, murdering people on a large scale, etc. Japan publishing inaccurate textbooks is not that, though. And by being a member of the UN, China has indirectly recognised Japan's right to publish inaccurate textbooks (within its own borders) without fear of military attack.

Condemning all (or at least most) international diplomacy since antiquity - why not?

That is pretty much ignorant not only of the specific case of Japan and China but also ignorant of most of modern history.
The textbooks and the tensions surrounding them will not lead to a lot of deaths unless other factors outweigh that consideration. However those textbooks are part of a larger thing and used as an excuse for positioning the strategic power in the region. Like the islands that Stas mentioned.

Look at North and South Korea, there is a lot of posturing and usually some deaths every couple of years. But there is no full-scale war. Why? Because while some benefit from the tension neither would benefit from open conflict.

Then there is the argument and the issue. Take US civil war, lots of people will say that it was about slavery, but it wasn't. The issues were always about who controlled what to which degree. The slavery was just one of the convenient excuses to argue about.

[K. A. Pital]

Since Japan is now using the past to justify a territorial claim this is no longer a past issue but now a current one. And no, I do not think that this is acceptable. Also, I never said that actions done domestically have no impact.

But as you can also see, that's a domestic action which by Japan's own admission is also aimed internationally. It is a deliberate attempt to make other nations recognize their claims ("become more aware of them" in diplospeak). This certainly refutes the idea that domestic actions are aimed solely at a domestic audience - this thesis needs to be proven on its own. Do you have other facts to prove that Japanese denialism is solely aimed at the domestic populace? And not - also - at the international community to make Japan pose as a war victim moreso than one of the most brutal agressors in the history of recent warfare? To eclipse Japan's absolutely real transgressions in China and Korea with its defeat and occupation by the US, and make the rest of the world more calm and tolerant when Japan makes revanchist claims to regain territories which it either conquered during the Empire period or lost post-WWII and renounced their claim to these territories? How do you measure the domestic and international component of a political stunt like that?

[stormthebeaches]

But as you can also see, that's a domestic action which by Japan's own admission is also aimed internationally. It is a deliberate attempt to make other nations recognize their claims ("become more aware of them" in diplospeak). This certainly refutes the idea that domestic actions are aimed solely at a domestic audience - this thesis needs to be proven on its own. Do you have other facts to prove that Japanese denialism is solely aimed at the domestic populace? And not - also - at the international community to make Japan pose as a war victim moreso than one of the most brutal agressors in the history of recent warfare? To eclipse Japan's absolutely real transgressions in China and Korea with its defeat and occupation by the US, and make the rest of the world more calm and tolerant when Japan makes revanchist claims to regain territories which it either conquered during the Empire period or lost post-WWII and renounced their claim to these territories? How do you measure the domestic and international component of a political stunt like that?

Here's the thing, I never said that statements and gestures done domestically have no impact on the international stage. Just that they have less impact than those done internationally. I also recognize that statements made domestically can be aimed at an international audience, but they will still be considered less provocative than those done internationally. But it this way, I think we both agree that Japan's actions are bad, yet also agree that they would be even worse if they were done on an international platform (like a UN summit).

[mr friendly guy]

Guess what, I never said that you were saying that national governments and individuals should be held to the same standard in everything. Engaging in a strawman argument by accusing me of strawmanning you, very original. Also, do I really have to explain the absurdity of saying that private individuals should be held to national governments when it comes to rhetoric?

No, you just kept on repeating that line even after I specified I was only talking about one facet. And you know what? You still don't get it. I already said I was only talking about comparing individuals to governments in regards to bringing up the past, not rhetoric in general.

Now your not even trying to argue. My position on this issue has been consisted since I first posted in this thread, just because you say otherwise that does not make it true.

Thats because I already won idiot.

Go back and reread the post. I was clearly explaining why individuals and governments cannot be held to the same standard. Furthermore, I never stated that aggressive rhetoric or heightened tensions automatically lead diplomacy between neighboring countries going sour. That is all you.

Bullshit. The question I asked was quite simple, why can't China dredge up the past. You stated people die when international diplomacy goes sour. The implications are a) bringing up the past will go lead to international diplomacy going sour b) this will in turn lead to death and c) it must be likely, or else its pointless bringing this up.

You just attempt to pretend you were answering another question.

I never said that a case does not constitute part of a record. That is yet another strawman from you. I said that pointing to Gordon Brown saying China failed its human rights obligations in one specific case (which, at the time of the article, had just happened) is not the same as attacking a nations human rights record. Lets recap, I asked for proof of EU leaders bringing up China's human rights record. You posted a link to Gordon Brown criticising China for one specific case (which had, at the time of the article, happened very recently). Can you not tell the difference between criticising one specific case and criticising an entire record?

Idiot. With this criteria China could be criticised numerous times, but it won't count as a record, because you can set about whatever criteria you want for record. I backed up my claims, you just pretend I need many more because it doesn't constitute a record, even though you say "I never said that a case does not constitute part of a record."

Literally when I provide examples of what I claim, you state I failed to provide examples of things I never claimed. What a lying cumstain you are.

I asked for examples of EU leaders denouncing China for its human rights record (major leaders that is, not the leader of some fringe party or talking head on the news). You have failed to provide any.

See what I mean about failing to read. You ask me to back up examples I never claimed. Your very reply quoted me saying "examples of things I never claimed". Are you too stupid to realise I don't need to back up anything I never claimed. You then go on to say it was YOU who asked to provide examples of things I never claimed. I gave you an example of what I claimed, countries even today bringing up the past in regards to China. The very fact that even one example exists, already disproves one of your other thesis countries should keep quiet about what other countries do unless its genocide, because countries don't behave in that manner, and it would be disadvantageous for China to be the only country to do so for fear of raising tensions.

Well, well. After accusing me of dishonestly this entire thread you finally caught me misusing the term slippery slope fallacy. I guess sometimes the broken clock is right. To bad you failed to address my main point here, let me repeat it for you.

Actually I also caught you holding numerous self contradictory positions, going on red herrings (I am still waiting for you to explain why it makes a difference if there is a sufficient break in continuity), outright lying. But who is counting. Certainly not you dumbass.

I suspect its not so much you don't understand what a slippery slope is, you once again failed to read properly what I said, and thought it was a slippery slope.

BTW - Speaking of failing to read properly, I am still waiting for your response where I demonstrated you failed to read my post when I said denialism is a phenomena which didn't occur generations ago, followed by you doing a bait and switch and saying Japanese war crimes did happen generations ago. This should be good, but I expect you to chicken out again.

"The problem is that not dredging up the past is an ideal that can match reality whilst abolishing your military is an ideal that cannot match reality (for the most part, there are some exceptions to this, like Costa Rica)."

Wasn't it clear from my previous response. How about this one then. You statement is self contradictory because you state on one hand that abolishing the military cannot match reality then give examples of it does, and then say not dredging up the past can match reality even though you acknowledge examples of countries that do (hint its when you use the line "I don't agree with what <insert country here> does either.

Care to address this?

Sure did buddy. Now care to address how you failed to read my statement that denialism did not happen generations ago and how you did a bait and switch with saying Japanese war crimes did happen generations ago, or how about you address why its important that there is a significant break in continuity between the present and past governments of a country.

This argument only works if you can't tell the difference between making broad statements about "all of us" and pointing out historical wrong doing in other countries. I even stated that I regard "bringing up the past" as focusing on the specific wrong doings of specific countries in a previous post so no contradiction here. Nice try though.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

US : China you are bad. You did these bad things in the past <insert examples here>. We using this past to gain a geopolitical advantage.

China : Must follow stormthebeaches advice. Must rise above it all.

US : I am going to keep on doing this.

China : what does stormthebeaches say to do next when the US doesn't stop. Oh thats right. Hey US. All of us has skeletons in the closet.

US : Ok. Such as?

China : You know what. We all have skeletons in the closet.

US : Such as.

China : Must not be specific. Because that will violate stormthebeaches rule of focussing on the specific wrong doings of a specific country.

US : Didn't you hear me, such as?

China : All of us have skeletons in the closet, don't you know this?

US : Hard to discuss this, when you won't even say what you mean by skeletons in the closet. Which past wrongs are you talking about?

China : must rise above. Cannot dig up the past on a specific country.

US : You swallowed that retard's argument didn't you?

Your awesome strategy is so amazingly effective that it does not put a country at any disadvantage whatsoever when they choose to follow you advice. In other news, stormthebeaches just tried switched from a self contradictory position (by skirting the line between what constitutes digging up the past even though he points to historical events, but its ok as long as its very broad instead of specific), back to the original problem, that countries which follow his advice to "rise above it" are at a disadvantage.

Congratulations buddy, you just changed your position from a rock to a hard place. Good job.

Guess what, referring to current ownership is bringing up the present, not the past.

Guess what. How did they get there in the first place without the past already occurring.

Wow, you have the nerve to accuse me of semantic whoring and then you pull this. You knew damn well that I was referring to Japan's WW2 crimes.

Except of course I was referring to events which are occurring now, and I know you would still object to them, so under your own criteria it wouldn't have made a goddamn difference whether they occurred now or in the past. This is despite your claim of differences between them (there are differences between almost anything, but the point is, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of objecting to them) You keep on wanting to talk about the event occurring in the past, rather than the fact "it doesn't make a difference to your criteria whether they occurred in the past or not".

Its just like you keep on harping about a sufficient break in continuity between past and present governments, when it doesn't make a fucking difference whether a present government has to pay a past debt or not.

I am not trying to defend the Jester's position. I am merely trying to explain that there is enough difference between the two points to avoid branding him a hypocrite. Oh, and me getting trashed on so many issues, that is hilarious. This entire argument has been you desperately trying to prove that I am contradicting myself and failing miserably at it.

This was already addressed.

When I said that Japan's denialism over its WW2 crimes wasn't a current issue, I meant that the WW2 crimes weren't a current issue.

Looks like backtracking there.

When you brought up Britain as an example with Japan, you ended up comparing the two countries.

Broken records are getting good these days.

I never stopped responding to this part of the conversation. The conversation drifted away from this topic because we both agreed that there was a break in continuity between Imperial Japan and modern Japan. And you never asked me to define a "sufficient" break vs an "insufficient" break. This whole paragraph is a red herring.

I don't need to ask you to define what constitutes a sufficient break when I asked a more pertinent question. What difference does it make to paying debts from a previous government? None apparently. You were the one who raised this issue in regards to governments paying debts. When you were called on this, when you youself admit a government with sufficient break in continuity should still pay debts from a previous government eg Japan. You just tried to save face by saying well we both agree the governments are different. Yeah, after you wasted time trying to defend this continuity argument, and now you chicken out when you lose.

I said that statements and gestures are more offensive when done on the international state as opposed to being done domestically. If two or more countries have a dispute then, guess what, it is now an international issue. In which case, it would be best for at least one of the countries to bringing in a third party mediator (like the UN, for example) to resolve the issue. The only way you could think of this as a contradiction would be to confuse gesture and actions with actual disputes between nations.

Ah, but under your criteria the moment they make more statements and gestures on the international stage, it would worsen an already existing dispute. So both sides go to an international mediator and keep quiet because the moment they say something the other doesn't agree with, it just makes things worse.

[mr friendly guy]

It's hard to tell if your missing my point entirely or not.

It's hard to criticize your ancestors for what they have done. Assuming you're an American, would you support the condemnation of President Jackson for genocide, and to remove any statues of him anywhere within the United States? It is somewhat relevant to a past discussion within this thread about Japan paying respect to past leaders who committed war crimes, as an action that ought to be condemned. The United States isn't without sin, and ultimately no nation is if one goes far enough back in history.

And to be pedantic, there are people without sin, those are saints, but I don't claim to be one.

I guess I'm asking for empathy for the plights of other nations. It isn't quite so simple.

Anyone is entitled to discuss past events, including nations discussing the past of each other. Rather than say, we all did shit things in the past, lets not discuss it. I say we become open about it, because only then can we improve from it.

BTW - that is not to say we bring up things which are hardly relevant to a particular discussion. For example past settlements in the Falklands are a valid point of discussion into territory disputes in that area. Bringing up Britain's rule in India is not.

And yes I admit I missed some of your point, because I thought you were trolling.

[ryacko]

It's hard to tell if your missing my point entirely or not.

It's hard to criticize your ancestors for what they have done. Assuming you're an American, would you support the condemnation of President Jackson for genocide, and to remove any statues of him anywhere within the United States? It is somewhat relevant to a past discussion within this thread about Japan paying respect to past leaders who committed war crimes, as an action that ought to be condemned. The United States isn't without sin, and ultimately no nation is if one goes far enough back in history.

And to be pedantic, there are people without sin, those are saints, but I don't claim to be one.

I guess I'm asking for empathy for the plights of other nations. It isn't quite so simple.

Anyone is entitled to discuss past events, including nations discussing the past of each other. Rather than say, we all did shit things in the past, lets not discuss it. I say we become open about it, because only then can we improve from it.

BTW - that is not to say we bring up things which are hardly relevant to a particular discussion. For example past settlements in the Falklands are a valid point of discussion into territory disputes in that area. Bringing up Britain's rule in India is not.

And yes I admit I missed some of your point, because I thought you were trolling.

To be fair I was being a bit silly and a little off tangent. I still think it is ridiculous to discuss the long dead past, since, revanchism aside, very few alive actually experienced it or committed it. After a certain point, you have to move on. It's a bit callous, but what are you going to do? I can't help but think of a conversation involving "Your father killed my father, prepare to talk."

Although, when it comes to stolen property and enjoying the benefits of it, that's more of a continued injustice. That's the only exception I could think of to what I said.

[madd0ct0r]

other exceptions would be eco-system damage, genetic damage and diseases left from experiments ( Unit 731 in Manchuria as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 )

All of the above would also be continued injustices that continue to harm the current generation.

[Iron Bridge]

other exceptions would be eco-system damage, genetic damage and diseases left from experiments ( Unit 731 in Manchuria as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 )

All of the above would also be continued injustices that continue to harm the current generation.

Are you serious that Unit 731 introduced new diseases into the general population? That seems implausible.



I think the main thing of the present generation being hurt is its pride. China beat up all its neighbours, even refusing to acknowledge other sovereigns existed, merely tributary rulers under Chinese suzerainty. Then Japan modernised its society and beat up Korea and China. Now China is at last modernising, and with a larger population seems it can make a go of it again.

It's like 2012 Germany demanding Alsace-Lorraine or something. Utterly absurd.