Debate Thread

The tensions between china and Japan have gone on for a loooooooooonnnnnnnnnggggg time. This is nothing new.

You could say it all started back after the Japanese islands were first inhabited. You have Chinese who were all about conguering the islands over the course of centuries and then you had instances where Japan invaded China. The most recent (and sorely remembered) was back during WW2 and the raping of Nanking or the instances of "comfort women". Granted those were different times back then but you have to know, Japan never officially opologized or admitted any wrong doing and they have their own version of what amounts to holocaust deniers that say things like that never happened.

Now these latest riots are appearing to stem from land disputes that are very old. The islands in question do fall into a massive grey area that was never resolved back when they should have (kinda like how the islands on the Detroit river and great lakes were disputed between the USA and Canada for a while there). They dont have inhabitants or an indigonus population and were largely ignored only with the discovery of mineral wealth are they now a big deal.

I bielve China is using the riots to detract from other issues in the county and can use them as a scapegoat

Lady Stardust wrote:

Jonny wrote:The idea of a cyclical universe was actually explored in a Futurama episode.

Yep, that is the origin of "I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

Zebra, you strike me as overly cynical. Just because China is communist doesn't make their system of government horrible and awful. It just works differently, and in some capacities is more limited than the US system.
I dislike that people are smashing things just to smash them. Where's the symbolism of destroying Chinese-made Japanese products and beating up people who have Japanese cars? It does not seem like those disputed islands are the entire issue.

Of course not. Communisim has nothing to do with their government being horrible and awful.


But that doesn't change the fact that China's government is, compared to most Western governments, cruel and tyrannical. Not to mention the fact that they basically ignore whatever international laws they want, whenever they want. Their imperialistic tendencies to try and control Asia, which they seem to consider their "Backyard" are starting to upset people.

The US does things like that, too, but at least we don't go in and annex the place, or ignore international law.

@Sam: Exactly. And that's why I think it will lead to war, eventually. China and Japan are sort of like how France and England used to be, except on a much larger scale. And since both China and Japan are such major world players, I don't doubt that if they went to war, a large amount of other countries would get involved.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:The US does things like that, too, but at least we don't go in and annex the place, or ignore international law.

I disagree.

The U.S. has been ignoring international and domestic law and making shit up since the Gulf of Tonkin. The U.S. has a gritty little history of ignoring international and domestic law; they have flown UAVs over neutral territory, they have raided and assassinated, and planned to assassinate, while completely ignoring the justice system and they have falsely imprisoned and tortured innocent people. There's this shit and all those other fucked up intelligence programs in the name of "national security". The U.S. government accused an entire race of people of "terrorism" and started the biggest witch hunt in recent history; that is borderline genocide.

The U.S. is the biggest bully in the world right now, look at all that shit happening with Israel and Iran and the Middle East. I'm not surprised that countries like Iran are pushing for nuclear weapons. If there was a kid on my block that didn't like me and he had a gun, I'd sure want a gun too.

I am super paranoid about international war but I could not care less about this little China-Japan conflict. I don't think anything will come of it. In a month everyone will have forgotten about it. The recent Yeonpyeong conflict was much worse and nothing came from that immediately. I think the most imminent war is the war between the U.S. and Iran and I would not be surprised if it happened next year.

As for the U.S. not being as tyrannical as China, well, it looks like a pretty marginal difference from over here. I'm thinking of a country that can get away with abducting, torturing or killing its citizens, infringing on privacy rights at every turn, even attempting to restrict internet access, and it's sure not bloody China.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:Of course not. Communisim has nothing to do with their government being horrible and awful.

The way you phrase your sentences makes it sound differently.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:Well, yes, but the thing is, normally, roits, and protests are not common in China. Because China is, to put it nicely, a horrible, communist tyrany that does not like free-speech. Also, their flag is pretty.

If Communism has nothing to do with your opinion then you shouldn't tag it in to your argument or people will assume it is part of your argument. If I say "Hitler is a moustached menace" then people are going to assume I've got something against moustaches.

Colon Snake wrote:

Top Hat Zebra wrote:The US does things like that, too, but at least we don't go in and annex the place, or ignore international law.

I disagree.

The U.S. has been ignoring international and domestic law and making shit up since the Gulf of Tonkin. The U.S. has a gritty little history of ignoring international and domestic law; they have flown UAVs over neutral territory, they have raided and assassinated, and planned to assassinate, while completely ignoring the justice system and they have falsely imprisoned and tortured innocent people. There's this shit and all those other fucked up intelligence programs in the name of "national security". The U.S. government accused an entire race of people of "terrorism" and started the biggest witch hunt in recent history; that is borderline genocide.

The U.S. is the biggest bully in the world right now, look at all that shit happening with Israel and Iran and the Middle East. I'm not surprised that countries like Iran are pushing for nuclear weapons. If there was a kid on my block that didn't like me and he had a gun, I'd sure want a gun too.

I am super paranoid about international war but I could not care less about this little China-Japan conflict. I don't think anything will come of it. In a month everyone will have forgotten about it. The recent Yeonpyeong conflict was much worse and nothing came from that immediately. I think the most imminent war is the war between the U.S. and Iran and I would not be surprised if it happened next year.

As for the U.S. not being as tyrannical as China, well, it looks like a pretty marginal difference from over here. I'm thinking of a country that can get away with abducting, torturing or killing its citizens, infringing on privacy rights at every turn, even attempting to restrict internet access, and it's sure not bloody China.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:Of course not. Communisim has nothing to do with their government being horrible and awful.

The way you phrase your sentences makes it sound differently.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:Well, yes, but the thing is, normally, roits, and protests are not common in China. Because China is, to put it nicely, a horrible, communist tyrany that does not like free-speech. Also, their flag is pretty.

If Communism has nothing to do with your opinion then you shouldn't tag it in to your argument or people will assume it is part of your argument. If I say "Hitler is a moustached menace" then people are going to assume I've got something against moustaches.

Alright, for one thing, the United States did NOT accuse Muslims of terrorism. We accused certain militant groups of Muslims as terrorists. People are simply too stupid to tell the difference. If we had gone against some hypothetical Australian terrorist organization, you can bet your ass most Americans would hate all Australians, because they're ignorant. Same goes for basically any country, ever.

I agree, that business in the Middle East is ridiculous. Most people want it to be over, but unfortunately, the government has a good (For it) reason to be over there (Probably money.) So, it probably won't end anytime soon.

The difference between that, and China, though, is that we are not going over there and annexing other countries. We're not conquering. Were China in our position, all of the Middle East would be Chinese land, because that is simply how China does it. The United States government is full of business men. They're not interested in adding new states to the Union. They are interested in money. Yes, they will kill, sometimes innocent, people to get it.

The United States is one of the most free countries in the world. Im not sure if you've ever been here or not, but if you haven't, your sources are misleading. First of all, basically nothing is censored in the US. Compared to China, where basically everything is. Second, the United States cannot get away with killing or torturing or abducting it's citizens. Im not saying it doesn't do those things, but if it gets caught doing them, it will be in a shitload of trouble. The "Targeted Killing" thing is hardly illegal. It's a response to Illegal combatants who refuse to reside by the Geneva Convention. There is not enough evidence either way to say if it is illegal, for most of it is classified. As it should be, because it is a military operation. China.... Well, I wouldn't be surprised if China operated like a Traid. But there's simply not enough information to know. China's as locked up as the USSR was.

As a matter of fact, I've never been there, but from what I can tell, Australia is far more controlling than the US.

Im not saying the US is innocent. Far from it. We're filled with coniving, terrible people, who are willing to kill anyone they have to. But the United States is by far a better bully than China. It's the difference between a bully who steals your lunch money, and the bully who steals your girlfriend and then makes you give him rides like a pony. The US is after money. China sees itself as racially superior to other nations, and has it's eyes on reclaiming it's previous power.


Besides, the US is an ally of Australia. China is not.



As to your other point, I assume you mean the recent bombardment of Yeonpyeong, right? That's not the same. North and South Korea have been openly opposing each other since, what, the fifties? China and Japan have not. THey don't like each other, but they're not fighting. Yet.

But besides that point, Japan and, especially, China, are huge world players. China has the second largest economy in the world, and Japan.... Well, simply look around and see how many things you own that come from Japanese companies. (That were probably made in China, for that matter.) Japan is a close ally of the US, and Russia and China are extremely close. Russia does not like the United States, and Im sure they would join the Chinese in a war against us.

Iran, on the other hand, would have no chance against the United States (And the rest of it's Allies, were it to go to war.) Especially with the Embargo right now. If Iran is stupid enough to declare war, then it will simply be giving us what we want. An excuse.




I do not like Communist nations.. There has never been a Communist society that wasn't terrible. It works on paper, but not in real life. That said, I have nothing against Communisim in itself. I don't think the system is bad, it's simply how people are using the system. But yes, I would say it is part of the problem of China, but has nothing to do with why it's terrible.

We call Nazi Germany "Fascist" all the time, but that has nothing to do with why it was bad. It's simply an adjective to describe it.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:Alright, for one thing, the United States did NOT accuse Muslims of terrorism. We accused certain militant groups of Muslims as terrorists. People are simply too stupid to tell the difference. If we had gone against some hypothetical Australian terrorist organization, you can bet your ass most Americans would hate all Australians, because they're ignorant. Same goes for basically any country, ever.

Okay, I'll concede this one; I don't see the difference but I can see how you're able to.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:The difference between that, and China, though, is that we are not going over there and annexing other countries. We're not conquering. Were China in our position, all of the Middle East would be Chinese land, because that is simply how China does it. The United States government is full of business men. They're not interested in adding new states to the Union. They are interested in money. Yes, they will kill, sometimes innocent, people to get it.

I did not bring up the topic of the U.S. not pushing for territory, in my post, because it was not something I disagreed with. I don't see why it had to be brought up in a rebuttal to me.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:the United States cannot get away with killing or torturing or abducting it's citizens. Im not saying it doesn't do those things, but if it gets caught doing them, it will be in a shitload of trouble.

The way I see it is: if they are killing, torturing and abducting and no-one catches them then they are getting away with it.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:The "Targeted Killing" thing is hardly illegal. It's a response to Illegal combatants who refuse to reside by the Geneva Convention. There is not enough evidence either way to say if it is illegal, for most of it is classified. As it should be, because it is a military operation.

Source 1 - "Both the Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force against civilians outside of armed conflict except in very narrow circumstances: as a last resort to prevent an imminent attack that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. A targeted killing policy under which names are added to a "kill list" after a secret bureaucratic process and remain there for months at a time appears not to be limited to imminent threats."
Source 2 - "Targeted killing with drones in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan have generally violated the right to life because the United States is rarely part of any armed conflict in those places. The human right to life that applies is the right that applies in peace."
Source 3 - "International human rights law permits the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict situations if it is strictly and directly necessary to save human life. In particular, the use of lethal force is lawful if the targeted individual presents an imminent threat to life and less extreme means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, are insufficient to address that threat."

It's a breach of international law or, at the very least, closely toeing the line.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:As a matter of fact, I've never been there, but from what I can tell, Australia is far more controlling than the US.

Tell from what? What are your sources?
I am genuinely interested in finding out what makes you think this.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:I do not like Communist nations.. There has never been a Communist society that wasn't terrible. It works on paper, but not in real life. That said, I have nothing against Communisim in itself. I don't think the system is bad, it's simply how people are using the system. But yes, I would say it is part of the problem of China, but has nothing to do with why it's terrible.

We call Nazi Germany "Fascist" all the time, but that has nothing to do with why it was bad. It's simply an adjective to describe it.

This is irrelevant. I don't care what you think about Communists, I wasn't attacking you; I tried to explain why Ziggy might have thought you had an issue with Communists because of the way you worded your sentence. There's no need to get so defensive.

You're right. It's really late and Im tired, and not in the best of moods to begin with. I apologize.

I don't have any specific sources, and Im too tired to look for any. It's mostly just what I've picked up from talking to people who live there, and the sparse news about it. Mostly the ridiculous censorship of, from what I can tell, anything it wants. (Like, video games, tabaco companies, etc.)

Top Hat Zebra wrote:So, I guess I'll put this here. I don't really think it will start a debate, but it might, so, just to be safe....


I've been reading a lot about Cosmology, and Physics. I've come to the conclusion that the Big Bang theory is, more than likely, correct. It's the most logical one, with our current knowledge.


A question I've always had with it, though, is.... Well, how? How is it possible that nothing existed, except for a condensed speck of matter?

Well, my theory is that this is not the first "Big Bang." I believe that the universe is in a constant cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The way I see it, all the black holes in our universe will, eventually, in billions of billions of years, take over completely. They'll eventually absorb all matter, including themselves, and form into one, single point. Then, everything will simply start over again.


With this in mind, I propose that multiple universes can also exist. Im not talking about alternate reality, that's... Less likely. I think that considering the Universe to be... Well, THE Universe, is illogical. I think Universes are just like galaxies, in that there are many many many millions of them, all across an even larger reality.

While I admit I don't 100% understand antimatter, this could mean that entire universes could be composed only of antimatter, rather than matter, like ours. I am unsure what this would mean, but I am sure it would be quite different.

However, this would imply that universes would have to be seperated by incredibly vast distances filled only with empty space, (Or perhaps nonbaryonic dark matter, though I don't know if anti matter would still destroy that or not) since Matter and Antimatter are mutually exclusive, and if a universe made of matter collided with a universe made of antimatter..... Well, the amount of energy that would be produced by that would be incomprehensible.

That still doesn't help explain where everything began, though. I have no answer to that question, and I don't think anyone will, ever.









I don't know. The theory probably isn't well formed, as I am tired and have only limited knowledge on the subject, but I just felt the need to get it out of my head.

I've been gone for a few days, but I want to add some stuff here since it might be interesting. What you're suggesting is a sort of 'big crunch' theory (too tired to add a relevant link, it's easy to google). From what I recall there have been some observations that made this scenario seem less likely, mostly involving antimatter, about how the rate of expansion of the universe isn't slowing down or whatever because of it. (like I said, tired, so no factchecking but that's what I read once)
There has recently been a new theory about how the big bang came about, and how it's more like a change of state rather than a simple 'giant thing out of tiny thing' deal. This is the actual link since it's harder to find. I haven't had the time to get to know more about this yet though, so you should check it out.

On the more recent debate, China encourages these protests because of the nationalism it stir up in it's people, which is exactly what they want them to feel on any other given occasion, this just takes less indoctrination plus it draws attention away from the upcoming party congress thing and the apparent problems within the party itself regarding the "succession" of it's leader. I'm not very good at politics so we need Messernacht here to drop some knowledge on us about that. I doubt it would come to actual war. As far as I know China still relies on it's western business partners (not the least of which the US) to keep their economy rolling. Most governments can turn a blind eye to China's human rights violations because of the massive business opportunities, but noone is going to stand for them declaring war on a fellow member of the UN. That's why I think the UN is going to step in at some point before things escalate to such a dramatic level.

That went on longer than I expected, but I don't have that much to say about the China-US comparisons going on right now. Carry on.

Gorgro wrote:

Top Hat Zebra wrote:So, I guess I'll put this here. I don't really think it will start a debate, but it might, so, just to be safe....


I've been reading a lot about Cosmology, and Physics. I've come to the conclusion that the Big Bang theory is, more than likely, correct. It's the most logical one, with our current knowledge.


A question I've always had with it, though, is.... Well, how? How is it possible that nothing existed, except for a condensed speck of matter?

Well, my theory is that this is not the first "Big Bang." I believe that the universe is in a constant cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The way I see it, all the black holes in our universe will, eventually, in billions of billions of years, take over completely. They'll eventually absorb all matter, including themselves, and form into one, single point. Then, everything will simply start over again.


With this in mind, I propose that multiple universes can also exist. Im not talking about alternate reality, that's... Less likely. I think that considering the Universe to be... Well, THE Universe, is illogical. I think Universes are just like galaxies, in that there are many many many millions of them, all across an even larger reality.

While I admit I don't 100% understand antimatter, this could mean that entire universes could be composed only of antimatter, rather than matter, like ours. I am unsure what this would mean, but I am sure it would be quite different.

However, this would imply that universes would have to be seperated by incredibly vast distances filled only with empty space, (Or perhaps nonbaryonic dark matter, though I don't know if anti matter would still destroy that or not) since Matter and Antimatter are mutually exclusive, and if a universe made of matter collided with a universe made of antimatter..... Well, the amount of energy that would be produced by that would be incomprehensible.

That still doesn't help explain where everything began, though. I have no answer to that question, and I don't think anyone will, ever.









I don't know. The theory probably isn't well formed, as I am tired and have only limited knowledge on the subject, but I just felt the need to get it out of my head.

I've been gone for a few days, but I want to add some stuff here since it might be interesting. What you're suggesting is a sort of 'big crunch' theory (too tired to add a relevant link, it's easy to google). From what I recall there have been some observations that made this scenario seem less likely, mostly involving antimatter, about how the rate of expansion of the universe isn't slowing down or whatever because of it. (like I said, tired, so no factchecking but that's what I read once)
There has recently been a new theory about how the big bang came about, and how it's more like a change of state rather than a simple 'giant thing out of tiny thing' deal. This is the actual link since it's harder to find. I haven't had the time to get to know more about this yet though, so you should check it out.

On the more recent debate, China encourages these protests because of the nationalism it stir up in it's people, which is exactly what they want them to feel on any other given occasion, this just takes less indoctrination plus it draws attention away from the upcoming party congress thing and the apparent problems within the party itself regarding the "succession" of it's leader. I'm not very good at politics so we need Messernacht here to drop some knowledge on us about that. I doubt it would come to actual war. As far as I know China still relies on it's western business partners (not the least of which the US) to keep their economy rolling. Most governments can turn a blind eye to China's human rights violations because of the massive business opportunities, but noone is going to stand for them declaring war on a fellow member of the UN. That's why I think the UN is going to step in at some point before things escalate to such a dramatic level.

That went on longer than I expected, but I don't have that much to say about the China-US comparisons going on right now. Carry on.

That's an interesting theory. I don't have time right now to discuss it further, but I'll certainly look into it later.




Let me clarify on the China-Japan issue, since it was 2:30 AM when I wrote that post. I don't think that this particular issue is going to lead to war. But, well, just look at it. China is clearly antagonizing Japan, and acting like they're the "boss" of Asia. From this incident, we can see how China will act, were it to become a major world superpower. I don't think China is stupid enough to go to war right now, over this. But I do think that China is going to try something within our lifetimes. China clearly considers itself as being the dominant power in Asia, and I don't think they'll be content with their current position.

The United States isn't perfect, but I would much rather have them be the world superpower than China.

Wow, thanks internet! You're awesome at proving points!

No, but seriously, what are the odds?

So, the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize.

So far, all I've seen is negativity.

Honestly, I know basically nothing about how it is over there, so, for people who actually live in Europe, does the EU deserve this prize?

Someone once said that particular award is often intended to guilt parties into acting peaceably after they've been awarded with it and I think that is a very astute observation. It is the most criticised award. I don't think more than half of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates have not been the subject of, at the least, some controversy.

It's a shitty award anyway, they don't even get a car.

The Price Is Right gave out Astras

Where's Nelson Mandela's Astra? Huh?
It is sick how after all he went through that they did not give him the one basic necessity for human life.

I think they should have given an award to Al Jazeera at some point.
That would have done so much more.

sweetie colon wrote:Someone once said that particular award is often intended to guilt parties into acting peaceably after they've been awarded with it and I think that is a very astute observation. It is the most criticised award. I don't think more than half of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates have not been the subject of, at the least, some controversy.

It's a shitty award anyway, they don't even get a car.

The Price Is Right gave out Astras

Where's Nelson Mandela's Astra? Huh?
It is sick how after all he went through that they did not give him the one basic necessity for human life.

I think they should have given an award to Al Jazeera at some point.
That would have done so much more.

.....

It's worth nearly $2 million.

But what's the point of buying a car for yourself? It's not nearly as much fun as winning one. Why play with yourself when someone else can play with you?
GG nice cherry-picking.

sweetie colon wrote:But what's the point of buying a car for yourself? It's not nearly as much fun as winning one. Why play with yourself when someone else can play with you?
GG nice cherry-picking.

Pfft, I wouldn't buy a car. I would pay people to drive me around in a different car everytime I went out.


I wasn't really cherry-picking, I just have no comment on the rest of your post. I don't know much about the awards, or the current state of the EU (Beyond the fact it's in some trouble.)

Alright, here's another thing you guys can debate about:

You're on a gameshow, and the host shows two buttons in front of you, a green and a red. He tells you to press one button, and you can only press it once. If you press the green button, you instantly get ten thousand dollars. If you press the red one, there's a 50 % chance you'll walk away a millionaire, and a 50 % chance you win nothing.

Which button do you press?

green one; you are both certain about getting it, and it is at least not such a great amount of money I wouldn't know what to do with it

Hmm. Interesting. I'm going to be boring and press green though.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:So, the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize.

So far, all I've seen is negativity.

Honestly, I know basically nothing about how it is over there, so, for people who actually live in Europe, does the EU deserve this prize?

I guess we haven't actively tried to murder eachother for over 60 years? That's pretty peaceful, right?

Maybe we just needed the money most.

Green. Then I would use that money to make more money.

RED

I LIKE TO LIVE DANGEROUSLY

I WOULD PUSH THE RED BUTTON EVEN IF IT GAVE LESS THAN THE OTHER BUTTON

Alright, so, there's something I really don't understand...


When you have a man who snuggled kittens with and then killed a child, why are we just locking him up and paying for him to live for free?

I really, really don't understand this.

There is literally no reason not to just kill him.


This is just hypothetical, but really, there are people who've done things like this.

Take that guy who shot up the theater. Why would we put him in jail, and not just kill him? What possible reason could we have to keep him alive? He's not going to "get better" and become a productive member of society, or something like that. Recently, the dismembered body of a 10-year-old girl was found in a park (I've forgotten where.) Anyone who can do that simply does not deserve to keep living.

Now, for things like manslaughter, I can understand not killing them. If they were drunk, or it was a crime of passion, then of course, they're not terrible, and Im sure they would be guilty. But for people who plan out killings, then why just send them to jail forever? What exactly is that going to achieve?


Similarly, I think rapists should be castrated. I don't think that's cruel, either, I think it's fitting, and just.

Sure, some of those people have mental issues, but that's not really an excuse. Sending someone to prison on a life sentence isn't doing anyone any good. Frankly, it's just a waste of resources.

People make mistakes, lots of them actually. As for 'They're not going to get better', you can't know that. The reason we send people to jail is so that they don't live in regular society. And not as many of them bust out of the asylum as is portrayed in fiction.
I don't really have an opinion on the death penalty, but you can't just decide that everyone who commits a crime gets chopped up for the organ banks. Down that path lies madness.

I do not like the idea of the government murdering people, even if they did do horrible things

The point of not hanging Anders Breivik was to demonstrate Norway was not the society he wanted it to be. Apparently.

Lady Stardust wrote:People make mistakes, lots of them actually. As for 'They're not going to get better', you can't know that. The reason we send people to jail is so that they don't live in regular society. And not as many of them bust out of the asylum as is portrayed in fiction.
I don't really have an opinion on the death penalty, but you can't just decide that everyone who commits a crime gets chopped up for the organ banks. Down that path lies madness.

No, of course not. Not everyone.

But when a man like... Uh... Whatever his name is, the guy who shot up that movie theater. When a man like that gets prision for his whole life, without any chance of getting out, ever, what is the point?

How is that a punishment?

You get free food, free shelter, free water.... Hell, our prisoners live better than our homeless.


It's just a waste of money to pay for someone to live, when they're going to be locked in prison for 2309572947603874608476 life sentences, with no chance of parole.


If someone kidnapped my daughter, snuggled kittens with her multiple times, and then dismembered her, I would want him to die.