Conquer Club

http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-mayor-wa ... 50746.html

Yeah, discuss away.

muy_thaiguy wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-mayor-wartime-sex-slaves-were-necessary-042050746.html

Yeah, discuss away.

In other words:

Nasty things happen during wars.

Thanks for the info there dude.

maxfaraday wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-mayor-wartime-sex-slaves-were-necessary-042050746.html

Yeah, discuss away.

In other words:

Nasty things happen during wars.

Thanks for the info there dude.

Not what I meant. He said that war time sex slaves were necessary, reffering to the Korean and Chinese women who were raped during WWII/occupation of Korea and Rape of Nanking.

War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

I think the problem here is not so much that this happened, that is, that women were made sex slaves during WWII. That is bad, but it was war, the cultures back then were different, and we can mostly say "this is something we will not repeat... any of us".

EXCEPT... he is
A.Denying that women were made prostitutes in the past

B. condoning prostitution, relating it to rape. Views on (legal, voluntary) prostitution vary, but he clearly s hows a a misguided understanding of what rape is and why it happens.

This is not equivalent to the US interning American citizens of Japanese descent. It is more equivalent to folks who want to deny it happened. Also, as bad as that was, I have to say that making women be prostitutes is probably worse than simply interning people, though that is sort of an irrelevant point... they were both bad.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

I think the problem here is not so much that this happened, that is, that women were made sex slaves during WWII. That is bad, but it was war, the cultures back then were different, and we can mostly say "this is something we will not repeat... any of us".

EXCEPT... he is
A.Denying that women were made prostitutes in the past

B. condoning prostitution, relating it to rape. Views on (legal, voluntary) prostitution vary, but he clearly s hows a a misguided understanding of what rape is and why it happens.

This is not equivalent to the US interning American citizens of Japanese descent. It is more equivalent to folks who want to deny it happened. Also, as bad as that was, I have to say that making women be prostitutes is probably worse than simply interning people, though that is sort of an irrelevant point... they were both bad.

Am I talking to the same Player who argued that 14 year old slaves want to be raped? I exaggerate your position, of course, but not much. Welcome to my side of the argument.

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

I think the problem here is not so much that this happened, that is, that women were made sex slaves during WWII. That is bad, but it was war, the cultures back then were different, and we can mostly say "this is something we will not repeat... any of us".

EXCEPT... he is
A.Denying that women were made prostitutes in the past

B. condoning prostitution, relating it to rape. Views on (legal, voluntary) prostitution vary, but he clearly s hows a a misguided understanding of what rape is and why it happens.

This is not equivalent to the US interning American citizens of Japanese descent. It is more equivalent to folks who want to deny it happened. Also, as bad as that was, I have to say that making women be prostitutes is probably worse than simply interning people, though that is sort of an irrelevant point... they were both bad.

Am I talking to the same Player who argued that 14 year old slaves want to be raped? I exaggerate your position, of course, but not much. Welcome to my side of the argument.

Welcome to the hypocrisy.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

I think the problem here is not so much that this happened, that is, that women were made sex slaves during WWII. That is bad, but it was war, the cultures back then were different, and we can mostly say "this is something we will not repeat... any of us".

EXCEPT... he is
A.Denying that women were made prostitutes in the past

B. condoning prostitution, relating it to rape. Views on (legal, voluntary) prostitution vary, but he clearly s hows a a misguided understanding of what rape is and why it happens.

This is not equivalent to the US interning American citizens of Japanese descent. It is more equivalent to folks who want to deny it happened. Also, as bad as that was, I have to say that making women be prostitutes is probably worse than simply interning people, though that is sort of an irrelevant point... they were both bad.

Am I talking to the same Player who argued that 14 year old slaves want to be raped? I exaggerate your position, of course, but not much. Welcome to my side of the argument.

Welcome to the hypocrisy.

I really wanted to leave that Thomas Jefferson stuff alone, but yeah, that was remarkably hypocritical.

This is a lame thread. Why not talk about how the Japanese killed missionaries after Nobunaga's rise to power? It has to involve white people for it to be a crime, amirite? Or what about the Tiger that the Japanese made extinct because it was a symbol of pride for the country they invaded?

Point being: unless there are cats and 16-year old Miss Americas involved this is not a valid topic for discussion.

Back on topic, as I don't want to derail this, this kind of outright denial is pretty common in Japanese culture.

Symmetry wrote:Back on topic, as I don't want to derail this, this kind of outright denial is pretty common in Japanese human culture.

--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Back on topic, as I don't want to derail this, this kind of outright denial is pretty common in Japanese human culture.

--Andy

Oh! Spot on and without any racist/"ethnicist" commentary. Way to go, Andy!

So, only the Japanese are human now, eh Andy?

DoomYoshi wrote:This is a lame thread. Why not talk about how the Japanese killed missionaries after Nobunaga's rise to power? It has to involve white people for it to be a crime, amirite? Or what about the Tiger that the Japanese made extinct because it was a symbol of pride for the country they invaded?

Point being: unless there are cats and 16-year old Miss Americas involved this is not a valid topic for discussion.

Please point me to the thread discussing the kitty of a 16 year old Miss America.

Or is that any thread by xeno?

Ace Rimmer wrote:Please point me to the thread discussing the kitty of a 16 year old Miss America.
Or is that any thread by xeno?

Dammit.... that's gold

AndyDufresne wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Back on topic, as I don't want to derail this, this kind of outright denial is pretty common in Japanese human culture.

--Andy

Sure, but I did mean Japanese culture specifically. There are a lot of taboo topics, especially around WW2.

AndyDufresne wrote:War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

And using nuclear weapons against civilian targets. Americans loove that shit. I hear there are still fools who think it was right to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. The usual justification goes something like this:
"If we wouldn't have nuked them we would never have defeated Japan on their home soil."
That whole viewpoint is pretty fucked up. To argue that what the U.S did was okay and "fair because it was necessary to win" is like arguing it's okay for a boxer to kick the other boxer in the balls if he thinks he can't win the fight.
Weird sense of logic that can only come about if the violator wins the war. If the Nazi's would've won, historians 60 years later would've argued how it was necessary for the Jews to die.

Gillipig wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:War makes people justify all sorts of weird things. Like the justification the USA generals made for interning Japanese-American citizens in jail-camps essentially.


--Andy

And using nuclear weapons against civilian targets. Americans loove that shit. I hear there are still fools who think it was right to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. The usual justification goes something like this:
"If we wouldn't have nuked them we would never have defeated Japan on their home soil."

More like: "If we wouldn't have nuked them, then we would have to suffer greater casualties (estimated: 500k) fighting Japan on its home soil."

Gillipig wrote:That whole viewpoint is pretty fucked up.

Your strawman is, but the argument I've heard is more difficult to deal with.

Gillipig wrote:To argue that what the U.S did was okay and "fair because it was necessary to win" is like arguing it's okay for a boxer to kick the other boxer in the balls if he thinks he can't win the fight.

Suppose you're in a fight with a boxer who keeps kicking you in the balls, and there is no referee. Do you continue getting kicked in the balls? Or do you do something outside of the rules, which weren't agreed upon, in order to win?

The Japanese attacked the US with no official declaration of war, and the US chose to win by nuking them, controlling the country via MacArthur for roughly a decade, reinstating the Emperor, and cutting deals with the major businesses to get their cooperation. We should remember that the US didn't 'leave them for dead.'

Gillipig wrote:Weird sense of logic that can only come about if the violator wins the war. If the Nazi's would've won, historians 60 years later would've argued how it was necessary for the Jews to die.

Who is the violator? The US? Even after Japan attacked? Hmm...
Also, some historians to this day still argue that, but their arguments lack merit. Even if the Nazis won and whatever string of "what-ifs" occurred, we can still rely on sources other than one strain of historians in order to counter their anti-Semite arguments...