|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ALX
Joined: 19 Sep 2012
Posts: 36
Location: The Big Hill
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rooster_2006 wrote: |
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
Pointing out the inconsistencies and holes in rooster's reasoning just makes him run away.  |
Actually, G Cthulhu, I just didn't see any point in arguing with you. But since you feel the need to continue to make rude posts about me, I'm back. Hopefully not for long. I'm taking a vacation to Kyoto this weekend, and won't be drawn into your petty little games starting tomorrow.
You see, I have already provided the copied-and-pasted text of the UN CERD (which Japan voluntarily signed) that expressly defines racism, which the UN CERD seeks to eliminate:
| Quote: |
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin |
You first try to claim that my definition of "racism" is invalid. Not my definition, G Cthulhu. The UN's definition.
Then, amazingly, you argue back by saying essentially "Countries ignore treaties they sign all the time, big deal, Japan can do as it pleases."
Well, if you don't agree that treaties are valid, and if you don't agree that countries should follow treaties they voluntarily signed, then I'm at a loss for what we're going to agree on.
Yep, let's take a little trip down Memory Lane:
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
| they get more "right" to do as they please. [b]Including ignoring parts of treaties they might have signed that they choose to. |
It's an ironic position for you to take, considering that you're a member of the former "Allied" country living in Japan, a former "Axis" country. Since you said it's okay for a country to ignore parts of treaties it has signed that it chooses to, I guess that nothing's stopping Japan from ignoring various clauses in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco and putting you in a POW camp. |
"G Cthulhu". That name in and of itself is offensive to my ears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
timothypfox
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 492
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me hijack these posts and get us away from fighting and back on topic. 
Now things I can get used to living Japan?
I can't get used to the size of homes. People tell me I have a large apartment, but all the rooms including the hallway and the height of doors are about half the dimensions I was used to in Canada (though disturbingly - fairly comparable to the current size of most apartments - all of which are unaffordable - in NYC). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rooster_2006 wrote: |
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
| Pointing out the inconsistencies and holes in rooster's reasoning just makes him run away. |
Actually, G Cthulhu, I just didn't see any point in arguing with you, and attempted to exit the debate simply because I'm tired of your games.
|
I'm sorry you feel that way. I honestly can't help you if you're reading that into it. I'll ignore all the ad hom you engage in in yr reply.
| Quote: |
You first make ridiculous claims that are impossible to defend, then when you're losing,
|
I honestly can't see what it is you're talking about, but if you think the points were invalid then I would have expected you to reply to them. All you did was reassert your position and quote a UN treaty.
| Quote: |
you shift goalposts, use ad hominem,
|
<ahem>
No. You're the one that leapt to insults first and the record clearly shows it.
| Quote: |
Quite frankly, I don't think I should have to be the only guy on this forum who stands up to you. There are certainly plenty of people who disagree with your contrarian, nit-picking viewpoints, but most of them just ignore you rather than engaging you.
|
Irrelevant. And what were you saying about ad hom attacks?
| Quote: |
Although I understand why they do this, I wish I weren't the only person with some balls around here.
|
So let me make sure I've got this straight: you've spent five paragraphs on insults and telling me how manly you are and you're accusing me of not responding to points and being unable to engage in discussion?
| Quote: |
You see, I have already provided the copied-and-pasted text of the UN CERD (which Japan voluntarily signed) that expressly defines racism, which the UN CERD seeks to eliminate:
| Quote: |
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin |
You first try to claim that my definition of "racism" is invalid. Not my definition, G Cthulhu. The UN's definition.
|
It is somewhat unusual for a person to take their definitions from UN treaties. But let's go with your preferred source of definition. And let's go further and accept that it *is* racism: you still have to show that it's something beyond unfortunate. You don't link the point to anything substantive.
Again, countries do things they have said they wouldn't all the time. Yes, it's unfair (for certain values of "unfair"). But beyond that you haven't made any sort of case. It's like pointing out that the US lowered water health standards under Bush. Yes, it's bad. And?
| Quote: |
Then, amazingly, you argue back by saying essentially "Countries ignore treaties they sign all the time, big deal, Japan can do as it pleases."
Well, if you don't agree that treaties are valid, and if you don't agree that countries should follow treaties they voluntarily signed, then I'm at a loss for what we're going to agree on.
|
You're missing the point: you're not linking your points in any way. You're just making random assertions, using unusual definitions.
| Quote: |
Yep, let's take a little trip down Memory Lane:
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
| they get more "right" to do as they please. Including ignoring parts of treaties they might have signed that they choose to. |
It's an ironic position for you to take, considering that you're a member of the former "Allied" country living in Japan, a former "Axis" country. Since you said it's okay for a country to ignore parts of treaties it has signed that it chooses to, I guess that nothing's stopping Japan from ignoring various clauses in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco and putting you in a POW camp. |
Irrelevant.
Let's get back to the basic point that you've ignored completely across several posts:
You say Japan's policy for residence and citizenship having exceptions for family history is "unfair" and "racist". I've asked you several times to explain a rational reason *why* it's unfair. (That you've defined racism as a legal term renders it outside the discussion because it becomes a legal state of y/n, not a matter of opinion)
Explain why nationality via parents is OK for most countries (including Japan) but Japan offering it to people more generations back is bad.
Does the treaty you quoted allow for 1-X generations back in this area? How does that affect your assertion? The UK allows citizenship based on grandparents. Is that bad/unfair according to you? Why? Why not? Switzerland allows you to go back 3 generations. Is that bad/unfair? Why/why not?
You made the claim: defend it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| timothypfox wrote: |
Let me hijack these posts and get us away from fighting and back on topic.
Now things I can get used to living Japan?
I can't get used to the size of homes. People tell me I have a large apartment, but all the rooms including the hallway and the height of doors are about half the dimensions I was used to in Canada (though disturbingly - fairly comparable to the current size of most apartments - all of which are unaffordable - in NYC). |
After living in NYC, I was surprised by how (relatively) cheap rent is. The rooms are a bit smaller, but I had some small apartments in SF and NYC.
When I lived in the Mie. my apt was huge! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| timothypfox wrote: |
| Let me hijack these posts and get us away from fighting and back on topic. |
Please.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing I will never get used to is the lack of appreciation the Japanese show towards HP Lovecraft.
Kidding, of course. But I loved his work back in high school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timothypfox
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 492
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steki47 wrote: |
| timothypfox wrote: |
Let me hijack these posts and get us away from fighting and back on topic.
Now things I can get used to living Japan?
I can't get used to the size of homes. People tell me I have a large apartment, but all the rooms including the hallway and the height of doors are about half the dimensions I was used to in Canada (though disturbingly - fairly comparable to the current size of most apartments - all of which are unaffordable - in NYC). |
After living in NYC, I was surprised by how (relatively) cheap rent is. The rooms are a bit smaller, but I had some small apartments in SF and NYC.
When I lived in the Mie. my apt was huge! |
If you live in a desirable location in NYC, for example Astoria in Queens near the subway, a compact 1 bedroom apartment has the going rent of about 1,400 to 1,600 a month without roommates or anything like that. Not affordable. That's more than a similar sized apartment in Osaka.
I have no idea about San Francisco. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HLJHLJ
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 1218
Location: Ecuador
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rxk22 wrote: |
| That would be good. Tons of immigrants tend to make things worse, not better. |
I'm sure most Native Americans would agree.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| timothypfox wrote: |
If you live in a desirable location in NYC, for example Astoria in Queens near the subway, a compact 1 bedroom apartment has the going rent of about 1,400 to 1,600 a month without roommates or anything like that. Not affordable. That's more than a similar sized apartment in Osaka.
I have no idea about San Francisco. |
I lived in Elmhurst, Queens back in 2000-2003. We rented a huge two-bedroom with a double living room. Over 1000 sq. ft. $1400/month. That was great for that time!
My friends in Manhattan and Brooklyn generally lived in shoeboxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HLJHLJ
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 1218
Location: Ecuador
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneJoelFifty wrote: |
| I believe Rooster is applying it to one group of non-Japanese being given preferential treatment (in this argument, with regards to visas) over another group of non-Japanese. It definitely doesn't mean every country that signed is obliged to offer immediate citizenship to anyone who rocks up at the airport. |
| Rooster_2006 wrote: |
| You're right, OneJoelFifty, that's what I meant. I was originally talking about visas, not citizenship. G Cthulhu introduced citizenship as a red herring, but actually, I had never mentioned it. |
OK, so just visas then. The USA government says that a non-American from the UK can enter the USA without a visa, but that a non-American from Mexico cannot. Surely that is preferential (or discriminatory) treatment according to national origin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rooster_2006
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 984
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HLJHLJ wrote: |
| OneJoelFifty wrote: |
| I believe Rooster is applying it to one group of non-Japanese being given preferential treatment (in this argument, with regards to visas) over another group of non-Japanese. It definitely doesn't mean every country that signed is obliged to offer immediate citizenship to anyone who rocks up at the airport. |
| Rooster_2006 wrote: |
| You're right, OneJoelFifty, that's what I meant. I was originally talking about visas, not citizenship. G Cthulhu introduced citizenship as a red herring, but actually, I had never mentioned it. |
OK, so just visas then. The USA government says that a non-American from the UK can enter the USA without a visa, but that a non-American from Mexico cannot. Surely that is preferential (or discriminatory) treatment according to national origin? |
You're confusing "national origin" with "citizenship." They're actually two different things.
Wikipedia Article on the CERD:
"Distinctions made on the basis of citizenship are specifically excluded from the definition, as are affirmative action policies and other measures taken to redress imbalances and promote equality."
There's your answer.
It's not against the CERD to treat someone differently based on citizenship (national origin and citizenship are actually different � "national origin" means your original nationality [which may or may not be the same as your current nationality] and "citizenship" means the current passport you hold).
For example, if Japan wants to make a Filipino apply for a visa before entering, that's not in violation of the CERD. However, if Japan requires a Filipino-American (entering on a US passport, which he had to naturalize to get) to apply for a visa (something American passport holders are normally exempt from having to do), then that would be a violation of the CERD, because it would be treating that person differently based on his national origin (illegal under the CERD), not citizenship (legal under the CERD). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fat_chris
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 3198
Location: Beijing
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*YAWN*
Warm regards,
fat_chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacheratlarge
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 192
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
For once I'm in agreement with fat_ chris.
Guys, if you want, open another thread to discuss immigration policies.
Some things I never get used to.....on this forum... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One thing I find bizarre is how I can have a decent life in Japan without speaking very much Japanese. Not an ideal of mine, but a reality for many of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacheratlarge
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 192
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You have a point there, and I stumble along too often. My Japanese has been improving, but I don't spend nearly as much time on study as I should. Then again, when I call the HIS office in NYC, the majority of the staff there don't speak English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
