|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shakuhachi
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Donghae's debating strategy.
The Strawman
The man is a fallacy where a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
example
1. shakuhachi has position X
2. Dongahae presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X)
3. Donghae attacks position Y
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed
The Bandwagon (in relation to the Japanese politician who renounced his beliefs)
1. Aso is pressured by his peers or threatened with rejection
2. Therefore Aso's claim X is false
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim.
The Ad Hominem Attack
1. shakuhachi makes claim X
2. Donghae makes an attack on shakuhachi
3. Therefore shakuhachi's claim is false
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Guilt by Association
1. Ishahara, Hitler and Joe Stalin all say claim X is true
2. Therefore claim X if false
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).
The Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A)
3. Topic A is abandoned
(Thanks to Dr. Labossiere's work on fallacies!)
There were a lot more applicable fallacies but I refuse to waste any more time on Donghae. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: Languages...Shakuhachi.... |
|
|
| Thanks for your reply. I might have come off as a tad accusatory. Not to get too off topic, but I would rate myself as "low intermediate" in Japanese and speaking personally, it hasn't helped me w/Korean a whit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shakuhachi wrote: |
I have met many old people and veterans that do not hate the Japanese. It was meeting these kinds of people that made me question Korean orthodoxy. By the way, if the person was male and in his early 20's in 1945, then he had a more than 50% likely to have volunteered for the Japanese army. I dont think that would constitute hate. |
I have only met 2 Korean that actually attended post-secondary institutions in Japan pre-1945. They said they probably think in Japanese better than in Korean and they had to learn Korean secretly and and could not openly speak Korean in the presence of Japanese authorities. Overall, they had a generally comfortable life during the time, but only because they were from well off families, kept their opinions about the Japanese to themselves, and headed to university. However, they also mentioned that the Japanese deserved the nuclear bombs the Americans dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and were actually a little happy about it. They also mentioned, early in the occupation hunger and no prospect of a decent future drove many to "volunteer" to join the Japanese army, but when WWII started, the vast majority were forced into the army.
However, this is just my personal experience from 2 people that actually lived during that time. I'm sure this in no way dispell your built up myths, since you've talked to "thousands" of people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| seems that most of the newspapers from that time were filled with moslty advertisements. |
Who says you can't learn from an advertisement? I was at the bank in Jonggak the other day and in the museum they had old ads for the bank during the occupation. "Save money with us, and let's kick some American/English ass!" was the gist of the ad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donghae
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
shakuhachi,
Thanks for the above, I liked it. I guess what you're really saying is you don't like the way I've challenged you or some of the things so inconvenient to your case that I've said. Reminds me a little of the kid in goal playing soccer (did I really say soccer  ??) who after every goal he lets in screams "Not fair, I wasn't ready, you were too close, you ran too fast, it doesn't count." Still, at least you didn't resort to insults, did you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohahakehte
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Korean before and during the Japanese occupation |
|
|
shakuhachi...
though i have a feeling i would find your moral and political stances abhorrent, at least you're much more honest in your admiration for wicked colonialist regimes than most other people would admit to.
btw, korea was as much "official japanese territory" during the japanese occupation as the west bank, gaza, east jerusalem and the golan heights are "official israeli territory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shakuhachi
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| btw, korea was as much "official japanese territory" during the japanese occupation as the west bank, gaza, east jerusalem and the golan heights are "official israeli territory." |
That statement is so wrong I dont even know where to start. What evidence do you have to support that statement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donghae
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shakuhachi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| btw, korea was as much "official japanese territory" during the japanese occupation as the west bank, gaza, east jerusalem and the golan heights are "official israeli territory." |
That statement is so wrong I dont even know where to start. What evidence do you have to support that statement? |
Hey, mate (never been to Oz - Aussies do say 'mate' to each other don7t they?), I realise you might not appreciate me saying it, but I agree with you here a little bit. I don't think it's a very good comparison at all, even though I can understand possible reasons for making it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohahakehte
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shakuhachi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| btw, korea was as much "official japanese territory" during the japanese occupation as the west bank, gaza, east jerusalem and the golan heights are "official israeli territory." |
That statement is so wrong I dont even know where to start. What evidence do you have to support that statement? |
what evidence, lemme see...for what? the japanese occupation or the israeli occupation? lets start with the UN. several times a year since 1967 UN resolutions have been 160-2, 158-2, 159-2, occasionally 160-3 with micronesia or naura joining israel and the US vetoing UN decisions that condemn israeli aggression and occupation. i could go on for hours but i have a feeling you're intelligent enough to understand what im saying. occupation is occupation. the west bank is as much israeli territory and korea was as much japanese territory as poland was nazi territory in 1942. make sense?
i cant really help you if you actually consider japan's former occupation of korea to be have been legitimate. i dont, along with most of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ohahakehte wrote: |
| what evidence, lemme see...for what? the japanese occupation or the israeli occupation? lets start with the UN. several times a year since 1967 UN resolutions have been 160-2, 158-2, 159-2, occasionally 160-3 with micronesia or naura joining israel and the US vetoing UN decisions that condemn israeli aggression and occupation. i could go on for hours but i have a feeling you're intelligent enough to understand what im saying. occupation is occupation. the west bank is as much israeli territory and korea was as much japanese territory as poland was nazi territory in 1942. make sense? |
You're comparing apples and oranges and running shoes.
Korea became part of Japan per treaty and was not an occupied territory in the traditional sense.
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are Isreali territory, however unlike Korea where Japan integrated it into Japanese borders, these two regions are kept separate and the citizens have not been made citizens of Israel. Hence the term occupied terrirory.
Poland was invaded by Germany and occupied, unlike Israel taking over the West Bank and Gaza strip when Israel was the victim of military threats.
The only thing these eventshave in common is that you've used English to cite them.
| Quote: |
| i cant really help you if you actually consider japan's former occupation of korea to be have been legitimate. i dont, along with most of the world. |
As was discussed earlier in this thread, legal scholars reviewing the case again in 2001 declared the occupation legal. No amount of nay saying changes this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohahakehte
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| ohahakehte wrote: |
| what evidence, lemme see...for what? the japanese occupation or the israeli occupation? lets start with the UN. several times a year since 1967 UN resolutions have been 160-2, 158-2, 159-2, occasionally 160-3 with micronesia or naura joining israel and the US vetoing UN decisions that condemn israeli aggression and occupation. i could go on for hours but i have a feeling you're intelligent enough to understand what im saying. occupation is occupation. the west bank is as much israeli territory and korea was as much japanese territory as poland was nazi territory in 1942. make sense? |
You're comparing apples and oranges and running shoes.
Korea became part of Japan per treaty and was not an occupied territory in the traditional sense.
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are Isreali territory, however unlike Korea where Japan integrated it into Japanese borders, these two regions are kept separate and the citizens have not been made citizens of Israel. Hence the term occupied terrirory.
Poland was invaded by Germany and occupied, unlike Israel taking over the West Bank and Gaza strip when Israel was the victim of military threats.
The only thing these eventshave in common is that you've used English to cite them.
| Quote: |
| i cant really help you if you actually consider japan's former occupation of korea to be have been legitimate. i dont, along with most of the world. |
As was discussed earlier in this thread, legal scholars reviewing the case again in 2001 declared the occupation legal. No amount of nay saying changes this. |
this says more about your own sympathies for aggressive colonial overlords than any analysis of the facts. the UN charter and other international accords condemn the inadmissability of territory occupied by force - that means that japan was illegally, immorally, illegitimately occupying korea, china, etc, just as israel is currently doing the same in the w.bank, g.strip, g.heights, e.jerusalem and as germany was doing to poland, france, eastern europe, belgium, holland, etc.
israel has only been the victim of military threats once in its existence and that was immediately before the 1947-1949 war of independence/conquest in the former palestine. it proved itself far superior militarily and has only smashed that point home with even greater force with each war it has fought since. the 1967 war is no exception. you would do well to consult what israeli military officers themselves say about the 1967 war - like how they were under no threat at all by the surrounding arab armies, that the war was aggressive pre-emptive israeli strike, like how they started it. in recognizing these illegally occupied territories as legitimate israeli territory you are taking on the positions of an extremely small minority of world opinion.
since you have trouble recognizing these facts this discussion is already paralyzed. i dont tend to recognize the actions of murderous colonialist armies as legitimate or moral, so i dont think we can make much progress here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ohahakehte wrote: |
| this says more about your own sympathies for aggressive colonial overlords than any analysis of the facts. the UN charter and other international accords condemn the inadmissability of territory occupied by force - that means that japan was illegally, immorally, illegitimately occupying korea, china, etc, just as israel is currently doing the same in the w.bank, g.strip, g.heights, e.jerusalem and as germany was doing to poland, france, eastern europe, belgium, holland, etc. |
As discussed already, the legal experts who all know more than you have collectively agreed at the colonization of Korea was legal. Please stop suggesting you know otherwise.
Second, why are you bringing in the U.N., an organization that came into being nearly a half century after the fact and not even considering then their charters and accords you speak of came to be.
| Quote: |
| israel has only been the victim of military threats once in its existence and that was immediately before the 1947-1949 war of independence/conquest in the former palestine. it proved itself far superior militarily and has only smashed that point home with even greater force with each war it has fought since. the 1967 war is no exception. you would do well to consult what israeli military officers themselves say about the 1967 war - like how they were under no threat at all by the surrounding arab armies, that the war was aggressive pre-emptive israeli strike, like how they started it. in recognizing these illegally occupied territories as legitimate israeli territory you are taking on the positions of an extremely small minority of world opinion. |
In your history books, did they leave out the part about how the Arab armies were massed on the Israeli border and the governments were collectively saying they were going to invade? Or are you just choosing to leave that part out?
Granted, it was all for show and the goal was to force Israel to mobilize their reserves and bankrupt the country, but instead Israel attacked despite being outnumbered.
Second, I see you left out the 1973 War when Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. But I can understand why you left that out, because it directly undermines your argument of Israel always being the agressor.
Your revisionist history is offensive, and your decision to leave out huge chunks is dishonourable.
| Quote: |
| since you have trouble recognizing these facts this discussion is already paralyzed. i dont tend to recognize the actions of murderous colonialist armies as legitimate or moral, so i dont think we can make much progress here |
I laughed. You amuse me. First you revise what happened to make Israel into some big bully despite everyone else bringing in their armies and saying they are going to war, and then you leave out the wars where Israel was the victim of a surprise attack.
Your posting was nothing more than a collection of lies. Why are you lying to us? Since you can't win with facts and evidence, you're reduced to just making things up now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shakuhachi
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
this says more about your own sympathies for aggressive colonial overlords than any analysis of the facts. the UN charter and other international accords condemn the inadmissability of territory occupied by force - that means that japan was illegally, immorally, illegitimately occupying korea, china, etc, just as israel is currently doing the same in the w.bank, g.strip, g.heights, e.jerusalem and as germany was doing to poland, france, eastern europe, belgium, holland, etc.
israel has only been the victim of military threats once in its existence and that was immediately before the 1947-1949 war of independence/conquest in the former palestine. it proved itself far superior militarily and has only smashed that point home with even greater force with each war it has fought since. the 1967 war is no exception. you would do well to consult what israeli military officers themselves say about the 1967 war - like how they were under no threat at all by the surrounding arab armies, that the war was aggressive pre-emptive israeli strike, like how they started it. in recognizing these illegally occupied territories as legitimate israeli territory you are taking on the positions of an extremely small minority of world opinion.
since you have trouble recognizing these facts this discussion is already paralyzed. i dont tend to recognize the actions of murderous colonialist armies as legitimate or moral, so i dont think we can make much progress here |
The basic problem with talking about the UN charter is that there was no UN charter until after world war 2, and no UN. The Japanese never invaded Korea either. They came to Korea under treaty. If they did not the Russians would have.
The problem comparing the Korea situation and the Israel situation is that not even the Israeli's see the occupied territories as Israeli territory, and have not annexed the area. The other difference is that the rest of the world recognised the Japanese presence in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohahakehte
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
As discussed already, the legal experts who all know more than you have collectively agreed at the colonization of Korea was legal. Please stop suggesting you know otherwise.
|
what legal experts? the experts of the field of might makes right? thought so. i find that often when people look back at history and deem this or that atrocity to be legitimate, its more a reflection of their opinion of those conquered than any reading of the facts. as an example, look at the shameful double standards involved in mainstream understandings of american-indian relations in the 1800's. if they attacked whites it was a "massacre", if whites attacked them (with much more brutality) it was a "victory." if hitler won i think german history would sound much the same.
| Quote: |
In your history books, did they leave out the part about how the Arab armies were massed on the Israeli border and the governments were collectively saying they were going to invade? Or are you just choosing to leave that part out?
|
the egyptian army was on the israeli border - *not* "masssed" - in a *defensive* position. the jordanian army was a joke and was defeated very quickly. the syrian army was bigger but not as powerful as egypts and was smashed in the latter days of the war. im not aware of any of these armies "collecitvely saying they were going to invade." evidence please. for evidence on what im talking about, consult israeli historian Benny Morris and any of these fine scholars: Yehoshuah Porath, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Tanya Reinhart, i could go on if you wish.
| Quote: |
Second, I see you left out the 1973 War when Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. But I can understand why you left that out, because it directly undermines your argument of Israel always being the agressor.
|
i didnt leave out 1973. syria and egypt launched a surprise attack that was powerful and devastating at first but israel soon routed them and beat them back. it ended when israel surrounded the egyptian army in the sinai desert. israel had ample warning that its consistent rejection of peace with the arabs was pushing the surrounding nations to go to war against israel, but in their jingoistic triumphalism from 1967 they ignored the threats and paid for it in 1973. only after 1973 did israel make peace with egypt and fully withdrew from the sinai after egypt had been pressing for a resolution of the conflict since the late 60's. it has yet to make peace with syria and withdraw from the occupied golan heights.
you think im being unfair at best (likely you think im being hateful at worst), but you should consult what israelis themselves actually say about israeli foreign and military behaviour. david ben-gurion the first PM of israel made no attempt to hide his expansionist aims for israel and was clear that the zionist movement should not be satisfied with the 1948 partition plan of palestine and should do what it has to do to get as much land as possible. that thinking has guided the rejectionist camp of israeli zionist thought (im including here the liked and labour) until the present time
| Quote: |
Your revisionist history is offensive, and your decision to leave out huge chunks is dishonourable.
|
offensive to who? all jews everywhere? making me a rabid anti-semite? im not aware of leaving out chunks of history, fill me in please. i can certainly see how my viewpoints are dishonourable if what passes for honour is an uncritical acceptance of the BS jingoistic folklore one is expected to swallow lest they be labelled a hater of freedom, israel, america, democracy, truth, jews, myself, bla bla bla. i dont go for that intimidation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HardyandTiny
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="shakuhachi"]
| Quote: |
I wonder where all those pictures came from though. I wish I could pull out pictures of any city I wanted from any period of time.
|
If you could do that then you would be me! But seriously, shakuhachi's pocket is like doraemons pocket 
| Quote: |
I GUESS I'm talking to a wall.
My feelings are not hurt at all.
I'm an American. |
Errr, HardyandTiny do you forget writing this?
| Quote: |
I am Korean. what is your crap investigation about my country doing for me?
|
I'm an American, caucasian, I did forget writing it. It seems I was rambling on in a drunk state doing a bad job of expressing what my reaction might be like if I were a Korean.
Sorry if I made anyone think I was Korean. |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
