Two-year-old Wang Yue was run over by two cars last Thursday in a market in the southern province of Guangdong. Closed-circuit television footage of 18 people walking past her body without helping her has ignited outrage both inside China and worldwide.
After a week of battling to save her, doctors said her heart had stopped beating at 12.32am this morning. Her parents paid her a final visit shortly afterwards.
"For a week, we have spared no effort to save her," said a spokesman for the Guangzhou Military Hospital. "The best army doctors that we have have cared for her, but in the end her traumas were too great. We extend our condolences to her family."
The toddler, who wandered out of her parent's shop while her mother's back was turned, suffered brain damage and severe organ failure after being hit by two vehicles in a lane of the Guangzhou Foshan hardware market.
Some of the people who walked past her body, as it lay bleeding in the middle of the lane, denied seeing her. Others said they had been too scared to help her. It is possible that the toddler could have survived the initial accident if one of the early passers-by had come to her aid.
The episode has deeply shamed China and ignited a national debate about the marked disregard that many seem to have for their fellow man.
The girl's parents, Wang Chichang and Qu Feifei, have stopped short of pointing the finger, however, instead blaming themselves for their negligence. "There are still more good people than bad in the world," said Mr Wang.
I just saw a video of when she was hit by the van. She didn't run out suddenly or anything, she was literally just aimlessly in the middle of the road. The guy had to have been 100% blind to not notice her and he just carried straight on in to her.
Most people in China are familiar with the case of Peng Yu. As reported by China Daily, an incident occurred on November 20, 2006 in Nanjing. An elderly woman was injured after falling down at a bus stop. At her request, Peng, who was getting off a bus, agreed to take her to a hospital. Not only did he take her there but Peng stayed with her while she was being treated.
The woman later claimed it had been Peng who knocked her down and the woman's family sued him. The judge in the case applied "common sense" and concluded that Peng would not have helped her if he had not injured her in the first place. If he had not been at fault, it was not logical he would have helped her. Peng was ordered to pay damages.
Since Peng was found liable, people in China routinely ignore those who have been injured or are seriously ill.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And more:
Under China's criminal laws, priority is given to offences against the State. The next most serious crimes are economic crimes committed against the State and individuals. Offences committed merely against individuals such as Yueyue, not economic in nature, do not seem to be viewed as particularly serious acts.
It has only been within the last year, that reckless driving and drunk driving have become criminal offences in China.
i am also surprise from this news and really i am also shocked after listen it and in such a great country,s culture these type of things are totally sad .... and thanks you share with us this news
Manchu wrote:Well, that's just it: Chinese culture isn't so great.
Yeah, whilst things like this have happened in Britain and the US, alledgedly this thing happens all the time there. It's only because it went viral on youtube that it's getting noticed at all, apparently.
Right -- and furthermore, it's because of their culture, specifically their legal and political culture (which weren't just invented yesterday), that nobody helped this kid.
Manchu wrote:Right -- and furthermore, it's because of their culture, specifically their legal and political culture (which weren't just invented yesterday), that nobody helped this kid.
No disagreements.
I did find it funny the wording in the article.
The judge in the case applied "common sense" and concluded that Peng would not have helped her if he had not injured her in the first place. If he had not been at fault, it was not logical he would have helped her.
If true, that means the Judge could not understand why someone would help a stranger for no reason. What kind of bizarro thinking is that? The kind of culture that breeds that... good lord.
Why do people claim that China has such a great culture? I mean, the traditional culture might be beautiful. The history is great. But as far as the current culture? Awful.
It's kinda hard for China to export its culture like the US does. Nobody wants it after all, while US culture is glamorous and full of the hopeful idea that hey, I can get rich too one day.
MrDwhitey wrote:that means the Judge could not understand why someone would help a stranger for no reason. What kind of bizarro thinking is that? The kind of culture that breeds that... good lord.
You can't take moral values for granted. Mencius argued that if a person saw a child about to fall into a well, he would immediately act to save the child -- unless his innate goodness was overcome by bad habits. In this case, only one of nineteen people did anything. According to Mencius, this does not speak well of Chinese culture and society. On the other hand, Xunzi believed that people will pursue their own interests (and thus be selfish and bad) unless they are trained to do what is good. Again, Xunzi would interpret this incident to mean that Chinese society does not train people to be good. So, whether people are innately good or not, Chinese culture is bad according to these two Confucian traditions.
In the West, we have the Great Commandment of Christ: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and love thy neighbor as thyself. One does not have to worship Jesus to incorporate it into one's moral values. It is because of Christianity's pervasive influence on our culture that we find 18 people walking by this injured little girl scandalous. It's not to say that we would be less scandalized if we were all Confucians. But if we were not scandalized by it -- well, you can see that having these sorts of values is important and it's not just something that springs out of each inidividual's head or heart. In any case, whatever kind of moral outlook the Chinese currently have -- at least in Guangzhou -- it did not serve Wang Yue too well.
“These last few days the whole of China has been asking itself: is this just the way people are by nature? or have they only fallen to this state as a result of prolonged damage to their public morals?”
Sounds like they could stand to read some Mencius and Xunzi, no?
The answer, most analysis has concluded, is the latter.
And, unsurprisingly, most agree with the Neo-Confucian orthodoxy (Mencius's view). But here's something totally new:
“At the same time as people’s rights have been suppressed, people’s sense of righteousness and justice has been restrained too.”
That's not something you would hear from any Confucian -- rather, the Confucian would speak of the suppression of roles, namely that if people are not allowed to be morally responsible actors then they will become morally irresponsible. Mencius did not speak of a "right" to be good but rather of the innateness of goodness which must be nurtured through training. Goodness was the prerogative of those who could afford the training. Goodness, of the sort that a Confucian gentleman needed to cultivate, was a privilege and from thence a duty.
What's great about Chinese culture is that it has produced and preserved all kinds of questions and answers about all sorts of topics. And yet, in response to the people being worried that no one is moral, the officials meet to discuss how the government can be more powerful.
Seriously Manchu? I don't have to know religion to know what is right. I don't have to be religious to know that if a little girl were to get hit by a car I would run to her aid. To some it's human nature to help others, not something taught. To give religion credit for knowing when something is right is just ignorance.
MrDWhitey mentions the Kitty Genovese case. I guarantee the majority of those who listened to her die and did nothing were Christians as that is the primary religion in the US now...and most certainly in 1964.
Give mankind some credit that we can do the right thing without religion.
$pider wrote:Give mankind some credit that we can do the right thing without religion.
Even if people are born (a) knowing the difference between right and wrong and (b) are naturally attracted to what is right rather than what is wrong, it is still apparent that people do what is wrong (what we generally agree to be wrong) instead of what is right (what we generally agree to be right). Why do they do that? And, furthermore, why do some people think a thing is right while other people think a thing is wrong? Call it religion, philosophy, spirituality, ethics, whatever -- these systems of thought are what actually guide us and shape us. If you don't notice them then you simply haven't looked very closely at the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
$pider wrote:MrDWhitey mentions the Kitty Genovese case. I guarantee the majority of those who listened to her die and did nothing were Christians as that is the primary religion in the US now...and most certainly in 1964.
The reason that the Kitty Genovese case is so famous is not because it was caught on film or tape recording (unlike Wang Yue's death in this case) but because it was unique. In other words, it was a scandal because it was so clearly wrong according to our Christian-derived popular moral outlook.
$pider wrote:Give mankind some credit that we can do the right thing without religion.
Even if people are born (a) knowing the difference between right and wrong and (b) are naturally attracted to what is right rather than what is wrong, it is still apparent that people do what is wrong (what we generally agree to be wrong) instead of what is right (what we generally agree to be right). Why do they do that? And, furthermore, why do some people think a thing is right why other people think a thing is wrong? Call it religion, philosophy, spirituality, ethics, whatever -- these systems of thought are what actually guide us. If you don't notice them then you simply haven't looked very closely at the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
$pider wrote:MrDWhitey mentions the Kitty Genovese case. I guarantee the majority of those who listened to her die and did nothing were Christians as that is the primary religion in the US now...and most certainly in 1964.
The reason that the Kitty Genovese case is so famous is not because it was caught on film or tape recording (unlike Wang Yue's death in this case) but because it was unique. In other words, it was a scandal because it was so clearly wrong according to our Christian-derived popular moral outlook.
Wait a sec. You think religion, sepcifically Christianity, is the reason we know right from wrong period? Christianity and it's representatives have done plenty of bad things during it's existance as an organized religion, let's not forget that. The idea of good does not itself come form religion. Not all people were bad before religion existed.
$pider wrote:Give mankind some credit that we can do the right thing without religion.
Even if people are born (a) knowing the difference between right and wrong and (b) are naturally attracted to what is right rather than what is wrong, it is still apparent that people do what is wrong (what we generally agree to be wrong) instead of what is right (what we generally agree to be right). Why do they do that? And, furthermore, why do some people think a thing is right while other people think a thing is wrong? Call it religion, philosophy, spirituality, ethics, whatever -- these systems of thought are what actually guide us and shape us. If you don't notice them then you simply haven't looked very closely at the world.
The reason why people know what is right, but do what is wrong is because we are still a young species.
We could not have made it out of the caves if we didn't have an innate sense of right and wrong.
Being religious does not guarantee good behavior, by a long shot. There have been too many atrocities due to religion to think so.
Manchu wrote:@Phanatik: As I mentioned to $pider, I did not claim that being religious guarantees good behavior. You guys are arguing with someone who is not here.
Hey, I'm not arguing. I hit the quote button to bring up the message screen.
Manchu wrote:No, $pider, that's not even close to what I said.
That's my impression from both of your posts combined. What you allude to in your second post seems to be derived from your beliefs that you mention in the post I initially replied too. Could be me misinterpreting you as well. It is Friday.
All I mean is that our sense of morality does not spring into exist spontaneously upon our birth but is rather developed by, through, as a part of, etc, culture.
What I'm getting at, again, is that contemporary Chinese culture is not so great.
Anyway, it's the explanation for it or the explanation for its absence that is interesting with with respect to Confucianism and the apparent contemporary debate in China regarding Wang Yue's death. The Chinese still think people are not really bad by nature, just trained to be bad. The government's response ("we should exert more soft power") is indicative of the problem.
Orkyclaus wrote:The reason why people don't stop to help is because they are afraid to be sued if something goes wrong. Blame people who sue for no reason.
before people get on their high horse it should be remembered, multiple states in the US had to enact Good Samaritan laws to protect bystanders who tried to help. Thank you again California.
Isn't this just the bystander effect in practise? I mean we can rag on China all day but we had our Kitty Genovese too.
Also I'm suprised and happy, that someone already brought up Mencius and his well. I was going to do that but I guess there are more experts on Classical Asia on Dakka than I realized.
The first reaction of the Chinese government was to say that people needed to be taught more socialistic values. Many Chinese netizens immediately asked if it wasn't socialistic values that led to this situation.
(N.B. Chinese government socialistic values are not necessarily the same as social or socialist values in other countries.)
$pider wrote:That's my impression from both of your posts combined. What you allude to in your second post seems to be derived from your beliefs that you mention in the post I initially replied too. Could be me misinterpreting you as well. It is Friday.
If i read Manchu right he means. Long ago religion codified certain values such as right and wrong you lived accourding to those rules. Nowadays religion is no longer such a big thing as it was back then. But those rules shaped our culture and now people follow those rules because they are common sense.
Ot Those people walking by and doing nothing maybe they did not want to let that kid die. But their common sense told them that yes they could help her but if the family sued then they could go bankrupt. I hope that china will pass some laws that make make it impossible to sue someone that tries to help.
This actually happened a while ago so I've been discussing this quite a bit already. The only good thing about it is that the most outraged people of all are the Chinese. Many are calling on China to take a long, hard look at itself. They say basic human decency seems to fallen out of Chinese culture and all they care about is money.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:This actually happened a while ago so I've been discussing this quite a bit already. The only good thing about it is that the most outraged people of all are the Chinese. Many are calling on China to take a long, hard look at itself. They say basic human decency seems to fallen out of Chinese culture and all they care about is money.
Well, they have been studying the USA for some time and it seems they learned well.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:This actually happened a while ago so I've been discussing this quite a bit already. The only good thing about it is that the most outraged people of all are the Chinese. Many are calling on China to take a long, hard look at itself. They say basic human decency seems to fallen out of Chinese culture and all they care about is money.
Well, they have been studying the USA for some time and it seems they learned well.
Has the student surpassed the master? We can't let that happen! If the US loses to China- Something, bad, will happen... Quick! Everyone start being a USA! USA!
That's why I'm not sure the diffusion of responsibility phenomenon applies here. It was many people ignoring her over and over again by themselves. Also, another driver ran her over again.
The case cited by Manchu about the good Samaritan being found liable for helping someone is what's at issue.
Similarily, a while ago another hit and run victim was murdered. Apparently when you kill some one by accident in China you must pay the family a fine. If you injure them you must pay their medical bills which is more. Knowing this the driver who originally hit them by accident went back and ran them over again to finish them off because it was have been cheaper.
So did China's bizzare laws form it's culture or did its bizzare culture form its laws? I don't know.
Spend yesterday monring in the backseat of a car, holding c-spine on a lady that was involved in a wreck, one other person stopped to help her kid, nobody else helped the driver of the other car.
This was at 10am in a very busy intersection in a major city. People honking at each other because they are not driving fast enough past the two cars that crashed in the middle of the intersection. Took me about a minute to make it to the car, and in that time at least 50 other cars just drove past without making sure people were okay.
All Chinese ( Including Hong Kong, Taiwan and other Asian countries ) are raised on these principles.
We study these since grade 1, whether we understand the meaning is one thing, but we are required to memorize these.
I guess some where along the line of growing up we will understand it.
But hey, at least we are taught social values from young age.
Anyways, this is our culture, this is our belief. This is how we think all human beings should be considerate about.
If you are interested, give it a read, you'll be plenty surprised.
The translation is abit weird at times as most of the old language cannot be directly translated.
( because a chinese phrase can be a story )
人之初，性本善。性相近，習相遠。
Men at their birth
are naturally good.
Their natures are much the same;
their habits become widely different.
苟不教，性乃遷。教之道，貴以專。
If foolishly there is no teaching,
the nature will deteriorate.
The right way in teaching
is to attach the utmost importance in thoroughness.
昔孟母，擇鄰處。子不學，斷機杼。
Of old, the mother of Mencius
chose a neighbourhood;
and when her child would not learn,
she broke the shuttle from the loom.
竇燕山，有義方。教五子，名俱揚。
Dou of the Swallow Hills
had the right method.
He taught five sons,
each of whom raised the family reputation.
養不教，父之過。教不嚴，師之惰。
To feed without teaching
is the father's fault.
To teach without severity
is the teacher's laziness.
子不學，非所宜。幼不學，老何為。
If the child does not learn,
this is not as it should be.
If he does not learn while young,
what will he be when old?
玉不琢，不成器。人不學，不知義。
If jade is not polished,
it cannot become a thing of use.
If a man does not learn,
he cannot know his duty towards his neighbour.
為人子，方少時。親師友，習禮儀。
He who is the son of a man,
when he is young
should attach himself to his teachers and friends,
and practise ceremonial usages.
香九齡，能溫席。孝於親，所當執。
Xiang, at nine years of age,
could warm (his parents') bed.
Filial piety towards parents,
is that to which we should hold fast.
融四歲，能讓梨。弟於長，宜先知。
Rong, at four years of age,
could yield the (bigger) pears.
To behave as a younger brother towards elders,
is one of the first things to know.
首孝弟，次見聞。知某數，識某文。
Begin with filial piety and fraternal love,
and then see and hear.
Learn to count,
and learn to read.
一而十，十而百。百而千，千而萬。
Units and tens,
tens and hundreds,
hundreds and thousands,
thousands and tens of thousands.
三才者，天地人。三光者，日月星。
The Three Forces
are Heaven, Earth and Man.
The Three Luminaries
are the sun, the moon and the stars.
三綱者，君臣義。父子親，夫婦順。
The Three Bonds
are the obligation between sovereign and subject,
the love between father and child,
the harmony between husband and wife.
曰春夏，曰秋冬。此四時，運不窮。
We speak of spring and summer,
we speak of autumn and winter.
These four seasons
revolve without ceasing.
曰南北，曰西東。此四方，應乎中。
We speak of North and South,
we speak of East and West,
These four points
respond to the requirements of the centre.
曰水火，木金土。此五行，本乎數。
We speak of water, fire,
wood, metal and earth.
These five elements
have their origin in number.
曰仁義，禮智信。此五常，不容紊。
We speak of charity of heart and of duty towards one's neighbour,
of propriety, of wisdom, and of truth.
These five virtues
admit of no compromise.
稻粱菽，麥黍稷。此六谷，人所食。
Rice, spiked millet, pulse,
wheat, glutinous millet and common millet.
These six grains
are those which men eat.
馬牛羊，雞犬豕。此六畜，人所飼。
The horse, the ox, the sheep,
the fowl, the dog, the pig.
These six animals,
are those which men keep.
曰喜怒，曰哀懼。愛惡欲，七情具。
We speak of joy, of anger,
we speak of pity, of fear,
of love, of hate, and of desire.
These are the seven passions.
匏土革，木石金。與絲竹，乃八音。
The gourd, earthenware, skin,
wood, stone, metal,
silk, and bamboo,
yield the eight musical sounds.
高曾祖，父而身。身而子，子而孫。自子孫，至元曾。乃九族，而之倫。
Great great grandfather, great grandfather, grandfather,
father and self,
self and son,
son and grandson,
from son and grandson
on to great grandson and great great grandson.
These are the nine agnates,
constituting the kinships of man.
父子恩，夫婦從。兄則友，弟則恭。長幼序，友與朋。君則敬，臣則忠。此十義，人所同。
Affection between father and child,
harmony between husband and wife,
friendliness on the part of elder brothers,
respectfulness on the part of younger brothers,
precedence between elders and youngers,
as between friend and friend,
respect on the part of the sovereign,
loyalty on the part of the subject.
These ten obligations,
are common to all men.
凡訓蒙，須講究。詳訓詁，名句讀。
In the education of the young,
there should be explanation and elucidation,
careful teaching of the interpretations of commentators,
and due attention to paragraphs and sentences.
為學者，必有初。小學終，至四書。
Those who are learners,
must have a beginning.
The "little learning" finished,
they proceed to the four books.
論語者，二十篇。群弟子，記善言。
There is the Lun Yu,
in twenty sections.
In this, the various disciples
have recorded the wise sayings of Confucius.
孟子者，七篇止。講道德，說仁義。
The works of Mencius
are comprised in seven sections.
These explain the way and the exemplification thereof,
and expound charity and duty towards one's neighbour.
三字經:
作中庸，子思筆。中不偏，庸不易。
The Zhong Yong was written
by the pen of Zi-si;
Zhong (the middle) being that which does not lean towards any side,
Yong (the course) being that which cannot be changed.
作大學，乃曾子。自修齊，至平治。
He who wrote The Great Learning
was the philosopher Zeng.
Beginning with cultivation of the individual and ordering of the family,
it goes on to government of one's own State and ordering of the Empire.
孝經通，四書熟。如六經，始可讀。
When the Classic of Filial Piety is mastered,
and the "Four books" are known by heart,
the next step is to the "Six classics",
which may now be studied.
詩書易，禮春秋。號六經，當講求。
The Books of Poetry, of History and of Changes.
The Rites of the Zhou Dynasty, the Book of Rites, and the Spring and Autumn Annals,
are called the Six Classics,
which should be carefully explained and analysed.
有連山，有歸藏。有周易，三易詳。
There is the Lian Shan system,
there is the Gui Zang,
And there is the system of Changes of the Zhou Dynasty;
such are the three systems which elucidate the Changes.
有典謨，有訓誥。有誓命，書之奧。
There are the Regulations, the Counsels,
the Instructions, the Announcements,
the Oaths, the Charges;
these are the profundities of the Book of History.
我周公，作周禮。著六官，存治體。
Our Duke of Zhou
drew up the Ritual of the Zhou Dynasty,
in which he set forth the duties of the six classes of officials;
and thus gave a settled form to the government.
大小戴，註禮記。述聖言，禮樂備。
The Elder and the Younger Dai
wrote commentaries on the Book of Rites.
They published the holy words,
and Ceremonies and Music were set in order.
曰國風，曰雅頌。號四詩，當諷詠。
We speak of the Guo Feng,
we speak of the Ya and the Song.
These are the four sections of the Book of poetry,
which should be hummed over and over.
詩既亡，春秋作。寓褒貶，別善惡。
When odes ceased to be made,
the Spring and Autumn Annals were produced.
These Annals contain praise and blame,
and distinguish the good from the bad.
三傳者，有公羊。有左氏，有彀梁。
The three commentaries upon the above
include that of Gong-Yang,
that of Zuo
and that of Gu-Liang.
經既明，方讀子。撮其要，記其事。
When the Classics are understood,
then the writings of the various philosophers should be read.
Pick out the important points in each,
and take a note of all facts.
五子者，有荀楊。文中子，及老莊。
The five chief philosophers
are Xun, Yang,
Wenzhongzi,
Laozi and Zhuangzi.
經子通，讀諸史。考世系，知終始。
When the Classics and the Philosophers are mastered,
the various histories should be read,
and the genealogical connections should be examined,
so that the end of one dynasty and the beginning of the next may be known.
自羲農，至黃帝。號三皇，居上世。
From Fu Xi and Shen Nong
on to the Yellow Emperor,
these are called the Three Rulers.
who lived in the early ages.
唐有虞，號二帝。相揖遜，稱盛世。
Tang and You-Yu
are called the two emperors.
They adbicated, one after the other,
and theirs was called the Golden Age.
夏有禹，商有湯。周文王，稱三王。
The Xia dynasty has Yu;
the Shang dynasty has Tang;
the Zhou dynasty had Wen and Wu;
these are called the Three Kings
夏傳子，家天下。四百載，遷夏社。
Under the Xia dynasty the throne was transmitted from father to son,
making a family possession of the empire.
After four hundred years,
the Imperial sacrifice passed from the House of Xia.
湯伐夏，國號商。六百載，至紂亡。
Tang the completer destroyed the Xia Dynasty,
and the dynastic title became Shang.
The line lasted for six hundred years,
ending with Zhou Xin.
周武王，始誅紂。八百載，最長久。
King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty
finally slew Zhou Xin.
His own line lasted for eight hundred years;
the longest dynasty of all.
周轍東，王綱墮。逞干戈，尚游說。
When the Zhous made tracks eastwards,
the feudal bond was slackened;
the arbitrament of spear and shields prevailed;
and peripatetic politicians were held in high esteem.
始春秋，終戰國。五霸強，七雄出。
This period began with the Spring and Autumn Epoch,
and ended with that of the Warring States.
Next, the Five Chieftains domineered,
and the Seven Martial States came to the front.
嬴秦氏，始兼並。傳二世，楚漢爭。
Then the House of Qin, descended from the Ying clan,
finally united all the states under one sway.
The thrown was transmitted to Er Shi,
upon which followed the struggle between the Chu and the Han States.
高祖興，漢業建。至孝平，王莽篡。
Then Gao Zu arose,
and the House of Han was established.
When we come to the reign of Xiao Ping,
Wang Mang usurped the throne.
光武興，為東漢。四百年，終於獻。
Then Guang Wu arose,
and founded the Eastern Han dynasty.
It lasted four hundred years,
and ended with the Emperor Xian.
魏蜀吳，爭漢鼎。號三國，迄兩晉。
Wei, Shu and Wu,
fought for the sovereignty of the Hans.
They were called the Three Kingdoms,
and existed until the Two Jin Dynasties.
宋齊繼，梁陳承。為南朝，都金陵。
Then followed the Song and the Qi dynasties,
and after them the Liang and Chen dynasties.
These are the Southern dynasties,
with their capital at Nanjing.
北元魏，分東西。宇文周，興高齊。
The northern dynasties are the Wei dynasty of the Yuan family,
which split into Eastern and Western We,.
the Zhou dynasty of the Yuwen family,
with the Qi dynasty of the Gao family.
迨至隋，一土宇。不再傳，失統緒。
At length, under the Sui dynasty,
the empire was united under one ruler.
The throne was not transmitted twice,
succession to power being lost.
唐高祖，起義師。除隋亂，創國基。
The first emperor of the Tang dynasty
raised volunteer troops.
He put an end to the disorder of the House of Sui,
and established the foundations of his line.
二十傳，三百載。梁義之，國乃改。
Twenty times the thrown was transmitted
in a period of three hundred years.
The Liang State destroyed it,
and the dynastic title was changed.
梁唐晉，及漢周。稱五代，皆有由。
The Liang, the Tang, the Jin,
the Han, and the Zhou,
are called the Five Dynasties,
and there was a reason for the establishment of each.
炎宋興，受周禪。十八傳，南北混。
Then the fire-led house of Song arose,
and received the resignation of the house of Zhou.
Eighteen times the throne was transmitted,
and then the north and the south were reunited.
十七史，全在茲。載治亂，知興衰。
The Seventeen Dynastic Histories
are all embraced in the above.
They contain examples of good and bad government,
whence may be learnt the principles of prosperity and decay.
讀史書，考實錄。通古今，若親目。
Ye who read history
must study the State Annals,
whereby you will understand ancient and modern events,
as though having seen them with your own eyes.
口而誦，心而惟。朝於斯，夕於斯。
Recite them with the mouth,
and ponder over them in your hearts.
Do this in the morning;
do this in the evening.
昔仲尼，師項橐。古聖賢，尚勤學。
Of old, Confucius
took Xiang Tuo for his teacher.
The inspired men and sages of old
studied diligently nevertheless.
趙中令，讀魯論。彼既仕，學且勤。
Zhao, president of the Council,
studied the Lu text of the Lun Yu.
He, when already an official,
studied, and moreover with diligence.
披蒲編，削竹簡。彼無書，且知勉。
One opened out rushes and plaited them together;
another scraped tablets of bamboo.
These men had no books,
but they knew how to make an effort.
頭懸梁，錐刺股。彼不教，自勤苦。
One tied his head to the beam above him;
another pricked his thigh with an awl.
They were not taught,
but toiled hard of their own accord.
如囊螢，如映雪。家雖貧，學不綴。
Then we have one who put fireflies in a bag.
and again another who used the white glare from snow.
Although their families were poor,
these men studied unceasingly.
如負薪，如掛角。身雖勞，猶苦卓。
Again, there was one who carried fuel,
and another who used horns as pegs.
Although they toiled with their bodies,
they were nevertheless remarkable for their application.
蘇老泉，二十七。始發憤，讀書籍。
Su Lao-Quan,
at the age of twenty-seven,
at last began to show his energy
and devote himself to the study of books.
彼既老，猶悔遲。爾小生，宜早思。
Then when already past the age,
he deeply regretted his delay.
You little boys
should take thought betimes.
若梁灝，八十二。對大廷，魁多士。
Then there were Liang Hao,
who at the age of eighty-two,
made his replies in the great hall,
and came out first among many scholars.
彼既成，衆稱異。爾小生，宜立誌。
When thus late he had succeeded,
all men pronounced him a prodigy.
You little boys
should make up your minds to work.
瑩八歲，能詠詩。泌七歲，能賦碁。
Ying, at eight years of age,
could compose poetry.
Bi, at seven years of age,
could make an epigram on wei-qi.
彼穎悟，人稱奇。爾幼學，當效之。
These youths were quick of apprehension,
and people declared them to be prodigies.
You young learners
ought to imitate them.
蔡文姬，能辨琴。謝道韞，能詠吟。
Cai Wen-ji,
was able to judge from the sound of a psaltery.
Xie Dao-yun,
was able to compose verses.
彼女子，且聰敏。爾男子，當自警。
They were only girls,
yet they were quick and clever.
You boys
ought to rouse yourselves.
唐劉晏，方七歲。舉神童，作正字。
Liu Yan of the Tang dynasty,
when only seven years of age,
was ranked as an "inspired child,"
and was appointed a Corrector of Texts.
彼雖幼，身己仕。爾幼學，勉而緻。有為者，亦若是。
He, although a child,
was already in an official post.
You young learners
strive to bring about a like result.
Those who work
will also succeed as he did.
犬守夜，雞司晨。苟不學，曷為人。
The dog keeps guard by night;
the cock proclaims the dawn.
If foolishly you do not study,
how can you become men?
蠶吐絲，蜂釀蜜。人不學，不如物。
The silkworm produces silk,
the bee makes honey.
If a man does not learn,
he is not equal to the brutes
幼而學，壯而行。上緻君，下澤民。
Learn while young,
and when grown up apply what you have learnt;
influencing the sovereign above;
benefiting the people below.
揚名聲，顯父母。光於前，裕於後。
Make a name for yourselves,
and glorify your father and mother,
shed lustre on your ancestors,
enrich your posterity.
人遺子，金滿嬴。我教子，惟一經。
Men bequeath to their children
coffers of gold;
I teach you children
only this one book.
勤有功，戲無益。戒之哉，宜勉力。
Diligence has its reward;
play has no advantages.
Oh, be on your guard,
and put forth your strength.
LunaHound wrote:All Chinese ( Including Hong Kong, Taiwan and other Asian countries ) are raised on these principles.
I'm not sure it is such a good idea to equate all of Asia with being synonymous with China. I know that people think they all look alike and thus are all the same, but I promise you it isn't that homogeneous. That being said, it is essentially the same things taught to most kids. "Sharing is caring" and being nice to others are hallmarks of childhood indoctrination. As we get older we are taught so many other lessons both inside and outside of the classroom that we, and I imagine you noticed, don't live up to those altruistic ideals. People can end up being greedy, self-centered, and vain in any country regardless of what schools teach. If it was simple as that people wouldn't have left the little girl in the road all that time. One of the reasons, as pointed out above, is that people have been taught that it is in their best interest not to help. Culture is complicated and not just made up of what is taught to us a children.
LunaHound wrote:But hey, at least we are taught social values from young age.
But hey, so are all kids. The words may be different, but the message really isn't. I isn't as if China is teaching kids to love one another and be helpful but everyone is has there kids enrolled in the Gordon Gecko feth Em All Academy.
LunaHound wrote:Anyways, this is our culture, this is our belief. This is how we think all human beings should be considerate about.
Culture is more than a few lines taught at childhood, and it isn't 'ours', unless you mean Canada which is where you are. Again you are creating a level of homogenization that doesn't quite match up with reality. This sort of Borg like 'we' is part of the cultural indoctrination as well often times. It is also a bit, erm, creepy, to go on as if one spoke for all Chinese, let alone apparently all of Asia in one voice.
I imagine the Tibetan's would be a happier group if it was all as simple as this. Same goes for Taiwan.
There's like one verse in there about helping strangers. Guess that kind of gets buried in the rest of it.
China's culture is a....."luck" based one. They're real big on luck. Don't sweep on this day or you'll sweep away your good luck don't buy this on another or you'll bring in bad luck. Very heavily laden with superstition.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:There's like one verse in there about helping strangers. Guess that kind of gets buried in the rest of it.
China's culture is a....."luck" based one. They're real big on luck. Don't sweep on this day or you'll sweep away your good luck don't buy this on another or you'll bring in bad luck. Very heavily laden with superstition.
It stems for the more practical realization that doing housework at all is boring and should be avoided at all costs.
I was witness to a quite nasty looking accident on the motorway in the UK, while not quite as vivid as this example, while I had stopped to try and help practically every other cars just zig-zagged their way through the smashed vehicles and through broken glass. One car even took off another car's door which had swung open as it went.
As it happened, no-one was killed, although several people were badly hurt and perhaps it could have been worse if my mate hadn't called the emergency services the moment it happened.
While in South Korea, I saw a guy was lying spread eagled on the floor of a cross-roads, wearing black clothing obviously drunk and out for the count. I shook my head in wonderment, the taxi driver of the car I was in just started laughing and swerved past him.
As others have pointed out, the decision to walk on by is not isolated or something to do with the failure of Chinese culture. If anything it is more usual for people to show this behaviour, the decision to get involved and to try and help I don't think is straightforward or easy - especially when people are so wrapped up within their own lives and with whatever is going on within their own heads. I can perfectly believe that many of the passers by refused to acknowledge the little girl lying there, quite often this is a function of the human brain that can attempt to block out things which are massively harmful to the psyche - such as a child lying bloody and broken on the side of the road, many returning service men who have taken part in action have reported similar behaviour having witnessed something similarly horrifying.
I do think however that some people's reaction to this incident is quite interesting in of itself. China is undergoing a massive economic, political and social overhaul at the moment. Many Chinese people apparently feel un-anchored, lost by how quickly life is changing, and so are afraid that the most important values (such as regard for another's life) are being lost as well during the onset of modernity. This is not unique - it happened in Europe during the Industrial revolution, with entire genres of art spawned by it, and also in other parts of the world during rapid changes in society.
Also, how the outside world is reacting to the Chinese I find to be quite interesting. Their culture, thousands of years old and something deeply routed in their traditions, language and way of life represents something quite different to the Western-Christian domination of global politics which have taken place for the last several hundred years. And things which people don't understand, they generally are afraid of as it represents a movement into the unknown. Will the rise of China create a new 'Cold War' which could escalate into another Cuban Missile Crisis and place the survival of human civilization itself into question? Or, will it instead restore some security to world politics, and a balance that many felt was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed and the US was able to achieve an unchallenged hegemony in terms of world power? No doubt the next twenty years or so will be very interesting to any students of politics and history.
I realise that I have made quite a few points here very briefly, when entire books have been written on the subject! But, I think it is better to look at some of the underlying issues here rather than just responding with a stock "well, it's just because they are Chinese."
if not coulting others discussing over this moral crisis in China now.
I ain't no chinese, not even a descent. but some of my relatives did marry chinese here.
my mum even admired their culture, believing that they're the most civilized race. they're sublime and grateful (some said to the point of being vengeful should the outsiders have a friction with them) and my mum (well not my opinion) suggested that chinese women are generally a better choice than whites.
this incident shocked my mum, and it also terrorized me!
Although some may feel that the greatest change to Chinese culture is the latest economic boom it was the transformation of China into the PRC by Mao that resonates most strongly till this day.
by the time of Mao hype. everyone had enough of 'traditionalism'. even in the days of Republic (pre-civil wars), the 'better soceity' Dr. Sun Yat Sen promised to chinese folks by that time, has never been realized. he did share the same visions as those who do French Revolution, too bad he forgot to 'seed' the concepts of 'new china' to his folks before staging a revolution. this resulted in a series of warlord era. which nothing short of the old china systems. in addition to Triads proliferation of that time. the chinese folks who was oppressed with such tyranny had accepted that 'Traditions' are the yokes and it has to go. but it needs someone like Mao Zedong to make such 'revolution' real.
the lack of 'enforcement' in 'Confucianism' (as schools of politics and social science) , proven by the 20s tyranny. had made Mao ideal valids.
asimo wrote:Isn't this just the bystander effect in practise?
Not really, at least based on the wikipedia definition:
The mere presence of other bystanders greatly decreases intervention. This happens because as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.
In this case, by contrast, it seems that the majority of people didn't help because of potential liability under Chinese law. Let's get back to the Confucian debate: are people innately good or selfish? Mencius would say "look, it's not that Chinese people are bad -- it's just that there is this bad law which forces them to act badly."
^ Throughout the 'rag' China (185x-194x). there are many 'wrongs' the ruling body did, since the days of Cixi onwards, EVERY chinese leaders did the same tyranny... the 'Chinese Revolution' only removes the 'old clans' and its systems. but doesn't remove. nor reform 'traditions', regardless that it's a good or bad ones.
if the republic government was strong enough, and fair. Mao will NEVER rally chinese folks into his red flag.
i'm not saying that moral crisis causes the Communist revolution. i'm saying that the failure of Sun Yat Sen's revolution (to remove any form of Feudalism) is a reason that rally folks into Mao's banner.
But that "feudalism" was incredibly successful for thousands of years. Dr. Sun, or rather Jiang Jieshi's, particular failure with regard to modernizing Chinese culture seems like more of symptom than a cause. But I actually don't totally understand what you were saying about the changes in Chinese culture.
I must of missed it, but where was this childs parents at? I know for damn sure, when my kids were 2, they werent more then 10 feet away from me ever. And this one was in a street, run over, and then ignored by 18 people before she was helped? How long did this take?
The parents were in their shop; the girl wandered out into the alley while they were working. They said they blame themselves and that not all people are bad.
I personally dont think people are bad, even the ones that walked by ignoring the child. I wouldnt do that, and would hope someone would help my kids if they ever needed it, but I do understand that most people are afraid to help out for a million reasons
That sucks for that family though, thats a guilt you wouldnt be able to shake
Lone Cat wrote:i'm not saying that moral crisis causes the Communist revolution. i'm saying that the failure of Sun Yat Sen's revolution (to remove any form of Feudalism) is a reason that rally folks into Mao's banner.
That is incorrect. Sun Yat Sen is recognize by both China and Taiwan as still the father / creator.
China's general populace has always been poor. While he was revolting to change China's state, the general population rather follow the temptation of communist ideas.
( cant blame them, if it means having a next meal ). This is how Taiwan is born, we are pretty much the Chinese that followed his original dream and ideals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:There's like one verse in there about helping strangers. Guess that kind of gets buried in the rest of it.
China's culture is a....."luck" based one. They're real big on luck. Don't sweep on this day or you'll sweep away your good luck don't buy this on another or you'll bring in bad luck. Very heavily laden with superstition.
It stems for the more practical realization that doing housework at all is boring and should be avoided at all costs.
lol....... no.
Kamikaze, i actually know what you meant.
Chinese are very heavy in... you say superstition. But to us its beyond that. Its the study of astromancy combined with aligning energy ( or known as Fon Shui , spelling is probably wrong )
but yes, can be superstitious :'P
@LunaHound: At least according to Jiang Jieshi and his followers, right? Although these days, even PRC officials prefer the Guomindang over what else is in Taiwan.
Manchu wrote:@LunaHound: At least according to Jiang Jieshi and his followers, right? Although these days, even PRC officials prefer the Guomindang over what else is in Taiwan.
Unfortunately, this is true. And you know.... I don't think im the only one that noticed this but... the thing you just said, is pretty much the prelude of communist birth all over again.
Taiwanese people, they are lost. They have been lost ever since China openly engulfed the world market with their cheap labor.
There is no way we can compete with those 3 world wages, even our companies went over to China ( though the results varies greatly )
Needless to say Taiwan's economy HAS collapsed, and cannot sustain itself ( we are pretty much suffering from all the same reason why Japan tried to take over China back in WW2 )
We don't have enough natural resources to sustain ourselves economically, the only thing Taiwan did ( well they did great for awhile ) was exports ( electronics ). But there is no way we can compete against China.
So now as people grew poor ( or immigrate to other countries ) they are desperate. The current TW president Ma is a traitor.
a) He refers to Taiwan as R.o.C
b) When foreign delegates visits, he removed all Taiwanese flags.
c) Alot of the policy he opened between China and Taiwan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Cooperation_Framework_Agreement pretty much destroyed the only protection we had.
Now, what does the people of Taiwan have left? nothing. We'll end up joining China willingly if this course continues.
This is why the next election in January will decide Taiwan's fate.
I would hope reunification would proceed more slowly -- but, on the other hand, perhaps it will help the Mainland transition more quickly?
Thats the thing Manchu, Its not fair lol. Taiwanese people DREAD communism. We took pride in our rights and freedom ( thats why we love Bush Senior )
to us, he protected us and that same ideal Americans always is proud of.
Anyways, we don't want reunification, but thats slowly become a possibility the reason as i mentioned.
BUT not because we are willing, but because Ma destroyed what possibilities we have left.
不統, 不獨, 不武
Is just an ideal, its not like we can ever stand against China, USA has been the only country keeping Taiwan safe
for the last... how many decades? a long time.
And lastly, this is Taiwanese mentality due to the fear of unknown. Because we never experienced communist ideas first hand,
we will blame every fault China has on it been communist xD (i mean when we cant find a logical explanation )
e.g This incident in this thread, or previous toxic products, contaminated food incidents etc etc. ( e.g a thread long back when i was debating with shumagorath )
KamikazeCanuck wrote:There's like one verse in there about helping strangers. Guess that kind of gets buried in the rest of it.
China's culture is a....."luck" based one. They're real big on luck. Don't sweep on this day or you'll sweep away your good luck don't buy this on another or you'll bring in bad luck. Very heavily laden with superstition.
It stems for the more practical realization that doing housework at all is boring and should be avoided at all costs.
lol....... no.
I see your ability to spot obvious humor is as keen as ever. And for god's sake please stop referring to yourself as all Asian's, as you aren't "we" or "us". It makes you look a bit silly trying to pretend you are speak for all, and is a tad insulting as it implies everyone thinks the same.
LunaHound wrote:Funny, I dont claim to speak for all anymore
Go back and read what you wrote. You don't have to claim it overtly when you constantly refer to all Chinese as 'we'. You don't say, "in Chinese culture they love Big Trouble in Little China becuase Jack Burton is awesome", you say "we love Big Trouble in Little China becuase Jack Burton is awesome". You keep referring to yourself in the third person plural. I don't see how you do not realize you are doing this.
LunaHound wrote:than Christians say they believe in Jesus. Despite im sure not all of them do.
Most of the time they refer to their faith "My belief ect", and typically the times when it is referred to as a collective is just as problematic becuase the diversity of religious experience within Christianity is vast.
LunaHound wrote:If you find my post silly, feel free to put me on ignore :3
If I put you on ignore I would miss silly things like you saying that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Wait, not all Christians believe in Jesus? How does that work?
It is complicated and people write entire books on the subject, but ask yourself what it means to believe in Jesus, what is the nature of Jesus, and how do one express their devotion to him and his ideals. You will get radically different answers to each of those questions in different parts.
Albatross wrote:Wait, not all Christians believe in Jesus? How does that work?
It is complicated and people write entire books on the subject, but ask yourself what it means to believe in Jesus, what is the nature of Jesus, and how do one express their devotion to him and his ideals. You will get radically different answers to each of those questions in different parts.
But surely the 'Christ' part is operative, meaning that those who identify as 'Christian' accept Jesus Christ as part of their faith? To put it another way, are there Christians who don't believe in Jesus in some form or another?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lunahound - How can you presume to speak for 90% of Taiwan? Because you're of Taiwanese extraction?
Albatross wrote:Wait, not all Christians believe in Jesus? How does that work?
It is complicated and people write entire books on the subject, but ask yourself what it means to believe in Jesus, what is the nature of Jesus, and how do one express their devotion to him and his ideals. You will get radically different answers to each of those questions in different parts.
But surely the 'Christ' part is operative, meaning that those who identify as 'Christian' accept Jesus Christ as part of their faith? To put it another way, are there Christians who don't believe in Jesus in some form or another?
Depends on how you took my sentence.
For example I can be a Christian, yet deep inside i don't have to believe God exists or Jesus wasn't just a human being.
Albatross wrote:I'm pretty sure that such a person would not be a Christian.
So its not possible for a converted atheist to be previously a Christian?
for example, maybe someone's family was a Christian all their live. And being the children, they go with the parents
to church, pray, etc etc. That doesn't mean he is fully christian without and within?
Albatross wrote:@Lunahound - How can you presume to speak for 90% of Taiwan? Because you're of Taiwanese extraction?
That seems a little grandiose.
Because its Taiwanese's belief, their pride. Its what they always wanted.
Same way when Americans loves their liberty freedom and democracy. ( sure some might not )
but I dont think you'll find anyone patriotic arguing against that. Am i right?
MY point was that the parameters of 'belief in Jesus' weren't limited to belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. 'Belief in Jesus' could mean belief in living by his teachings, belief in him as an historical figure etc.
The one thing all Christians have in common is belief in Jesus CHRIST as a figure of reverence, whatever shape that takes. I feel confident in saying that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
Albatross wrote:I'm pretty sure that such a person would not be a Christian.
So its not possible for a converted atheist to be previously a Christian?
It's completely possible. That person, however, would not currently be a Christian.
Albatross wrote:@Lunahound - How can you presume to speak for 90% of Taiwan? Because you're of Taiwanese extraction?
That seems a little grandiose.
Because its Taiwanese's belief, their pride. Its what they always wanted.
How do you know that?
Same way when Americans loves their liberty freedom and democracy. ( sure some might not )
but I dont think you'll find anyone patriotic arguing against that. Am i right?
I don't even know what point you're trying to make, but I will say that the whole 'Americans loving freedom and liberty' thing is a platitude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
Albatross wrote:It's completely possible. That person, however, would not currently be a Christian.
I thought that was obvious.
Correct, how ever the time before the conversion, he is still considered a Christian.
...and so would believe in Jesus, along with all the other Christians.
Albatross wrote:@Lunahound - How can you presume to speak for 90% of Taiwan? Because you're of Taiwanese extraction?
That seems a little grandiose.
Because its Taiwanese's belief, their pride. Its what they always wanted.
How do you know that?
Same way when Americans loves their liberty freedom and democracy. ( sure some might not )
but I dont think you'll find anyone patriotic arguing against that. Am i right?
I don't even know what point you're trying to make, but I will say that the whole 'Americans loving freedom and liberty' thing is a platitude.
Hmm that's a shock really. Didn't think you would ignore the connection.
Albatross wrote:
...and so would believe in Jesus, along with all the other Christians.
I see... for you a Christian is someone that believes in Christ and only then can they be considered one.
I see it as possibly a mere title. e.g Like a communist wouldn't necessarily be willing to share everything.
LunaHound wrote:
For example I can be a Christian, yet deep inside i don't have to believe God exists or Jesus wasn't just a human being.
Yeah, to be a Christian you do have to believe in God, though you can probably get away with not believing in the divinity of Christ.
The number of things that can be broadly stated about Christianity is few, but a belief in a/the God is one of them. Now, there are at least 4 major different perspectives on what people believe what god is...
LunaHound wrote:
I see... for you a Christian is someone that believes in Christ and only then can they be considered one.
I see it as possibly a mere title. e.g Like a communist wouldn't necessarily be willing to share everything.
Yes, I'm one of those crazy people that assumes that words, when used, have the generally agreed meaning, and not just the meaning that the user finds convenient when back-peddling.
Albatross wrote:Wait, not all Christians believe in Jesus? How does that work?
It is complicated and people write entire books on the subject, but ask yourself what it means to believe in Jesus, what is the nature of Jesus, and how do one express their devotion to him and his ideals. You will get radically different answers to each of those questions in different parts.
But surely the 'Christ' part is operative, meaning that those who identify as 'Christian' accept Jesus Christ as part of their faith? To put it another way, are there Christians who don't believe in Jesus in some form or another?
Of course, but the problem is in saying "We Christians believe X" when that is often not the case. Look at the Mormon situation where they consider themselves Christians, but not all those that full under the umbrella of Christianity would agree. The Mormon view of Jesus is very different from the Catholic view. Just saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't carry a lot of meaningful information.
Albatross wrote:There is no real connection, though. One is a lazy and meaningless national stereotype, the other is you claiming to speak for 90% of Taiwan.
Then how does one prove thats what Taiwan wanted. Even though its common sense in Taiwanese society?
I mean even if you ask a Taiwanese, i dont think 1 alone can convince you.
Then how many does it take?
Or are there other methods to "prove" that's what Taiwanese want? When its obvious its in our culture, our everything?
Oh, actually THERE IS a way. First way is to prove Taiwan and Hong Kong hates communist China.
I dont have to prove to you that i speak for Taiwan, but I CAN prove what i said is correct.
Look up Taiwan and Hong Kong immigration number ( departing ) , from 1990- 1996
Albatross wrote:Wait, not all Christians believe in Jesus? How does that work?
It is complicated and people write entire books on the subject, but ask yourself what it means to believe in Jesus, what is the nature of Jesus, and how do one express their devotion to him and his ideals. You will get radically different answers to each of those questions in different parts.
But surely the 'Christ' part is operative, meaning that those who identify as 'Christian' accept Jesus Christ as part of their faith? To put it another way, are there Christians who don't believe in Jesus in some form or another?
Of course, but the problem is in saying "We Christians believe X" when that is often not the case. Look at the Mormon situation where they consider themselves Christians, but not all those that full under the umbrella of Christianity would agree. The Mormon view of Jesus is very different from the Catholic view. Just saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't carry a lot of meaningful information.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all!
I think we may both be reading a little too much into a sentence that was, after all, a mere victim of poor construction.
LunaHound wrote:Then how does one prove thats what Taiwan wanted.
Well first one recognizes that they aren't the Borg and people have different aspirations and goals. Secondly, you do research. You do polls, read books, newspapers, magazines, ect. You also don't start with the conclusion and set out to prove it.
LunaHound wrote:Even though its common sense in Taiwanese society?
As usual, 'common sense' seems to be a stand if for 'this is what I believe'.
LunaHound wrote:I mean even if you ask a Taiwanese
Why would I only ask a person when I am trying to get to look at a group of people?
LunaHound wrote:Then how many does it take?
Certainly more than just one person referring to themselves in the third person plural.
LunaHound wrote:Or are there other methods to "prove" that's what Taiwanese want?
Yes. They aren't even new or anything. Though 'prove' is not really the right word. Reflect would be more accurate.
LunaHound wrote:When its obvious its in our culture, our everything?
I don't know. I've been to Canada a couple of times and your culture didn't seem like that at all.
Ahtman wrote: I don't know. I've been to Canada a couple of times and your culture didn't seem like that at all.
Im Taiwanese you silly man. I immigrated to Canada.
Ya, what was I thinking ahtman, I have been thinking about this reversed. Here i was thinking how can "I" as individual suddenly dug up something that is so obvious, its not like i can go create a poll and ask Taiwanese right this incident.
Nope, I have been doing it in wrong sequence. The correct way would be, how can YOU miss the fact of the immigrations out of Hong Kong AND Taiwan when China was taking over Hong Kong in 1997? This is the most important event for both, some how i doubt you can ignore that.
Albatross wrote:There is no real connection, though. One is a lazy and meaningless national stereotype, the other is you claiming to speak for 90% of Taiwan.
Then how does one prove thats what Taiwan wanted. Even though its common sense in Taiwanese society?
I reject the argument from common sense, when it comes to the hopes and fears of entire nation of people.
I mean even if you ask a Taiwanese, i dont think 1 alone can convince you.
That's precisely the point. You only really definitely speak for yourself, and perhaps for a handful of others, though I'm not sure you've secured permission to be their spokesperson.
Or are there other methods to "prove" that's what Taiwanese want? When its obvious its in our culture, our everything?
But you are just one person, you aren't Taiwan itself. And, dur, we all know that. You keep speaking for all Taiwanese people so it seems fair to ask: when was the last time you actually spent more than a week or two there?
Anecdotally, I've met a fair few Taiwanese and never heard any of them praise the Mainland -- outside of appraising business opportunity. There must be a substantial portion of Taiwanese who do support unification of Taiwan with the PRC, however, given that it's major political topic and politicians who support it find their way into elected office at the highest levels.
This article also kind of reminds me of that bible parable about the good Samaritan, except these were just a bunch of negligent street bums and there was no samaritan to save the toddler.
Well, keep in mind that these people could have been thinking "it's my family or hers." Getting sued could be disastrous for a family. It's really sad, yes. And Yue's parents don't seem to be litigious. But that's (probably) why people did what they did, not because they were negligent bums.
LunaHound wrote:
I see... for you a Christian is someone that believes in Christ and only then can they be considered one.
I see it as possibly a mere title. e.g Like a communist wouldn't necessarily be willing to share everything.
Yes, I'm one of those crazy people that assumes that words, when used, have the generally agreed meaning, and not just the meaning that the user finds convenient when back-peddling.
Manchu wrote:But that "feudalism" was incredibly successful for thousands of years. Dr. Sun, or rather Jiang Jieshi's, particular failure with regard to modernizing Chinese culture seems like more of symptom than a cause. But I actually don't totally understand what you were saying about the changes in Chinese culture.
by the time of Dr. Sun's revolution. the 'feudalism' had revealed its own fatal weakness. failure to response to the 'barbarian encroachment'.
LunaHound wrote:
I see... for you a Christian is someone that believes in Christ and only then can they be considered one.
I see it as possibly a mere title. e.g Like a communist wouldn't necessarily be willing to share everything.
Yes, I'm one of those crazy people that assumes that words, when used, have the generally agreed meaning, and not just the meaning that the user finds convenient when back-peddling.
Mod Kilkrazy: What does this picture mean? A bit of context would help, otherwise pics like this seems random and spammy.
For all the people who posted thoughtless, even bigoted generalizations about China and Chinese culture in general in this thread as if their own country is somehow immune to bad behavior, here's a reminder that this kind of thing happens in the USA and other places all the time. Not only was there a well publicized case some years ago where a woman was being killed in an alley in New York and the six or so neighbors who heard it failed to even call the police, but here's a case in Pennsylvania you may have heard about where someone walked in on a young boy being sexually assaulted and instead of intervening they went home and waited till the next day to report it to their boss rather than going to the police. It took 12 years for these multiple sexual assaults on children to make it to a full criminal investigation. It's totally shameful. And yes, people are the same EVERYWHERE, good and bad.
BrassScorpion wrote:For all the people who posted thoughtless, even bigoted generalizations about China and Chinese culture in general in this thread as if their own country is somehow immune to bad behavior, here's a reminder that this kind of thing happens in the USA and other places all the time. Not only was there a well publicized case some years ago where a woman was being killed in an alley in New York and the six or so neighbors who heard it failed to even call the police, but here's a case in Pennsylvania you may have heard about where someone walked in on a young boy being sexually assaulted and instead of intervening they went home and waited till the next day to report it to their boss rather than going to the police. It took 12 years for these multiple sexual assaults on children to make it to a full criminal investigation. It's totally shameful. And yes, people are the same EVERYWHERE, good and bad.
Make sure you fully understand someones post before responding. It was not a ' bigoted generalizations about China and Chinese culture' it was a analysis of the differences between a culture based on neo-Confucius ideology and an Abrahamic ideology.
Make sure you fully understand someones post before responding. It was not a ' bigoted generalizations about China and Chinese culture' it was a analysis of the differences between a culture based on neo-Confucius ideology and an Abrahamic ideology.
Make sure you read all the posts in this thread before you get your exercise jumping to conclusions. There are plenty of posts in this thread that are pretty ignorant in their gross and bigoted generalizations going all the way back to the beginning of the discussion. Whatever questionable philosophy you are on about, I'm sure I didn't even read it because I gave up on this thread early on after seeing all the bigoted, thoughtless comments. I only returned to it tonight because I had a fine and quite current example of how the exact same horrible things happen in the US too and I thought I'd give some people a clear reason to look at the folly of their own prejudices. Why do people on forums always think that every post is talking directly to them? It's often delusional. Or maybe sometimes, a guilty conscience.
Make sure you fully understand someones post before responding. It was not a ' bigoted generalizations about China and Chinese culture' it was a analysis of the differences between a culture based on neo-Confucius ideology and an Abrahamic ideology.
Make sure you read all the posts in this thread before you get your exercise jumping to conclusions. There are plenty of posts in this thread that are pretty ignorant in their gross generalizations going all the way back to the beginning of the discussion. Why do people on forums always thing that every post is talking directly to them? It's often delusional. Or maybe sometimes, a guilty conscience.
Have I posted in this thread before? I assume that your post is directed at Manchu. By western standards Confucian ideology and culture is bad, many of it's philosophies directly contradict what we believe. So far the only unexplained claim was SlaveToDarkness
Well... its China
Which is still founded on what we see of china. There are few redeeming aspects the current Chinese government or culture.
Always a good move to assume. Quit while you're ahead, please.
Do I really need to go back to the beginning of the thread to identify all of the bigoted or grossly general and irrational posts? I'll leave that up to others, those posts aren't hard to spot and there are plenty of them. All I have to say further is that I was appalled that this thread wasn't shut down pretty early on given the level of some of the comments.
There are few redeeming aspects the current Chinese government or culture.
Now that IS the kind of comment to which I was referring.
The Chinese government is run by communist thugs. Remember Tiananmen Square? The people that killed, that was the oppressive government. The people out there protesting to be free like the guy standing in front of the tank with his groceries trying to stop the violence, those were real people. People like any other people, some good, some not. Including the entire Chinese culture in your summary of the Chinese government is just the kind of bigoted comment that should have caused this topic to be shut down ages ago. Fortunately, not all people are the same because I'd hate to think the guy standing in front of the tank was an ignorant bigot like someone who would make a statement like that. Some people never learn or grow. :(
Since demonizing an entire group of human beings on this forum is usually grounds for a thread to be shut down, I would like to formally ask the next Moderator who sees this to please do so now because there are plenty of such comments in this thread. Thank you.
Always a good move. Quit while you're ahead, please.
That is not how you pick out poor statements.
BrassScorpion wrote:
The Chinese government is run by communist thugs. Remember Tiananmen Square? The people that killed, that was the oppressive government. The people out there protesting to be free like the guy standing in front of the tank with his groceries trying to stop the violence, those were real people. People like any other people, some good, some not.
Funny thing, no one remembers the people that died, but lots of people remember the guy that stared down the tank (he's still alive).
Funny thing, no one remembers the people that died,
That's a broad statement and I doubt it's true. Clearly I remembered and I'm sure there are many others, not the least of which would be the families of the dead, journalists, concerned ambassadors and more than a few politicians and scholars with a conscience.
but lots of people remember the guy that stared down the tank (he's still alive).
That's what the government claims, but they won't say exactly what happened to him or what cruelty they probably did dish out, which does not bode well from an oppressive communist regime.
BrassScorpion wrote:That's a broad statement and I doubt it's true. Clearly I remembered and I'm sure there are many others...
Clearly I was exaggerating.
BrassScorpion wrote:
...and more than a few politicians and scholars with a conscience.
That's their first problem.
BrassScorpion wrote:
That's what the government claims, but they won't say exactly what happened to him or what cruelty they probably did dish out, which does not bode well from an oppressive communist regime.
Its what several people, not necessarily affiliated with the Chinese state, claim.
Its human culture to turn on poeple. I saw a vid of a trans getting beaten in a Macdonals without the assault getting stopped but the employes actually cheered the beaters.
I read of a theif that stole expensive medicin and ran. Even though the doctors ran after noone stopped him.
Some years ago a women was attacked by a 12 year old trying to rape her. One car passed by and the driver saw what was happening but ignored and drove past, thankfully a father and his son stoppe the boy.
Another example happend during a car chrash when several cars just stopped and started to film the accident then to help.
Always a good move to assume. Quit while you're ahead, please.
Do I really need to go back to the beginning of the thread to identify all of the bigoted or grossly general and irrational posts? I'll leave that up to others, those posts aren't hard to spot and there are plenty of them. All I have to say further is that I was appalled that this thread wasn't shut down pretty early on given the level of some of the comments.
There are few redeeming aspects the current Chinese government or culture.
Now that IS the kind of comment to which I was referring.
The Chinese government is run by communist thugs. Remember Tiananmen Square? The people that killed, that was the oppressive government. The people out there protesting to be free like the guy standing in front of the tank with his groceries trying to stop the violence, those were real people. People like any other people, some good, some not. Including the entire Chinese culture in your summary of the Chinese government is just the kind of bigoted comment that should have caused this topic to be shut down ages ago. Fortunately, not all people are the same because I'd hate to think the guy standing in front of the tank was an ignorant bigot like someone who would make a statement like that. Some people never learn or grow. :(
Since demonizing an entire group of human beings on this forum is usually grounds for a thread to be shut down, I would like to formally ask the next Moderator who sees this to please do so now because there are plenty of such comments in this thread. Thank you.
I'll try this again, Confusion ideologies, which most of Chinese culture is based on, is often at odds with western ideologies. To someone from the west, Chinese culture has few redeeming qualities. For one who claims to be respectful and knowledgeable of different cultures you seem to be having difficulty with understanding that western and eastern culrures are at odds with one another. I would't expect the Chinese man to admire western culture, because he would view it as having few redeeming aspects.
Confucianism hardly comes off as some radical, alien philosophy to westerners. An actual Confucian wouldn't leave a girl bleeding in the street. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. China could use a little reintroduction to Confucius.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Confucianism hardly comes off as some radical, alien philosophy to westerners. An actual Confucian wouldn't leave a girl bleeding in the street. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. China could use a little reintroduction to Confucius.
Obviously the ruler lacks ren therefore the people lack ren
I did not mean to sat that is is a radical ideology, nearly that many of it's ideas are incompatible with western thought
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Confucianism hardly comes off as some radical, alien philosophy to westerners. An actual Confucian wouldn't leave a girl bleeding in the street. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. China could use a little reintroduction to Confucius.
Obviously the ruler lacks ren therefore the people lack ren
I did not mean to sat that is is a radical ideology, nearly that many of it's ideas are incompatible with western thought
Eastern ideology is different from Western ideology in the regard of how people should be looked at. In Eastern ideologies the individual typically does not matter, but the community does. In Western ideologies the individual is often what matters and individualism is promoted. Eastern military tactics also differ from Western military tactics as well due to the popularity of Chess in the west and Go in the east. In chess they look at battles of attrition while in Go they look for using as few pieces as possible to defeat their opponents. This translates into tactics in the Vietnam War, while the US generals are focused on using massive force to eliminate areas of opposition NVA generals surround them despite having fewer in number and then retreating to another position. Massive attacks are where the West will win, in fact the Tet Offensive(major NVA and VC assault on US and SV forces) was a military defeat for the NVA. Out of the 80,000+ troops the NVA and VC used, ~60% were killed and within three days they were completely ousted out of every major city they had attacked. Where they usually won was in the jungle when skirmishes could be used mainly because a large mass of troops makes you susceptible to coordinated combat efforts.
Example: Battle of Khe Sanh; ~6,000 marines against ~17,000 NVA resulted in NVA loss. Official statistics put the KIA ratio from the actual battle at 50:1, which means that for every marine that died 50 NVA or VC died.
So in terms of certain ideologies, yes there is a difference. In terms of Confucianism no, a lot of influence of Confucianism can be seen around the world.
I think it's safe to say such a thing could never happen in Britain. An injured child is an horrific thing to see, any decent person would act immediately.
Joey wrote:I think it's safe to say such a thing could never happen in Britain. An injured child is an horrific thing to see, any decent person would act immediately.
Joey wrote:I think it's safe to say such a thing could never happen in Britain. An injured child is an horrific thing to see, any decent person would act immediately.
Is that a no true scotsman? I'm not sure.
And yes, it can definately happen here.
Agreed. People generally aren't going to say "screw that kid" when asked if they would help an injured child. There is often a disconnect, not consciously mind you, between what people think they would do in a situation and what they actually end up doing.
halonachos wrote:
Eastern ideology is different from Western ideology in the regard of how people should be looked at. In Eastern ideologies the individual typically does not matter, but the community does.
So, you studied under the great David Carradine?
halonachos wrote:Eastern military tactics also differ from Western military tactics as well due to the popularity of Chess in the west and Go in the east. In chess they look at battles of attrition while in Go they look for using as few pieces as possible to defeat their opponents. This translates into tactics in the Vietnam War, while the US generals are focused on using massive force to eliminate areas of opposition NVA generals surround them despite having fewer in number and then retreating to another position.
Yeah, totally, guerrilla warfare is limited to Eastern forms of thought.
Joey wrote:I think it's safe to say such a thing could never happen in Britain. An injured child is an horrific thing to see, any decent person would act immediately.
Aye, that's horse gak that mate. This can happen anywhere that there is scum, and every country has scum.
The only difference is that the scum in Britain get free booze and fags and goodfella's pizza of the government, so they wouldnt eat the baby like some poor chinese people might, but they would certainly ignore the poor wee lass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
LunaHound wrote:
Albatross wrote:There is no real connection, though. One is a lazy and meaningless national stereotype, the other is you claiming to speak for 90% of Taiwan.
Then how does one prove thats what Taiwan wanted. Even though its common sense in Taiwanese society?
I reject the argument from common sense, when it comes to the hopes and fears of entire nation of people.
I mean even if you ask a Taiwanese, i dont think 1 alone can convince you.
That's precisely the point. You only really definitely speak for yourself, and perhaps for a handful of others, though I'm not sure you've secured permission to be their spokesperson.
Or are there other methods to "prove" that's what Taiwanese want? When its obvious its in our culture, our everything?
How is it obvious? What does a nation 'want'?
Oh yeah I remember what I was saying earlier.. I'm leathered at this point tho so excuse any typo's or general nonsense.
Basically I agree with Luna, arent you and Manchu et al just playing semantic shenanigans?
I mean, sure you cant say "oh yes you are speaking for all humans like the borg" but the gist of it is entirely correct surely?
I dated a Taiwanese lass, we met in Japan, and she proper hated the Chinese. She never shut up about it, she hated them with the passion that I immediately recognised, and it generally comes from parental indoctrination. Anyway, after a few weeks in her company I was intrigued and actually read up on the situation. The Chinese have long been hated by huge portions of the Taiwanese , and it came to a head a few years back with the Chinese putting a show of force on near Taiwan that basically said "push for independence and we will blow your face off"
Maybe she worded it a bit incorrectly (ALL Taiwanese) but ulitmately she is correct. Humans hate very easily.
Is it wrong to say that Palestinians hate Israelis? Northern Irish Catholics hate Northern Irish protestants? Kosovon Serbs hate Albanians?
Sure they do!
The whole world is full of hate, and whilst it doesnt accoutn for, and no individual can speak for, every single human, I really don't feel its incorrect to make a statement such as Luna did.
Oh and the Scottish hate the English. And I retort in kind!
mattyrm wrote:
Aye, that's horse gak that mate. This can happen anywhere that there is scum, and every country has scum.
The only difference is that the scum in Britain get free booze and fags and goodfella's pizza of the government, so they wouldnt eat the baby like some poor chinese people might, but they would certainly ignore the poor wee lass.
I think it's fair to say that you're a moron. *blocked*
MrDwhitey wrote:
Is that a no true scotsman? I'm not sure.
And yes, it can definately happen here.
Well as people have said, China is a very much more collectivist culture than the West. The prevailing thought is that something will be done, by someone.
The west has its fair share of weak-minded people, but we also have a lot more people who're willing to take things into their own hands. In fact, I have a little anecdote for you.
I was leaving my friend's house a few months ago during the summer, and I was walking past a pub I noticed that there was a woman lying down on the grass behind a large concrete sign. She looked well kept (i.e. not homeless), but completely paraletic. I noticed there were three young people, probably students by the look of them, standing around and talking about it. One of them looked at me sheeplishly and went "she's been there for a while, we're not sure what to do".
Well I could have hit the gormless bugger myself, it hadn't occurred to any of them to see if she was okay. So I bent down and asked loudly if she was okay.
She woke up, looked at me a little surprised, then stood up and said, somewhat uncertainly, that she was fine. I made sure she was okay, she just said she'd been pretty drunk and felt like a lie-down, she thanked me and went on her way.
Anyway yeah, I think the response of those students was similar to what most Chinese people did. "It's not our problem, someone should do something".
I know it's not very cool to say as much on the internet, but people really aren't what they're made to look like on the news. There are plenty of people out there who'd react to a child in distress.
mattyrm wrote:
Aye, that's horse gak that mate. This can happen anywhere that there is scum, and every country has scum.
The only difference is that the scum in Britain get free booze and fags and goodfella's pizza of the government, so they wouldnt eat the baby like some poor chinese people might, but they would certainly ignore the poor wee lass.
I think it's fair to say that you're a moron. *blocked*
Hey there's no need to call me names.
I was clearly taking the piss with the eating part, with regards to the other part, your demonstrably incorrect, and saying "appallingly cruel things can never happen in Britain" is comically easy to prove wrong.
Of you get offended so easily, I suggest you steer clear of the OT old chap.
mattyrm wrote:
Aye, that's horse gak that mate. This can happen anywhere that there is scum, and every country has scum.
The only difference is that the scum in Britain get free booze and fags and goodfella's pizza of the government, so they wouldnt eat the baby like some poor chinese people might, but they would certainly ignore the poor wee lass.
I think it's fair to say that you're a moron. *blocked*
How droll.
Matty is, however, correct. Not only can it happen in the UK, it has happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
"never" has many rhetoric connetations.
Indeed, and most of them are based on the literal definition of the word.
mattyrm wrote:
Aye, that's horse gak that mate. This can happen anywhere that there is scum, and every country has scum.
The only difference is that the scum in Britain get free booze and fags and goodfella's pizza of the government, so they wouldnt eat the baby like some poor chinese people might, but they would certainly ignore the poor wee lass.
I think it's fair to say that you're a moron. *blocked*
How droll.
Matty is, however, correct. Not only can it happen in the UK, it has happened.
Mate, I remember the exact story, but I was far too pissed to look for it.
Woman gets mashed by a car, ignored by everyone, I saw it on TV a few years back.
As I said, this gak happens on a daily basis. Its not a story, or even interesting if I'm honest.
Joey wrote:"never" has many rhetoric connetations. In its literal sense it cannot be used except in a metaphysical sense.
Or are you being deliberately pedantic?
I just take it a bit too literally sometimes.
dogma, I couldn't find that story when this China thing first happened as an example of this kind of thing in "the west" as I remembered when it happened, your wizardry amazes me.
MrDwhitey wrote:
dogma, I couldn't find that story when this China thing first happened as an example of this kind of thing in "the west" as I remembered when it happened, your wizardry amazes me.
Matty is, however, correct. Not only can it happen in the UK, it has happened.
Well, that was in London. And it was only for a couple of minutes (article mentions 12 vehicles driving around her). And it was a fullyl grown women.
So no, it has not happened here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:
dogma, I couldn't find that story when this China thing first happened as an example of this kind of thing in "the west" as I remembered when it happened, your wizardry amazes me.
Matty is, however, correct. Not only can it happen in the UK, it has happened.
Well, that was in London. And it was only for a couple of minutes (article mentions 12 vehicles driving around her). And it was a fullyl grown women.
So no, it has not happened here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:
dogma, I couldn't find that story when this China thing first happened as an example of this kind of thing in "the west" as I remembered when it happened, your wizardry amazes me.
That's because it's bs, see above.
Why keep digging? Your point is trivially easy to prove wrong, and the UK isn't some sort of moral bastion of light. Just hold your hands up and say "Ok what I said was very silly"
Joey wrote:Maybe you exclusively socialise with psychopath but I for one don't know anyone who wouldn't help an injured child.
Well I dont either! But the fact remains that this can happen, why have they passed "good samaritan" laws in European nations if it was seen as an impossibility?
Some people wont trouble themselves to help a stranger, im not excusing this behaviour, nor saying I agree with it, im merely saying your wrong.
What point are you trying to make anyway? WHY would Chinese people not help buit Europeans would? Do they have an evil culture? Are they inherantly bad people?
Joey wrote:
and widely regarded as one of the most unpleasent places to live in the world.
Londoners are famous for being rude and uncaring.
But its still part of the UK? You guys haven't let it become a city-state, or given it to France?
Joey wrote:
Walking. In an area that wasn't exactly a high street.
So people that are driving cars can claim moral superiority to people that are walking when witnessing an injured person struggle, if they choose to not help?
"I'm sorry, I would help, but you see, this car would be ever so upset if I stepped out of it."
Joey wrote:
Because to non-internet people, children invoke protective emotions.
Ah yes, the "Everyone is exactly like me!" argument.
Anyway, injured people don't provoke a protective response?
and widely regarded as one of the most unpleasent places to live in the world.
Londoners are famous for being rude and uncaring.
dogma wrote:
Joey wrote:
And it was only for a couple of minutes (article mentions 12 vehicles driving around her).
Yue Yue was only passed by 18 people.
Walking. In an area that wasn't exactly a high street.
dogma wrote:
Joey wrote:
And it was a fullyl grown women.
Why does age matter?
Because to non-internet people, children invoke protective emotions.
Londoners are famous for being rude and uncaring?!
Alright.. so If it was in London it doesn't count because they are known to be rude?
What about the riots recently? When beat up kids were robbed by strangers as they were slumped unconscious on the ground?
As I said earlier, nothing wrong with saying something a wee bit rash and admitting it later, we all say things we regret, but when you start backpeddling like this you just look silly.
Joey wrote:
and widely regarded as one of the most unpleasent places to live in the world.
Londoners are famous for being rude and uncaring.
But its still part of the UK? You guys haven't let it become a city-state, or given it to France?
Ah, nevermind.
Your indepth and articulate arguments on the nature of man have put Bertrand Russel to shame.
Since this is the level of the debate in OT, guess I'll stick clear.
I make arguments to excersise the logical faculties of my brain and enlighten my world view, not to vehemently make point-for-point pseudo-rebuttals of someone who disagrees with me, like a robot that was programmed by a 14 year old to argue with his mother about not being able to play COD until 1am.
Farewell.
Joey wrote:
Your indepth and articulate arguments on the nature of man have put Bertrand Russel to shame.
Oddly enough, Bertrand Russel is a favorite of mine. Its just a shame about the Principia.
Joey wrote:
I make arguments to excersise the logical faculties of my brain and enlighten my world view, not to vehemently make point-for-point pseudo-rebuttals of someone who disagrees with me, like a robot that was programmed by a 14 year old to argue with his mother about not being able to play COD until 1am.
Farewell.
Funny story, I've been published in the field of logic.
For what it's worth Joey I dont see why you feel offended or unable to continue with the discussion, I agreed with everything you said other than "It couldnt happen in Britain" because it does and it will continue to do so. Such is life im afraid.
I agree that its sad, and selfish, and we should protect children. Why did this make you so irate?
Im a proper bastard, but it is a natural human response to want to shield an innocent child from harm. And nobody said that it wasn't.
dogma wrote:
Well, I alluded to that idea, but then I'm probably even more of a bastard than you.
I'm not going to list the cruel gak that i've done because most of it is illegal.
A "What's the most evil thing you've ever done" thread would be interesting.
Joey wrote:
I'm not going to list the cruel gak that i've done because most of it is illegal.
A "What's the most evil thing you've ever done" thread would be interesting.
An eight year old girl was run over in my old home town some years back, broke both her legs and the driver kept going. The next four cars drove around her crippled frame, but the fifth stopped. To wait for her to drag herself off the road and onto the verge.
Strangely, the Telegraph didn't report this. In fact, no major newspaper did, only the locals.
USA! USA!
