Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youbedead wrote:

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.

Is that a no true scotsman? I'm not sure.

And yes, it can definately happen here.

MrDwhitey wrote:

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.

Of course there are plenty of people who would help.

But your saying "It could never happen here" implies well, that it could never happen here.

Simply put, it can.

Joey wrote:

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.

MrDwhitey wrote:Of course there are plenty of people who would help.

But your saying "It could never happen here" implies well, that it could never happen here.

Simply put, it can.

"never" has many rhetoric connetations. In its literal sense it cannot be used except in a metaphysical sense.
Or are you being deliberately pedantic?

Joey wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:

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.

Some have called my Skynet.

dogma wrote:
How droll.

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.

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:
How droll.

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"

Maybe you exclusively socialise with psychopath but I for one don't know anyone who wouldn't help an injured child.

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:
Well, that was in London.

Which is now not a part of the UK?

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.

Joey wrote:
And it was a fullyl grown women.

Why does age matter?

Joey wrote:
So no, it has not happened here.

A person was injured, severely, and then ignored by passersby. Seems like it happened there.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Well, that was in London.

Which is now not a part of the UK?

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.

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?

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Well, that was in London.

Which is now not a part of the UK?

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.

I think were about done here Dogma.

Take the rest of the day off!

The women I've known cannot levitate. I dislike that picture as it challenges my worldview.

mattyrm wrote:
Alright.. so If it was in London it doesn't count because they are known to be rude?

What happens in London, stays in London.

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:
Funny story, I've been published in the field of logic.

Then you'll have noticed that I didn't say that you are illogical, I said that you were not using logic.

Joey wrote:
Then you'll have noticed that I didn't say that you are illogical, I said that you were not using logic.

No, I haven't been. I've been using reason. They are different.

I'm too much of a programmer to be concerned, I'd much rather use an algorithm.

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.