Daniel_Naumov said: he series is happening in the age when Japan is slowly drowning in highest-level political scandals of various origin - concessions, corruption, favouritism, cronyism, militarism and revisionism just name the isms. I do know about the issues in regards to Shinzo Abe's attempts to revise Article 9 of Japan's constitution, but can you elaborate on the other stuff? |
Daniel_Naumov said: Ah. I see. Thanks for this.SithSteel said: I do know about the issues in regards to Shinzo Abe's attempts to revise Article 9 of Japan's constitution, but can you elaborate on the other stuff? Well, if you wish to know more, you can check the internet for other issue. I will humbly list them Moritomo Gakuen scandal - Shinzo Abe's wife, Akie Abe, through documents, was connected to a questionable land deal (I think it was 10 times cheaper than it was supposed to be) for a school Moritomo... which apparently taught children in the way they did back in 1910-40 (the fascist way), and was - surprisingly - connected to a lot of people in Nippon Kaigi. Cronyism and favouritism should be quite self-explanatory if you read the names of people in the government, and the names of previous people in the government. Find out they are either childhood friends or share the same golf court once a week... the list of connections goes on. Also, on the average they should be around 70 years old, the ministers and officials. The only young one who is allowed close to the "ruling" pseudo-elite is Shinjiro Koizumi (the son of the previous Prime Minister)., who is being openly and shamelessly misused by Shinzo Abe for PR reasons. There are questionable audio-tapes from peacekeeping missions from Iraq back when America kept on destroying arab countries. Destroyed the wrong ones. Either way, the contents of the tapes, while recovered, are not publicly disclosed. Possibly because their content could be an evidence to a blatant violation of the constitution - Article 9. Needless to say, such a violation would destroy any chances of Abe going after the revision referendum in 2020+. Corruption and favouritism is widespread through the whole society, really. In every its aspect. The political ones are the ones that make it to the newspapers. ---------------- It's just the big ones, the iceberg tip. There is a lot going on today in the society, with young people fighting the social strain AND a lot of old scums who are literally leeching off the system. Corruption and favouritism is widespread through the whole society, really This isn't that surprising to me considering how much Japanese society seems to value hierarchies and seniority. |
| Well, I think his ideal, even if not mentioned is "everyone should do as they want, as long as they don't hurt others." You don't hurt others by not having children. You do hurt them by war and influencing people to suicide. So this makes a lot of sense to me. |
 |
Daniel_Naumov said: EfiChan said: I... am not really following to what part you are referring, but I can produce a counter-argument out of thin air - by having more and more children humanity is pushing itself closer to the sustainability limits of planet Earth. By having children under these conditions, you hurt the others and their children in the long run. It's slowly turning out into another survival age, now not against predators but against your own brethren with whom you must share a meal you don't have.Well, I think his ideal, even if not mentioned is "everyone should do as they want, as long as they don't hurt others." You don't hurt others by not having children. You do hurt them by war and influencing people to suicide. So this makes a lot of sense to me. Not that I believe or support that narrative. Well, let's say there is an argument of this kind. The difference may not be in the result, but rather the intentions. When someone starts a war he knows very well people will suffer. He doesn't have the slightest doubt. When people bring children, they don't think about destorying the planet. |
|
Daniel_Naumov said: EfiChan said: Well, let's say there is an argument of this kind. The difference may not be in the result, but rather the intentions. When someone starts a war he knows very well people will suffer. He doesn't have the slightest doubt. When people bring children, they don't think about destorying the planet. Again, I could twist it towards what they call "irresponsible" child-birthing, when parents do not... "breed" carefully and end up with 3 and more children. Which is a norm in less developed countries, and sometimes happens in first world. Then again, one family with 3 children takes more resources than one family with 1 child, which results in overall balance shifting - another family who has one child will have to (if we do not go into the "survival" narrative") share the same amount of resources nevertheless. If we have enough resources to feed 4 children and their parents, then instead of 4 families with 1 child we have 2 families with 4 children overall. In these circumstances, other families can bring their children forth as well, but they will do so knowing that there are not enough resources now. They would jeopardize the balance even though it is not their fault the other family "greedily" had 3 children instead of one. This doesn't go against the intention issue. If we focus on intention rather than real result, the intention of having children isn't to hurt. It may happen, people sometimes itend to do well and end up doing more harm than good. For years, giving birth didn't have this kind of influence, this is something new that was born with the current situation. War on the other hand, was never considered free of victims. If you ask someone to fix your roof and he breaks his leg in the process, it's still different than you intentionally breaking his leg, right? But isn't it kind of funny to argue about someone's opinion, who even isn't real? Though it may be the ideology of the writer, but still... we argue one someone's opinion without actually knowing it. |
|
Daniel_Naumov said: EfiChan said: This doesn't go against the intention issue. If we focus on intention rather than real result, the intention of having children isn't to hurt. It may happen, people sometimes itend to do well and end up doing more harm than good. For years, giving birth didn't have this kind of influence, this is something new that was born with the current situation. War on the other hand, was never considered free of victims. If you ask someone to fix your roof and he breaks his leg in the process, it's still different than you intentionally breaking his leg, right? But isn't it kind of funny to argue about someone's opinion, who even isn't real? Though it may be the ideology of the writer, but still... we argue one someone's opinion without actually knowing it. Thats what philosophers do - they argue hypothetical scenarios in pursuit of truth... and before they become actually possible. Guessing one's opinion is not something philosophers do. |
|
| He isn't stupid of course but his logic as stated was indeed flawed. It couldn't hold up to scrutiny. Of course you can blame that on his wording, but what is the threshold? And why should there be a threshold? What makes "I like war" any less valid of a opinion than "I like coffee"? What if I propose... not having war is hurting a lot more people? WW2 is a good example. The axis powers are invading other countries and treating them poorly. Should we not go to war because it will hurt someone in the process? Or is it hurting someone by not doing anything despite the fact you could of helped them? The argument that "its fine if it doesn't hurt others" doesn't really hold up. I wrote a much longer paragraph with examples but I think that's a bit over the top so I cut it down to just this: We do things that inadvertently hurt others rather you like it or not. I'll just give one example so it isn't overly long. When you get a job, it means someone else doesn't. He is now jobless. So are you hurting him? Or is this self-preservation? There's finite resources in the world, be it money or food. If one person have it, someone else doesn't, so does that constitute as hurting others? But lets just go back to rather if opinions are valid or not. Can opinions hurt people if they were not acted upon? Since iirc, he stated 'we should respect each other's opinions.' "I like war" is an opinion, and not the act itself. So why is that not deserving of respect? Someone said its not valid if it hurts others, but does that imply opinions hurt others? Even if he had changed his wording, I seriously doubt that he would be able to hold his own. EDIT: I read some more of the later posts. So if intention is the new criteria. Then lets say I start speeding in my car. My intention is not to hurt anyone. The street is empty and there are no cars. So I step on the gas pedal and have some fun. But someone pops up and I hit and kill him. Does that mean it was fine because I did not intend to run him over? |
zcv45Nov 4, 2019 3:30 PM
 |
More topics from this board
» Discussing the philosophies after the animeSinDrake - May 31 |
1 |
by Carpal_Tunnel69
»»
Yesterday, 2:58 PM |
|
Poll: » Babylon Episode 5 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )Stark700 - Nov 4, 2019 |
112 |
by L01MK
»»
Sep 13, 1:28 PM |
|
Poll: » Babylon Episode 2 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Oct 6, 2019 |
83 |
by Rui_Rei
»»
Jul 6, 5:29 PM |
|
Poll: » Babylon Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Jan 27, 2020 |
449 |
by KiLLLLeR150
»»
Jun 19, 9:54 PM |
|
Poll: » Babylon Episode 11 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )Stark700 - Jan 20, 2020 |
123 |
by Assassin2112
»»
Jun 5, 7:31 PM |