North Korea paradox

[quickquestion]

It sickens me that you give me a -1 for trying to save the human race.

 

And it sickens me that people want China to control the next dictator who controls NK.

Why would you expand China's dictarorial backwards influence? I smell human (and dog) rights violations.

[neutrinosalad]

And it sickens me that people want China to control the next dictator who controls NK.

Why would you expand China's dictarorial backwards influence? I smell human (and dog) rights violations.

 

China operates more like a top down dynasty from what I have seen than like an absolute dictatorship.

 

Also, we cannot expand our presence to North Korea without provoking a war with China. Competent leadership that fixes the North Korean economy and brings in political stability is more important than spreading democracy.

[quickquestion]

 

China operates more like a top down dynasty from what I have seen than like an absolute dictatorship.

 

Also, we cannot expand our presence to North Korea without provoking a war with China. Competent leadership that fixes the North Korean economy and brings in political stability is more important than spreading democracy.

Then give the rights to Japan or some other nation and not Fascist China.

[Phi for All]

It sickens me that you give me a -1 for trying to save the human race.

 

That was me. It sickens me that your outlook is so naive, irrational, and simplistic that it can do nothing more than irritate.

 

I've also mentioned your propensity to suggest impossible fixes are the only solution to your nihilistic fantasies. Much of what you post is sickening to me, but I've said it so often that now it's easier just to warn people away from you using the rep system.

 

Your POV is such a caricature that it's hard to take it seriously. You're like a puppy that rushes into the room, knocks over all the furniture, and shits on the rug, then whines when the humans usher him outside. And you continue this behavior while crying about how nobody loves you, everbody's mean to you. You're almost as annoying as Kim Jong-un, just so I can stay on topic.

 

Then give the rights to Japan or some other nation and not Fascist China.

 

China is NOT a fascist state. It's power structures aren't centralized enough. Foreign Direct Investment into Chinese markets have shown us recently how decentralized the government and local provinces have been fiscally.

[quickquestion]

 

That was me. It sickens me that your outlook is so naive, irrational, and simplistic that it can do nothing more than irritate.

 

I've also mentioned your propensity to suggest impossible fixes are the only solution to your nihilistic fantasies. Much of what you post is sickening to me, but I've said it so often that now it's easier just to warn people away from you using the rep system.

 

Your POV is such a caricature that it's hard to take it seriously. You're like a puppy that rushes into the room, knocks over all the furniture, and shits on the rug, then whines when the humans usher him outside. And you continue this behavior while crying about how nobody loves you, everbody's mean to you. You're almost as annoying as Kim Jong-un, just so I can stay on topic.

 

 

China is NOT a fascist state. It's power structures aren't centralized enough. Foreign Direct Investment into Chinese markets have shown us recently how decentralized the government and local provinces have been fiscally.

You are just full of it as usual.

Typical human with no empathy, victim blames someone for not finding love and defends a corrupt world for not having love in it.

 

I try to prove China is evil because it doesnt stop dog-torture, but instead of siding with me, you oppose me and insult me.

It is clear you stand for nothing but defending your evil world.

Here is why China is fascist also.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

 

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

 

China fits all of these. A majority of the bullet points. You can google their media and human rights record. It all matches up. China's nationalism against Japan also proves a fascist point.

 

[Phi for All]

You are just full of it as usual.

Typical human with no empathy, victim blames someone for not finding love and defends a corrupt world for not having love in it.

 

I try to prove China is evil because it doesnt stop dog-torture, but instead of siding with me, you oppose me and insult me.

It is clear you stand for nothing but defending your evil world.

Here is why China is fascist also.

 

Big sigh. I'm so sorry you're having trouble with comprehension, it MUST be me.

 

What I said was that China is NOT a fascist state because they don't fit the definition in one very big regard: their power structures aren't centralized enough. I didn't make any statements about "siding with you". I didn't make any statements about "defending the evil world". I didn't insult you, I criticized what you've said. You seem to hear a whole different set of words than what people write, and then respond to what you think you heard. Maybe now you can understand why it's distasteful discussing anything with you.

[quickquestion]

 

Big sigh. I'm so sorry you're having trouble with comprehension, it MUST be me.

 

What I said was that China is NOT a fascist state because they don't fit the definition in one very big regard: their power structures aren't centralized enough. I didn't make any statements about "siding with you". I didn't make any statements about "defending the evil world". I didn't insult you, I criticized what you've said. You seem to hear a whole different set of words than what people write, and then respond to what you think you heard. Maybe now you can understand why it's distasteful discussing anything with you.

What are you talking about.

 

Something doesn't have to match every single definition to be that thing. If it scores 14/15 points, it is that thing.

Whenever I attack the world you seem to want to side against me.

I tell you a method to save the human race and you side against me.

I never get a single iota of support from you.

If I say we shouldnt support China because dog-torture is evil, you just tell me how many ways I irritate you for even mentioning the subject.

[Ten oz]

 

1 - China having nuclear weapons and the United States having nuclear weapons is the status quo. South Korea and Japan being protected under the United States nuclear umbrella is also the status quo.

 

Now what is not the status quo is North Korea having a nuclear weapon that they are capable of reliably delivering to a large city in South East Asia (ex: Seoul, South Korea or Tokyo, Japan). If North Korea develops a proper delivery system and a stronger nuclear weapon, the political calculus would be altered in the region in a highly negative way. Japan and South Korea may perceive a nuclear North Korea as a large enough threat due to their unpredictability that relying on the nuclear umbrella of the United States is not enough to protect their people. This may drive Japan and South Korea to develop their own personal cache of nuclear weapons that they have direct control over. If China sees South Korea and Japan developing a cache of personal nuclear weapons, they may see this as a threat to their national sovereignty and want to engage in a preemptive strike against either country to tank their nuclear program. This could lead to a reaction from the United States and spark a large ground war in the region.

 

Now, that is just me projecting into the future based on what I know right now. Either way, the current trajectory is a bad one. The current trajectory is a constant increase in tensions between major countries in the South East Asia region where war is more and more likely each successive year.

 

This is why it makes sense that we should remove Kim Jong Un and replace him with someone else.

 

 

2- Currently the threat of a preemptive strike has been used as a stick to push China to take action. The carrot that has been presented is maintaining the current trade relation that is beneficial to China.

 

Ultimately what needs to happen is China needs to go into North Korea and change out Kim Jong Un with someone who is agreeable to China's political wishes, so that the North Korean government can be pushed towards competence and stability.

 

What is going on in those countries does not appear to be on a trajectory towards large scale war that has the capacity to decimate societies and damage global trade. North Korea is being treated differently due to the scale upon which destabilization of that part of the world can damage global stability.

1- Japan has everything it needs material wise for nuclear weapons and already has all the delivery systems they need. Japan has 3 Aircraft Carriers, 17 Subs, over 40 Naval destoryers, hundreds of fixed land based rocket systems, hundreds of jetfighters, and etc. They have one of the top 10 most capable militaries in the world. Far superior to North Korea's. Saying Japan are under our protection is an oversimplification and not accurrate in my opinion. In post #47 you said it was a regional balance of power thing. North Korea wouldn't become more powerful than China or Japan simply by having a couple of nuclear weapons nor would North Korea be in a position to successfully invade South Korea. I understand that the fear is that North Korea might suicidally choose to launch nuclear weapons at their enemies. However that is a fear everyone lives with. The Indians fear Pakistan launching and vice versa. We (U.S.) fear Russia or China launching and so on. What give us the right to preemptively invade another country and dictate to them who their leaders will be and what weapons they can have?

 

If North Korea was involved in a civil war or proxy war like we are see in Syria, Yemen , and Somilia than there would be preemptive justification because of the likelihood that WMBDs would be used. Assad gas people for example. However that isn't the case. Is simply not wanting countries we don't like to have things justification enough to kill? If so does that mean Iran is next? and would North Korea even want nuclear weapons if not for the fact that they not having them invites preemptive attack. Because countries with Nukes are treated with more respect than countries without. We are sort of upping the value of nukes by being flagrantly aggressive as we are. Kim Jung Un surely believes that he would be treated more diplomatically if he had nukes.

 

2 - Suggesting we use the threat of force to push China is not equal to saying we are justified to invade North Korea. If you are saying that you do not want the U.S. to invade but rather are hopeful that all the saber-rattlng is a bluff to get the China's attention and put them to work diplomatically than I half agree. We should be leaning on China here. What happens if North Korea and or China calls the bluff though?

[Phi for All]

Something doesn't have to match every single definition to be that thing. If it scores 14/15 points, it is that thing.

 

If you don't mind imprecise definitions, yours is the mindset to have! Go for it! Be vague!

 

Problem is, there are only three major facets to fascism. Does your method round up for 2/3?

[Ten oz]

 

China operates more like a top down dynasty from what I have seen than like an absolute dictatorship.

 

Also, we cannot expand our presence to North Korea without provoking a war with China. Competent leadership that fixes the North Korean economy and brings in political stability is more important than spreading democracy.

That may or may not be entirely the case. Either way it is a good reason for POTUS not to be threatening to act alone and indicating an arbitrary sense of urgency. From Taiwan to the disputed South China sea islands there are many foriegn isues to be dealt with and over playing our (USA) hand on North Korea might create a cascade of negative outcomes.

[quickquestion]

 

If you don't mind imprecise definitions, yours is the mindset to have! Go for it! Be vague!

 

Problem is, there are only three major facets to fascism. Does your method round up for 2/3?

The quote I posted listed more than 3 major facets.

[neutrinosalad]

1- Japan has everything it needs material wise for nuclear weapons and already has all the delivery systems they need. Japan has 3 Aircraft Carriers, 17 Subs, over 40 Naval destoryers, hundreds of fixed land based rocket systems, hundreds of jetfighters, and etc. They have one of the top 10 most capable militaries in the world. Far superior to North Korea's. Saying Japan are under our protection is an oversimplification and not accurrate in my opinion. In post #47 you said it was a regional balance of power thing. North Korea wouldn't become more powerful than China or Japan simply by having a couple of nuclear weapons nor would North Korea be in a position to successfully invade South Korea. I understand that the fear is that North Korea might suicidally choose to launch nuclear weapons at their enemies. However that is a fear everyone lives with. The Indians fear Pakistan launching and vice versa. We (U.S.) fear Russia or China launching and so on. What give us the right to preemptively invade another country and dictate to them who their leaders will be and what weapons they can have?

 

If North Korea was involved in a civil war or proxy war like we are see in Syria, Yemen , and Somilia than there would be preemptive justification because of the likelihood that WMBDs would be used. Assad gas people for example. However that isn't the case. Is simply not wanting countries we don't like to have things justification enough to kill? If so does that mean Iran is next? and would North Korea even want nuclear weapons if not for the fact that they not having them invites preemptive attack. Because countries with Nukes are treated with more respect than countries without. We are sort of upping the value of nukes by being flagrantly aggressive as we are. Kim Jung Un surely believes that he would be treated more diplomatically if he had nukes.

 

2 - Suggesting we use the threat of force to push China is not equal to saying we are justified to invade North Korea. If you are saying that you do not want the U.S. to invade but rather are hopeful that all the saber-rattlng is a bluff to get the China's attention and put them to work diplomatically than I half agree. We should be leaning on China here. What happens if North Korea and or China calls the bluff though?

 

1. Think about it in the context of this, within the last 100 years, Japan has committed mass genocide and rape of the Chinese people. To this day, there exists an underlying level of hostility between the Chinese and Japanese people due to this history. Even though Japan already has a strong military, there is a significant difference between having a strong military and being a nuclear armed country. While the United States has promised Japan it will use nuclear arms if necessary to deter a military threat to its existence, that is significantly different from Japan owning the nuclear arms themselves.

 

If Japan begins developing a personal cache of nuclear arms that they have direct control over, I feel that the response from the Chinese people and government has the potential to be large and overwhelming (particularly in the form of force) due to the hostility that appears to exist between the two countries.

 

It is about maintaining stability in the region. Also, Kim Jong Un is actually seeking out nukes that can be delivered intercontinentally precisely because he believes that it would preserve his regime. It is not entirely a bluff, by engaging in a strike on the airport in Syria and using the MOAB in Afghanistan, Trump has shown that the United States is willing to unilaterally use force if it is aligned with the interests of the United States and its regional partners.

 

That may or may not be entirely the case. Either way it is a good reason for POTUS not to be threatening to act alone and indicating an arbitrary sense of urgency. From Taiwan to the disputed South China sea islands there are many foriegn isues to be dealt with and over playing our (USA) hand on North Korea might create a cascade of negative outcomes.

 

Well, I personally believe that the arbitrary sense of urgency is not so arbitrary in reality. China has been procrastinating on resolving the North Korean issue for well over a decade now and really the time has come to transition the North Korean government out of the Kim Jong Un regime towards something more stable.

[Ten oz]

 

1. Think about it in the context of this, within the last 100 years, Japan has committed mass genocide and rape of the Chinese people. To this day, there exists an underlying level of hostility between the Chinese and Japanese people due to this history. Even though Japan already has a strong military, there is a significant difference between having a strong military and being a nuclear armed country. While the United States has promised Japan it will use nuclear arms if necessary to deter a military threat to its existence, that is significantly different from Japan owning the nuclear arms themselves.

 

If Japan begins developing a personal cache of nuclear arms that they have direct control over, I feel that the response from the Chinese people and government has the potential to be large and overwhelming (particularly in the form of force) due to the hostility that appears to exist between the two countries.

 

It is about maintaining stability in the region. Also, Kim Jong Un is actually seeking out nukes that can be delivered intercontinentally precisely because he believes that it would preserve his regime. It is not entirely a bluff, by engaging in a strike on the airport in Syria and using the MOAB in Afghanistan, Trump has shown that the United States is willing to unilaterally use force if it is aligned with the interests of the United States and its regional partners.

 

 

Well, I personally believe that the arbitrary sense of urgency is not so arbitrary in reality. China has been procrastinating on resolving the North Korean issue for well over a decade now and really the time has come to transition the North Korean government out of the Kim Jong Un regime towards something more stable.

You are seriously down playing Japan's nuclear potential. They already have delivery systems in terms of carriers, subs, and aircraft in addition to materials. They are closer to having usable accurate Nuclear ballistics than North Korea is. Japan has been capable to build Nuclear ballastics for decades. Saying they don't have nuclear capability at their disposal is like saying a person in possession of a full whiskey bottle doesn't have the means to get drunk because he hasn't opened the bottle yet. They could assemble devices (nurmerous) at anytime. The choose not to assemble for a myriad of reasons. You are overstate the protection provided to them by the U.S..

 

No nation has suffered more in the nuclear age than Japan, where atomic bombs flattened two cities in World War II and three reactors melted down at Fukushima just three years ago.

But government officials and proliferation experts say Japan is happy to let neighbors like China and North Korea believe it is part of the nuclear club, because it has a "bomb in the basement" -- the material and the means to produce nuclear weapons within six months, according to some estimates. And with tensions rising in the region, China's belief in the "bomb in the basement" is strong enough that it has demanded Japan get rid of its massive stockpile of plutonium and drop plans to open a new breeder reactor this fall.

Japan signed the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which bans it from developing nuclear weapons, more than 40 years ago. But according to a senior Japanese government official deeply involved in the country's nuclear energy program, Japan has been able to build nuclear weapons ever since it launched a plutonium breeder reactor and a uranium enrichment plant 30 years ago.

Related Story: Japan Producing Huge Stockpile of Plutonium

"Japan already has the technical capability, and has had it since the 1980s," said the official. He said that once Japan had more than five to 10 kilograms of plutonium, the amount needed for a single weapon, it had "already gone over the threshold," and had a nuclear deterrent.

Japan now has 9 tons of plutonium stockpiled at several locations in Japan and another 35 tons stored in France and the U.K. The material is enough to create 5,000 nuclear bombs. The country also has 1.2 tons of enriched uranium.

Technical ability doesn't equate to a bomb, but experts suggest getting from raw plutonium to a nuclear weapon could take as little as six months after the political decision to go forward. A senior U.S. official familiar with Japanese nuclear strategy said the six-month figure for a country with Japan's advanced nuclear engineering infrastructure was not out of the ballpark, and no expert gave an estimate of more than two years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isn-t-happy-n48976

 

 

As for Trump using bluffs to force China to the table you haven't addressed what happens if and when the bluff is called.

[neutrinosalad]

You are seriously down playing Japan's nuclear potential. They already have delivery systems in terms of carriers, subs, and aircraft in addition to materials. They are closer to having usable accurate Nuclear ballistics than North Korea is. Japan has been capable to build Nuclear ballastics for decades. Saying they don't have nuclear capability at their disposal is like saying a person in possession of a full whiskey bottle doesn't have the means to get drunk because he hasn't opened the bottle yet. They could assemble devices (nurmerous) at anytime. The choose not to assemble for a myriad of reasons. You are overstate the protection provided to them by the U.S..

 

As for Trump using bluffs to force China to the table you haven't addressed what happens if and when the bluff is called.

 

While everything I am saying is not 100% factually correct, at least it is a somewhat accurate approximation of the political realities of the region. Also, capability to develop nukes is not equivalent to having nukes. We can go back and forth over how close Japan is to having nukes, but the reality is that they don't have nukes. Japan does not have nukes.

 

And I think you are veering off of the two most important questions with regards to North Korea in the region:

 

-How will South Korea and Japan react to a fully nuclear North Korea?

-How will China react if South Korea and Japan begin developing their own personal nuclear arms?

 

Look up "South Korea Thaad" and you will see that China is having a 100% total meltdown over the deployment of Thaad, which is a missile defense system, in South Korea. How do you think China would react at a fully nuclear South Korea and Japan?

 

I don't know what will happen, but the bluff has been backed by force in other conflicts.

[Phi for All]

The quote I posted listed more than 3 major facets.

 

Yeah, about that. Those are some bullet points put together by rense.com to push a commercial fringe agenda. I don't put much credence in them. A more in-depth and accredited article suggests fascism may be trending: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html

 

And none of these points covers the lack of centralization in China's power structures. They cover the other two major characteristics of fascism, extreme nationalism that trumps the citizens in importance, and heavy authoritarianism.

 

China hasn't been fascist since the 1930s.

[Ten oz]

-How will South Korea and Japan react to a fully nuclear North Korea?

-How will China react if South Korea and Japan begin developing their own personal nuclear arms?

 

Look up "South Korea Thaad" and you will see that China is having a 100% total meltdown over the deployment of Thaad, which is a missile defense system, in South Korea. How do you think China would react at a fully nuclear South Korea and Japan?

 

I don't know what will happen, but the bluff has been backed by force in other conflicts.

Japan not have Nukes isn't matter of capability. It is relevant. North Korea doesn't become superior overnight just because of one or two devices. North Korea ballistic abilities are low and Japan defense system are tops.

 

- How will Japan and South Korea will react is a question with a diplomatic answer and not justification for preemptive war. Such talks are underway currently and that is good.

"TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Senior officials from Japan, the United States and South Korea will hold a meeting Tuesday to discuss ways to curb North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said Friday.

The talks in Tokyo will be held between Kenji Kanasugi, director general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, Joseph Yun, U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, and Kim Hong Kyun, special representative for Korean Peninsula peace and security affairs at the South Korean Foreign Ministry."

 

- How China will react to a Nuclear Japan and/or South Korea is another Diplomatic question and not a justification for preemptive war. The questions also assumes a response from Japan and South Korea which isn't yet known. I think the U.S., South Korea, and Japan need to sit downand answer your first question before your second question can be adressed.

 

 

The paradox this thread is referencing is the one where Nuclear armed countries like U.S., Russia, and China get to butt in all over the world without threat of attack in part because they are so heavily armed yet demand others not to emulate. We (U.S.) would never just declare an interest in attacking a nuclear armed country and deploy our Navy while randomly tweeting big stick threats. If North Korea was already fully nuclear capable we would be treating them with far more respect which is part of the reason they want nukes so bad. It is a catch 22.

 

Ultimately only the U.S. has ever used Nukes and realistically the world community won't tolerate anyone using Nukes. If North Korea attempted to launcha Nuclear weapon at Japan or South Korea every country in the world would team up against North Korea. The tit for tat position that South Korea needs Nukes if North Korea has Nukes is not reflective of the political realities around the world.

 

That said North Korea isn't there yet and we still have options other than War. Threatening war as the first and preferred option only reinforces Kim's reason for wanting Nuclear weapons. We won't even talk to North Korea directly. Zero diplomacy. Even during the Cuban missile crisis we spoke to Russia. How about we make a few phones calls before launching anymore warships.

[quickquestion]

 

Yeah, about that. Those are some bullet points put together by rense.com to push a commercial fringe agenda. I don't put much credence in them. A more in-depth and accredited article suggests fascism may be trending: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html

 

And none of these points covers the lack of centralization in China's power structures. They cover the other two major characteristics of fascism, extreme nationalism that trumps the citizens in importance, and heavy authoritarianism.

 

China hasn't been fascist since the 1930s.

If china is fascist in most of the land, but not 100% of china is covered...am i not allowed to say China sucks?

 

If There was a couple of cities in Germany that hitler never bothered...am I not allowed to say Germany is fascist?

 

Chinas internet regulation laws, religious laws, and Tianmen square? Has nothing to do with fascism? Ok.

 

Whatever.

Nu speak age. Freedom is slavery, fascism is not fascism.

 

 

 

That said North Korea isn't there yet and we still have options other than War. Threatening war as the first and preferred option only reinforces Kim's reason for wanting Nuclear weapons. We won't even talk to North Korea directly. Zero diplomacy. Even during the Cuban missile crisis we spoke to Russia. How about we make a few phones calls before launching anymore warships.

Sure, just get Dennis Rodman on the phone with him. After they talk about bball for hours, he can mention how it would be "cool" if he didn't starve his citizens and it would also help if he dismantled the ridiculous prison system in NK. I wonder how that conversation would go.

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[Ten oz]

Sure, just get Dennis Rodman on the phone with him. After they talk about bball for hours, he can mention how it would be "cool" if he didn't starve his citizens and it would also help if he dismantled the ridiculous prison system in NK. I wonder how that conversation would go.

Why can't U.S. officials speak with them?

[quickquestion]

Why can't U.S. officials speak with them?

Because he hates American U.S. officials.

And he likes Dennis Rodman.

[Phi for All]

If china is fascist in most of the land, but not 100% of china is covered...am i not allowed to say China sucks?

 

Strawman argument, since the metric "sucking" wasn't being objected to. Fascism was what I commented on, only that because that's where you were wrong, but refuse to admit it. Irrational behavior, use of fallacies, I'm helping to point out areas where you need work on your arguments. Please stick to facts and leave your emotional slant out of it, if you will.

[quickquestion]

 

Strawman argument, since the metric "sucking" wasn't being objected to. Fascism was what I commented on, only that because that's where you were wrong, but refuse to admit it. Irrational behavior, use of fallacies, I'm helping to point out areas where you need work on your arguments. Please stick to facts and leave your emotional slant out of it, if you will.

What im saying is if America is Fascist, but a Alaska is not Fascist, I can still say America is fascist, even if the fascism doesnt cover 100% of the land. Just how I can say something is Grape Juice, even if it has a little apple flavoring added to it.

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[Phi for All]

What im saying is if America is Fascist, but a Alaska is not Fascist, I can still say America is fascist, even if the fascism doesnt cover 100% of the land. Just how I can say something is Grape Juice, even if it has a little apple flavoring added to it.

 

You go right ahead being vague and imprecise. It suits your emotional style, it lets you move goalposts when you're shown errors, and it confirms all the biases you've allowed to build up on your worldview.

[quickquestion]

 

You go right ahead being vague and imprecise. It suits your emotional style, it lets you move goalposts when you're shown errors, and it confirms all the biases you've allowed to build up on your worldview.

I'm saying it's audacious to expect that we are expected to obey the definitions of your worldview.

I define facism in my own terms, and when my terms dont fit your terms you say I am the one moving the goalposts and not you.

This is an audacious thing to say, because you literally want me to abandon my interpretation of fascism and embrace yours.

[Phi for All]

I'm saying it's audacious to expect that we are expected to obey the definitions of your worldview.

I define facism in my own terms, and when my terms dont fit your terms you say I am the one moving the goalposts and not you.

This is an audacious thing to say, because you literally want me to abandon my interpretation of fascism and embrace yours.

 

No. I responded to a specific mischaracterized generalization of China as "Fascist China". I supported myself with accepted definitions, and showed where your definitions were lacking.

 

I also told you that you can be vague and imprecise if you want to. I don't expect you to be persuaded by reason, since it's clear you don't use reason to reach any of your conclusions. You make emotional and sweeping generalizations that I think are detrimental to anyone who wants to learn anything, and they tend to clamp off your availability for reason.

 

Do I want you to abandon your interpretation of fascism? I think you need to add depth to much of your worldview, and abandoning your subjective, emotional rhetoric about humanity in general would be a net benefit for you.

 

But look at me, being reasonable with you . Go ahead, go back to your ranting.

[quickquestion]

 

No. I responded to a specific mischaracterized generalization of China as "Fascist China". I supported myself with accepted definitions, and showed where your definitions were lacking.

 

I also told you that you can be vague and imprecise if you want to. I don't expect you to be persuaded by reason, since it's clear you don't use reason to reach any of your conclusions. You make emotional and sweeping generalizations that I think are detrimental to anyone who wants to learn anything, and they tend to clamp off your availability for reason.

 

Do I want you to abandon your interpretation of fascism? I think you need to add depth to much of your worldview, and abandoning your subjective, emotional rhetoric about humanity in general would be a net benefit for you.

 

But look at me, being reasonable with you . Go ahead, go back to your ranting.

My definition of fascism has depth. I dont just go to a dictionary made by the resident authority. I say, how is fascism as I see it.

 

The amount of reasoning I use is very high. The amount of reasoning society has is very low. If I complain about the world, I am met with accusations of being a teenager, mentally ill, etc. It's all very predictable.