Yasukuni Shrine Website Hacked By Chinese?

126 Comments

1. Ronnie

   Friday, January 2, 2009 at 2:12 am

   @Rio, it would be silly to overgeneralize from this incident though.

   Reply
2. Ark

   Friday, January 2, 2009 at 10:06 am

   The Chinese need to understand that these pple are war heroes by Japanese standards, they risked their lives to fight for Japan!

   Reply
3. clash economy

   Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:25 pm

   Izumo Yasugi which is the origin of yasukuni is angry to China.

   Reply
4. jayman

   Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 5:12 am

   @YC

   I wish I’d have checked back on this thread sooner.

   Perhaps your command of the English language is more limited than I thought.

   You need to stop playing around with English words that you don’t understand.

   ect, ect, ad nauseum

   It is the lowest form of human scum who would mock someone for a sincere attempt at communication just to try to turn an argument to their advantage. You’re a piece of shit. Seriously.

   There is no place for that sort of bigotry here, where so many people are speaking a non-native language.

   In this case you failed to read the facts clearly and the penalty is losing this debate.

   Your logic was flawed from the start. You twisted the facts to fit your fantasy and when FDLR better explained those facts, you simply twisted your story, claiming it was misunderstood all along.

   And after repeatedly arguing that FDLR was the sole authority on the sequence of events, you then decried his description as inconsistent when they didn’t fit with the lovely story you made up to justify your sole assertation: “it’s not a good idea for a white guy to tell a Chinese guy what to do in China.”

   You’re nothing but a racist apologist, looking for any and every possible way to twist the world to fit your narrow little way of thinking.

   You are entirely permitted to be a racist prick, just don’t expect anyone else to agree with you. Intimidating people into silence with your large vocabulary isn’t the same as reaching consensus.

   You’ve revealed your true character. And you’re a piece of shit. Instead of simply admitting your mistake, as any purportedly ration being would have done, you have proven yourself a hateful person with so much ego that I think you actually believe you are incapable of being wrong.

   I have absolutely zero respect for your kind.

   Not to mention it would futile to use this analysis unless the other person had some background in law.

   It’s great that you spent a couple months in community college last semester, but presuming that your vast intellect is incomprehensible to anyone who lacks your obvious mastery of the English language and Langell’s methods only makes sense when once one concludes you’re a fucking liar with no regard for causality, logic, or precedent.

   Please feel free to “grace us with your absence”.

   Reply
5. jayman

   Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 5:14 am

   Before you jump all over me for a typo, I meant to say “Langdell” but apparently missed the D.

   Reply
6. jayman

   Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 5:17 am

   And “rational being” instead of ration.

   This is why I try not to post when I’m angry.

   Reply
7. YC

   Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 3:21 pm

   Jayman, if intellegence was indexed to the amount of times you could say ‘shit’, then you would be a genius. Unfortunately it’s not……. Seriously.

   Reply
8. jayman

   Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 3:57 pm

   You do not refute my points and you do not address my concerns. Yes, I said shit, twice. Let’s focus on that, instead of the larger points I raised about your conduct.

   Except you don’t want to focus on your conduct because it’s reprehensible, and you know there’s absolutely no justification for it.

   You came here to troll, you’ve said as much: Hey Fcuk, it was never meant to be a prolonged debate. To be quite honest, I did intend for my post to be partially inflammatory to you…

   And frankly, you’re welcome to do that. Even though you’ve had absolutely nothing meaningful to say, you have every right to put one word after another until you have something that looks like a sentence.

   I don’t care if you insult people for who they are or what they say. I don’t care about your racism. That’s the internet, wear a helmet.

   But making fun of how someone talks, when all their trying to do is express themselves in a foreign language, is pretty fucking low. Although in this specific case, Kai doesn’t need me to defend him. He speaks better English than I do, but there’s still a greater principle here.

   How many people read this blog but are afraid to post their thoughts because of assholes like you?

   Reply
9. YC

   Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 4:00 pm

   Jayman, rather than leave you shuddering in anger and ready to smash a hole in your monitor, I will give you a proper response.

   There was a reason why I posted my initial message. Half of the reason was to invoke a response from Fcuk. The other half was because I thought it was a situation that a prudent person would have acted differently if they had assessed the situation and acted rationally.

   Why did I mock Kai’s english ability?

   Despite what you may believe, I ACTUALLY found that Kai had trouble interpreting the words I used in the correct context. To give you an example. He took the sentence where I used the word ‘rational’ in the wrong way.

   A short unit in any economics unit will teach you what the word ‘rational’ means in the context of general analysis of economic models. It’s hardly used as a means of insluting anyone. While we are not talking about an economic model here, the same principals still apply. We should view the scenario from an objective person standard, thus on the rational person.

   He failed to distinguish between subjective and objective. He did not understand the word foreseeability in a legal context. He failed to show understanding of the term ‘balance of probabilities’, used various english idioms to boast his understanding of the english language, despite adding no value to his argument or using vestigal modifiers like ‘intellectual’ before the word dishonesty in an attempt to sound smart.

   Kai accused me of creating red herring and strawman arguments. He was as guilty for this as I was. His last few posts consistently ignored the relevant points I brought up and focused on a few of my arguments taken out of context. I won’t explain further as readers can read above, the sequence of events, taken in the CORRECT context.

   Reply
10. jayman

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    And who are you to make fun of his supposed lack of understanding? After all, most people don’t think of microeconomic models when asked to define rational choices. (Especially when you admit that we’re not even talking about microeconomic models.)

    If you’re trying to make a point and the person your explaining it to doesn’t understand, it’s your fault for not being clear. You should try something else.

    Reply
11. Kai

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    @ jayman:

    Let him go. You already know he’s intent to get the last word in. He’s trying to save face, resorting to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. None of his “arguments” about my English change the fact that he was proven wrong about the main issue we were arguing about: Him being an idiot fabricating facts in an effort to malign FDLR.

    Reply
12. YC

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Jayman, part of being able to post an educated response requires being knowledgable. This is why microeconomics is a foundation unit for most commerce courses. Of course it is quite difficult to discuss an issue on level ground if the other has less knowledge of the related disciplines linked to the discussion. I initially gave Kai the benefit of the doubt.

    Reply
13. YC

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Jayman, Kai’s argument rests on nitpicking. He is using his ability to find sentences which lack support and then attack those particular sentences by taking them out of context. Unfortunately, in the process, he clearly shows that either he doesn’t understand certain words or misuses them in the hope that others don’t pick them out.

    In a sly way, he also protects himself by omitting to use certain words that may show in fact how desperate he is. Let’s consider what he said in a previous post (seen below):

    Now you’re just pulling shit out of your ass. I’m done with you. I’m content to let the record speak for itself. If you want to continue harassing me to assuage your wounded ego, feel free to badger me elsewhere. Bye.

    - Now the problem with the construction of this sentence is that it starts with an insult (no added value)
    - States I’m done with you
    - Contends that he has beaten me
    - Say’s bye (hopefully never to return)

    The implications are that this entire paragraph was inflammatory. It added no value to the discussion. It was a chance for Kai to say “I’m right, you suck, haha, I’ve had enough of this argument, I’m not talking to you anymore, without any real justification’

    So you would expect Kai not to respond to anymore message right? WRONG! Kai will probably now continue ranting another five posts on this forum, directing the message to someone else, and in essence, regretting that he said ‘bye’ and finding other ways to insult me and re-post without reneging on his previous statement that he was done with me, blah blah blah, etc.

    And of course, if he is caught out, he will nitpick and say ‘well I never said i was gone indefinitely, I just had enough at the time, etc’ or a line that conveys he never intended not to respond. Despite the fact it’s obvious that that’s what he meant in the last post.

    Reply
14. YC

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Kai spent the last few exchanges questioning what I meant by the word chronological and taking it out of context, either because he didn’t understand the meaning or because he felt like trying his luck.

    The purpose of writing a sentence is to convey a message. My message was that Fcuk had many chances to walk away and take the correct approach to the problem. I think anyone who read my posts in their entirety would understand that this is the case.

    Kai went to question what I meant by rational, what was meant by foreseeable, what was meant by chronological, what event happened first, etc. Finding any small detail where he could perhaps gain a small leverage to his argument. He, himself, failed to understand what rational was, failed to understand what foreseeable was, or what chronological meant, and the list goes on. The only small matter he could get any merit for was my assumption in the BEGINNING that Fcuk took the cigarette off the Chinese man. Of course, my argument doesn’t change either way. Because I was simply implying that the situation was dynamic and that there were points where Fcuk could see that the situation wasn’t going to get better. Then Kai said I was intellectually dishonest, since he couldn’t find anyway to fault my argument.

    Reply
15. Samael

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    YC sure has a lot of time…

    the problem with all this verbal banter is that, debate, tempered with logic and hindsight, can prove anything. and as such, its really nothing more than excerise in wasting time.

    i have chimed in on what i think was up with fcuk. thats my opinion. i really dont give a shit what others say, including fcuk. YC, is entitled to his opinion too. but see the problem is, you were NOT there, so you can NEVER know what really prompted him to do what he did. while hindsight can be used for analysis, it cant and indeed should never be used as basis of passing judgment.

    could of, should of, would of. anything you say now is quite useless and unless u want to sound like self-righteous prick that fcuk is, i suggest u stop trying to berate him for acting the way he did and accept that it was really the only thing he could of done, given all variables.

    fcuk is a dickward, YC is close to becoming one.

    Reply
16. Samael

    Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    oh man i just took another look at some of YC’s posts. economics this, law that, jesus son, who the hell u think u r, the treasurer? or or maybe the attorney general more ur cup of tea…

    tell u what u sound really sound like though? u sound like a bloody uni first year who think his king shit cos he learned that nash equilibrium is in econ 101 and how to apply duty of care in torts. whopty duda…GET OVER YOURSELF.

    LOL you crack me up SON

    Reply
17. YC

    Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:11 am

    You know what Samael, unlike you, I’m educated. I have a degree in economics and a JD.

    Life is about making decisions based on limited information. I happen to be able to justify my assertions. You are able to insult and make baseless comments attacking people.

    To be quite honest, you sound like a twelve year old. Get over your insecurity and do something about it. Your inferiority complex needs to be treated.

    Reply
18. jayman

    Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 3:23 am

    @Kai

    I’m not defending you, because, as I said before, I don’t think you specifically need my help when it comes to English. You went to UC Berkley, I dropped out of high school.

    You just happened to be the person YC said it to. And while I may hold a positive opinion of you, that doesn’t influence my comments on this. If you look back, one of my very first posts on this site was calling someone to task for doing the same thing.

    While I respect the rights of anyone to say pretty much anything, I feel that there’s no place for that particular sort of insult here.

    @YC

    I’m not going to hold this disagreement against you should we cross paths in another thread, and I hope that our next meeting is a positive one.

    Feel free to offer any final rebuttal or new insights below.

    Reply
19. Samael

    Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:45 am

    ooo smarty pants YC hold a econ degree. : O

    big deal, so do i (at 12 too), and probably 80% of the people who come on here, u dont have to wave it all around everywhere to feel big.

    life? life is about many things, dont give me ur one liner hogwash definition, i’ve had enough of that while at school. i dont care what u can justify. i can justify Hitler and make him look like a saint (and i have) if i wanted to. ur assertions mean shit. all you did was throw a whole bunch of bullshit some douschebags way and attempted to come out looking like a better person. thats all debates are good for outside of academic circles.

    why don’t u go and do something useful with your degree instead of wasting time on an internet blog

    Reply
20. YC

    Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 9:44 am

    No, I wrote a concise reply justifying my response. You write one liners that have no support. I believe you could justify yourself if you wanted to. You probably just cant be f$#$ed.

    Unlike you, I enjoy intellectual debates. It just so happens I visit this blog in my past time. I read it and I provide my opinion. Congratulations on your degree at 12 years of age though. You must have been a child prodigy, I hope if I ever have children, they can go to university at 8, right after they graduate from kindergarten.

    Reply
21. James

    Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 1:48 am

    It’s not likely this was done by Americans. Most Americans don’t know the history between Chinese and Japanese people.

    Reply
22. jamie

    Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    I am pretty sure the visits to Yasukuni are just part of a elaborate Japanese plot to conquer China.

    First get hundreds of millions of Chinese calling for blood, then the Japanese Emperor and Prime Minister beg for forgiveness on their knees at Nanjing and expel the war criminals from Yasukuni.

    With justice served, who then will the masses turn their righteous anger against? I wonder….

    Reply
23. Ren

    Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 12:29 am

    Everyone want to remember, pay respect, and feel good about their ancestors. (even if they raped the shit out of girls, or test biological weapons on POW). What about if some Vietnamese (just example) kick ya ass because China conquered Vietnam for 1000 years.

    A war is just a war dude. Therer’re nothing you got by doing this anyway. (Except some fun of screwing Japanese goverment’s shit.) Come on, the world has been changed.

    Reply
24. franz

    Saturday, August 7, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Chinese people are getting all riled up about the yasukuni shrine, but why don’t they fix their own internal problems while they are at it? Perhaps how they deal with Tibet? tiananmen square in the past? Why don’t the chinese people demand to hear the truths about that as well? why are they selectively blind and deaf?

    Reply