From Sohu:
According to foreign news reports, the website of Japan’s Yasukuni Shrine (located in Tokyo’s Chiyoda area) was attacked by unknown hackers today, the homepage content replaced, and during this time, the China national flag appeared once.
According to Kyodo News Service reports, the following was written on the replaced homepage: “Hacked By 小饭 [Little Rice], Beach, RichMan, s4t4n” and the date “2008 December 24″ The Chinese national flag also appeared once, but soon after the flag was deleted.
Yasukuni Shrine is currently investigating this incident.
The Yasukuni Shrine is controversial because there are World War II war criminals who are buried there and it is visited by some Japanese government leaders and many Japanese who do not believe Japan attacked China in WW2.
Here is a post and video from JapanProbe:
Comments from Sohu:
Survey: How do you view the Yasukuni Shrine website hacking incident?
- Inserting the Chinese national flag does not mean it was done by Chinese people. Recently there have been continuous hacking incidents, everyone should be more on guard, and not let people with ulterior motives take advantage of you. 57 votes
- Well done! If they are not “hei ke” [hackers], then they are “hong ke” [another name for "hackers," but with the color "red" instead of "black", for "Chinese" hackers maybe], the Yasukuni Shrine is trash culture. Look, our five-starred national flag is so dazzling beautiful! 143 votes
- I do not support this kind of action, and with regards to the Yasukuni Shrine issue, it is not necessary to do this kind of “breaking and entering” business, we can openly state our position. Sometimes good intentions can also result in bad actions. 51 votes
[At around 3:15pm on 08/12/26]
The Americans did this. Fuckers.
With regards to Japan’s “shrine” being hacked, I first express congratulations, but this incident might be other countries stirring up trouble and sowing dissent, so we must find out the truth.
If they can make it so that the website can never be used again, then that would be the best. You guys [the hackers] have worked hard, we will always support you!
Boycott Japanese goods (Japanese women excluded).
Yes, very awesome! Who cares if it is other country’s people or our own Chinese people who did this, it was something done by the people, the international community can say nothing! Chinese people hate the Yasukuni Shrine, hacking it more would be pretty good!
I only represent the Communist Central Government, the State Council, and the various citizens of the entire country in expressing lofty tribute towards our revered hacker comrades! You guys have worked hard! The citizens of the entire country love and esteem you…
Those against this: Are you guys still Chinese? Remember history! Wake up!
Chinese “hong ke” ["hong" = red, another name for "hackers"]! I support you!
Strongly support these hacker brothers…you are Chinese people’s pride.
A stern warning to the Japanese government: If you do not tear down that Yasukuni Shrine that disgustingly and clearly pains the heart of all Chinese people, then 1.3 billions Chinese citizens’ “heart atomic bomb” will inevitably be dropped on your heads!!!
This is something a true-blooded Chinese person would do! This is silent resistance/protest!
If you want to hack, then hack, do not just put a Chinese flag. After all, it is not just only our motherland that has a grudge with them. Moreover, this will attract international condemnation. You cannot give those restless people the opportunity.
Not ugly enough, continue working, next time put a picture of Hiroshima being bombed. Thanks.
Very red, very violent!!! However, be careful of Corea “bangzi” making trouble!!! [by taking advantage of the situation]
We can be sure it was not done by Chinese people. Chinese people would not put the national flag on that shitty website.
There are over 2100 comments on Sohu right now.
See more Chinese and Japanese posts:
- Super Girl Rola Chen Pictures Anger Chinese Netizens
- Japanese Invaders? Shameless Promotion?
- Japanese & Chinese Students Fight In Shanghai
Related Posts:
- A Chinese government website is hacked and the official's webpage shows a picture of a sexy girl wearing a bikini. Netizens say girl works harder than official. » 31 comments
- On 2010 January 12, Chinese netizens woke up & discovered that China's #1 search engine, Baidu, was hacked by the Iranian Cyber Army! Here are some reactions. » 63 comments
- Chen Yi, or Rola Chen, an unsuccessful "Super Girl" contestant angers some Chinese with sexy pictures of her lying on top of the Japanese and Chinese flags. » 134 comments
- Angry Chinese chase away a Chinese mother & daughter who wore Japanese kimonos to go admire & take pictures with the cherry blossoms at Wuhan University. » 115 comments
- Photos of Japanese victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs posted on a popular China BBS forum lead to heated discussion between Chinese netizens. » 232 comments
Government Website Hacked, Official Now Sexy Girl 
Baidu Hacked By Iranian Cyber Army, Chinese Reactions 
Super Girl Rola Chen Pictures Anger Chinese Netizens 
Cherry Blossoms, Wuhan, & Chinese Women In Kimonos 
Japanese Atomic Bomb Victim Photos, Chinese Reactions 
it would be more cool if someone blew that shrine up, or put a statue of Doolittle with one foot stepping on a prone Tojo or the Showa Tenno Heika. Banzai!!!!
I find it highly hypocritical that Chinese people would be happy that this site was hacked and a Chinese flag put there. However I can only imagine the uproar if this was done to a similar Chinese site.
I’m sure the Japanes will return the favour so I guess we’ll see soon enough.
@ Bobby Boberton:
That’s not highly hypocritical, that’s just human nature.
I assume you are Chinese? Would you like it if someone in Japan did that same thing to a Chinese site? Human nature is what cave men used for survival. In the civilized world we do to others as we would have them do to us.
methinks its done by the same people who hacked taiwan’s DDP site. and there need not be a question mark in the title, everyone can see they are chinese.
I used to study hacking and its technically not very difficult to alter the main page display if the site is poorly secured, otherwise ddos is the only option, but that will do collateral damage to your own network.
yasukuni must have a crappy host. and I sense a large scale cyber warfare between china and japan is imminent.
@ Bobby Boberton:
You misunderstand. I’m not saying its right or wrong, I’m just saying it is human nature to often delight in “sticking it” to others even if one wouldn’t appreciates it happening in reverse.
Also, come on, you know you’d have a hard time arguing that the “civilized” only abides by the golden rule and is never hypocritical.
@bobby
shits liek this happening all the time in the world so I don’t see why the fuzz here??? yeah they got owned by some chinese nerds and all the other nerds got +1 in ego and probly masturbated to some anime character then we move on, thats all theres to it. you are over sensitive, that makes you look like these nationalist nerds.
The fifth commenter after my comment, do you confess that you hacked the website?
cavemen hit each others head with clubs. now we hack each others sites. sounds pretty human nature to me. In fact you have civilization to thank for that, just be glad we don’t rely on hitting each other anymore, using anything.
Gee that’s a real heavy traffic site, NOT!. All that’s happened is, far more people now know it exists.
Hackers always go for the easy targets. Websites that are not using the latest security patch or just very lax security configuration. Anyway, its a nice and cheap way to get attention. I don’t think the Japanese will be standing still. There will always be extremist elements in society who will up the one brickmanship.
I hope most people have better use for their time rather than stir up the Japanese.
I’d be interested to see a Sino-Japanese hacker war, as much as I’d be interested to see a Sino-Russian hacker war, a Sino-Indian hacker war, or a Russo-Indian hacker war. All of these countries have good computer professionals, and to watch the hackers go at it would be quite entertaining.
If you guys are so 1337, why don’t you go for 2ch or 2chan? It would be a great hacker war.
I love this comment:
“Boycott Japanese goods (Japanese women excluded).”
Sometimes I wonder what is going on in the minds of the many young Chinese men who violently hate Japan, yet spend much of their free time (insert self-pleasure metaphor here) while watching Japanese porn. I think China needs to have some 改革开放 in the world of pornography, and create some patriotic spank material for the young men of China. I do not think Chinese underwear magazines can really compete with that sick, sick Japanese porn. Until one can buy used panties from vending machines in the streets of Taiyuan, we can never be free from this curse.
阎锡山
You’re definitely not Bokane, I don’t think your prose has the same creativity as his.
I think a hacker war would be very entertaining. With regards to Yan, I also found that comment about (Japanese women excluded) extremely funny.
Japanese porn is a bit overrated though. Too much whining, and too manufactured. Chinese porn and korean porn are much more realistic and interesting to watch.
Japanese women in reality are also very easy to get. Can’t help but think how I’m doing my country proud everytime I pick up a Japanese girl ;).
does it change anything?
This meddling in another country’s internal affairs has hurt the feelings of all Japanese people …
americans did this? fuck you!!!!!
Alright the time is now!!! Release the nanotechnology placed in the playstations and PSP’s that will be the end of the Chinese!!! LOL. Once I had this fantasy of going to the Shrine and tossing red paint on the shrine, stirpping to nothing and covering myself in a Chinese flag while I pleasure myself. I would be the new “lei feng”!!!
Oh wait, then I realized I am Canadian and that wouldn’t quite work. hahahah
@ Alex:
HAH! Excellent!
we have been hurt by everybody, then we go hurt everybody, simply logic, everybody is trying to fcuking everybody.
NERD WARFARE! E TERRORISM!!! When does it end?
@’hackers’
Working in the software business and playing with computers for the last 16 years has taught me much about the wannabe skriptkiddiez and braggarts posting their pasted knowledge on forums and such – hackers do not claim to be hackers, period, zip it. Reading insecure.org type sites or CotDC type sites and finding out of date servers that don’t patch their shit and walking through step by step instructions don’t make you a hacker.
@Topic
This is clearly the best marketing ever. As someone mentioned above, the site was not likely frequently visited – shit like this pumps massive traffic through from people who would otherwise not likely visit – not to mention the fact changing the site back to the original is not exactly a challenging task. This is equiv to skank singer bitches flashing their panty-less snatches when they gettin out of a car in hollywood, getting in the news in any form bumps their celebrity profile significantly. If the kids who changed the site are Chinese, they certainly fucked the goat on this one – pushing this site into “Everyone go look” stardome.
In any case, I agree with Bobby’s thought that it’s highly hypocritical – I mean – it’s the classic case of poor dude wins the lottery and immediately starts to point down at other poor people, as soon as the crybaby bitch on the bottom gets their first triumph they turn into that which they were protesting.. “Why you oppressing us???” then “HAH fuckers take that” – blatant hypocrisy, grow up.
Fcuk and Kai, it is amusing to find your comments on every article on this website. In particular I was reading a comment posted by Fcuck earlier, describing the event that triggered his strong dislike towards Chinese people.
I believe that the main flaw affecting the daily life of the people living in China is the inability or reluctance to enforce laws. However it only takes a week in China for anyone to realise and accept the core of the problem is imbedded in Chinese culture and ethos, which must gradually change as China is evolving into a stronger and more educated nation.
You mentioned in a previous comment, a scenario where you warned a Chinese person in China that he shouldn’t smoke where there was a no smoking sign. Applying the logic that you have learned in Canada, what you did was clearly correct. It also seemed unlikely that the person you were asking would be a threat to you since you are a trained fighter/bouncer. You assessed the situation, realised you could enforce your words and made, what was in your mind, a rational choice.
Now let’s consider what was wrong with how you handled the situation:
1.) You are not in Canada but China, it is clear to anyone who has lived in China for a brief period to know that the laws in China are not enforced as strictly. If you were more observant and humble, you would also realise that this happens more often than not. Should you accept it? Maybe not, but perhaps then, you should have reported it to management rather than face this man directly. As soon as you confront somebody, you give them the impression that you are asserting authority. Does a Chinese man who has lived in China for all his life, who is well aware of how lax the regulations are, who owes no duty to you (but only to the management) think that you have the authority to make demands of him? Especially when you are a visitor to his country?
2.) If you are the only white man inside a black bar in the Bronx, and the African man next to you smokes in front of a no smoking sign with his four African friends. Will you also tell him to put out his light?
I think you should not ignore the fact that you misassessed the situation and overestimated your own ability. It was your own culturally insensitivity or for a better word, tolerance, that got you into your mess.
The result of that incident is what is colloquially named as playing the ‘race card’. The angered man did the only thing that he could to arouse a collective interest in fighting you. The rest was a personal vendetta using dirty tactics. Would the same thing not happen in a different country or with a different ethnicity?
This is something for you to consider….
@YC
RE: “who owes no duty to you (but only to the management)”
You’re missing the point here, first of all, he owes duty to *the public*, society, that’s why RULES in society exist. Whether they are enforced strictly or not is irrelevant to whether or not they ’should’ be followed. In addition, I would assume you’ve lived in some farmer city as opposed to, say, Shanghai, where the rules are much more strictly followed and enforced in general. By mentioning to the dude that he should not smoke in a non-smoking area he is doing the PUBLIC a favor.
RE: “It was your own culturally insensitivity” Are you implying that, if you ask the average Chinese citizen, “Should you follow rules laid out by the Chinese government for the betterment of society?” they would say “NO, You should do as you please.”? That’s what it sounds like you’re saying to me, or, well, you simply don’t understand the culture which you claim to be defending.
RE: “bronx”
I don’t think you know shit about the Bronx – 1/2 of the racial make-up in the Bronx is hispanic.
RE: “This is something for you to consider….” I suggest you consider unzipping my pants with yer teeth, your nonsense soap-boxing is done.
Rick, I don’t live in America so I do not know what the racial make-up is in the Bronx. However, I do know it is considered a ghetto area, and thus I made my example based on this assumption. However, changing the black/african people to hispanics, what would your answer to the question be?
1.) I don’t deny that every citizen has the obligation to follow the law. However “LEGALLY”, they only have a duty to comply to the regulations of the institution that imposed it.
2.) A law is of no value unless it can be enforced.
3.) I am referring to Shanghai and yes rules are not enforced often.
On a personal level: I can take as much weighted luggage as I like through the international airport without paying fines; I can skip lines in certain hospitals and restaurants; I can get away with parking infringments by mentioning my connections.
On a larger scale: corruption, one of China’s biggest problems.
4.) People have the discretion whether they want to do the public a favour. It is not an entitlement or legally enforceable.
5.) The MAIN point is something that you are missing. The fact is that Fcuk failed to conform to the culture in China where certain rules aren’t enforced. As I mentioned, he had no legal right to enforce the laws that were laid by the institution he was staying in. He also failed to take into account that many rules in China aren’t enforced as strictly as in Canada.
I can give a relevant example right now of a similar situation. If you take your son to play basketball at a local park. A hooligan is slam dunking a ring which clearly has a sign saying no dunking. You realise that they he is likely to break the ring and cripple you and your son’s enjoyment of the premises in the future. this guy is clearly a bad a$s who has been doing this his whole life and will not take $hit from anyone. Are you going to confront him?
Apparently that website has been under DOS attack since September.
Russian hackers have been attacking Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, and United States computers for quite some time now.
As for porn, while I’m interested in the subject, I can not intelligently discuss the difference between Chinese, Japanese, or Korean varieties. Here it’s all called Asian.
Let me also point out Rick, that what I meant of my examples above is that there is a difference between the right decision and the wise decision. I just think that fcuk felt a little too entitled to his ability to enforce the law. Even in America he would not have an entitlement to personally stop someone from smoking. Not to mention that what he did certainly wasnt wise, given the fact that the race card could and probably would be played.
“The fact is that Fcuk failed to conform to the culture in China where certain rules aren’t enforced. As I mentioned, he had no legal right to enforce the laws that were laid by the institution he was staying in. He also failed to take into account that many rules in China aren’t enforced as strictly as in Canada.”
Why have rules then? How is someone to know which rules are “real” and which ones are safe to ignore? If people can’t stand up and say breaking the rules is bad, who should?
Even in America he would not have an entitlement to personally stop someone from smoking.
In America this is very common. Perhaps the smoker just didn’t see the sign? Pointing out that it is a non-smoking area is polite and expected, as is telling them where they can smoke. Flipping out and turning it into a racial and/or cultural thing is what we call ‘over-reacting’.
“…Are you going to confront him?”
Of course. It is the responsibility of every citizen to make sure that the rules are followed. Not just the popular rules. And not just people smaller than you.
Do not expect police or management to save you. Save yourself.
I don’t know what the deal is in the US, but here in Oz (and in many common law countries i believe) you can actually make a citizen’s arrest. Although it probably does not entitle you to arrest someone for smoking, by extension it does indeed entitle you to personally stop someone doing it. Whether its a good idea that you should or not, is of course a whole other matter lol.
Samuel, in Australia you can only make a citizens arrest if a person is breaking a law that is punishible as an indictible offence with the sanction of imprisonment. Depending on the jurisidiction you will be looking at either common law or the criminal code. Without going into more detail, I think you get the idea.
Without a legal justification such as delegated authority or performing a citizens arrest, you have no entitlement to stop someone doing something such as smoking in a public place. Otherwise you will be convicted of assault or false imprisonment.
Hi Jayman,
on a non-legal basis, what you say does make sense. If indeed we were in a country where rules were strictly adhered to and part of the culture then morally you would be correct. But you should ask yourself, whether you are in a country where smoking in a non smoking area is common. It’s easy to say that you’ll act in a certain way when you arent put in the situation.
Legally, what you say is incorrect. Let the police do their job and let the institution enforce their rules. Let management take care of it. Never take things into your own hands. You don’t own the place, you don’t have a legal justification to enforce it. In Australia, generally rules and enforcement goes hand in hand. If you don’t listen to the person asking you politely, you get escorted out embarassingly by management.
I agree that this news may only bring more visitors to that website, but I doubt it is going to help the Yasukuni Shrine or extreme right-wing interpretation of WW2 history. The hacking itself might make the Chinese hackers look immature, but overall, the effect of this news is about the same as Kozumi visiting the shrine: it just reminds most people how controversial or outrageous Japanese revisionism is and the enmity between revisionists and those who oppose/despise them.
@ YC:
I think you should’ve written all of this in the topic FDLR posted his story.
You are right, doing what is right and doing what is wise can be different. However, I don’t think it was reasonable to expect FDLR to have considered all of the interpersonal dynamics (of authority, etc.) you suggested at that time (which were quite astute BTW). He made a polite request as one patron to another with reference to a clearly visible sign representing the establishment’s rules.
I’m sure he understood and continues to understand that not all rules are followed or enforced strictly in China, but that is no reason for him to accept the situation. Moreover, what he did was not unreasonable even in the context of a lax enforcement society. To always be mindful or conformist to establish norms would preclude a lot of “good” changes in society.
Also, I don’t think FDLR had any thoughts of his “entitlement” to enforce the law. I think he merely doesn’t like people smoking around him when he’s specifically chosen a place that forbids smoking and thought a polite request was an entirely reasonable thing to do. You can even consider his request to the smoker as one person asking a favor of another.
Finally, both you and I agree that the other guy was an ass. I think that’s pretty much all there is worth noting about the incident.
Fcuk is Asian. He isn’t Caucasian although I’m sure part of him wishes he was.
@ YC:
Also, all this talk of legality is going off track. I don’t remember what post FDLR’s story was in for me to review but, come on, the matter between FDLR and the smoker was not about legality. Him asking the guy to stop smoking was not him enforcing the law. It was him asking another patron to observe the rules of the premises. He only considered his physical abilities the moment the other guy became confrontational. And who wouldn’t? Unless I mistakenly remember the sequence of the story’s events, you’re making FDLR sound like he got in the guy’s face and physically threatened him to make him stop smoking.
Kai, I speak on the basis of rational thought.
Forgive me for being rational, but generally before i make a decision I consider these steps:
1.) Am I legally allowed to do this
2.) Will I be able to exercise my legal rights
3.) What are the potential consequences if I decide to go through with it
4.) What benefits do I receive if I decide to go through with it
5.) Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
6.) Can I actually go through with it?
Of course in the context of these steps, I will consider the environment surrounding me.
Take this environment in consideration:
1.) This guy is in a shopping center with his wife in a no smoking area. He has probably never been warned for not smoking and if he has, it was probably from security.
2.) Out of the blue a foreigner comes and challenges his authority.
He clearly feels this foreigner has no right telling him what to do.
He also feels intimidated and embarrassed, that a visitor in his country is demanding what even a normal Chinese citizen would not ask AND furthermore speaks in Chinese.
3.) He then tells the foreigner out of rage and embarrassment to go back to his country if he didn’t like it. Note: I don’t endorse racism here, I’m just reciting the facts.
4.) Now next, listen to what Fcuck said in his comment:
At this point he stood up, I stood up and he said “dont touch me lao wai” and then proceeded to grab my arm.
I was a bit confused reading this, because from reading it in the order that its placed. It appears contradictory that the Chinese man said ‘don’t touch me Lao Wai’ when Fcuck claims the Chinese man grabbed his arm.
5.) Next Fcuk overreacts, forcibly sweeps him and gets him in a kneeling position in front of the other people and even possibly his wife. He has his fist in place ready to beat him to a pulp. He describes this in the post with great pride of his bouncing/law enforcement/competitive fighting background.
Now change the scenario, these people are black and fcuck is white. A few other blacks are a meter away. If I was the black guy and I wanted revenge (which I obviously would at that stage) I would have also played the race card. In the case of African American’s getting beaten up by a black guy. I doubt I’d even need to state my case.
How is Fcuck considering the fact that generally most Chinese citizens mind their own business and don’t go about with a self-righteous attitude of directly telling someone off. What about the important value of not losing face, which is so important to the Chinese people. This is what I mean by saving face.
Giving another example, how would it be if a white person went to a black area and beat up a black guy for smoking illegally? Don’t tell me racism won’t be an issue. If this happened in an Australian shopping center, Fcuck may state the guy was smoking in a non smoking area. The guy smoking might get a slap in the wrist. However, the force that Fcuck applied to the Chinese man, whether the man grabbed him first or not is excessive. Fcuck would be liable for something more serious. Possibly assault but the defence of self defence would only be partial as it is excessive.
To point out an inconsistency as well, why would the Chinese man grab Fcucks arm? Because he was gay? Or to do what? I don’t see how there is a logical flow of events.
@YC
I didn’t mean to seem ill-mannered. Hello, and well met.
There are 1.3 billion Chinese people and only 1.5 million police officers. Individuals may not have a legal basis for asking another citizen to follow the rules, but shouldn’t moral authority be enough to authorize their request?
If you see someone picking up litter, would you say thank you? If you see someone in trouble, would you not help? It is no different if you see someone doing the wrong thing. It doesn’t matter if it’s popular to ignore the rules, it only matters that there are rules in place and all citizens interested in an orderly society have a vested interest in seeing those rules upheld.
I’m not saying you should beat someone up because they’re smoking, or littering, or jaywalking. I would never advocate violence. But I’m also no coward. The only reason people ignore no smoking signs is because they can. And those little things are a symptom of a much larger problem.
I just don’t understand how you can say that corruption is a major problem in China, but that individual citizens should have no authority to request that rules be followed. Who is going to do it for you?
To be honest Jay, I do understand where you are coming from. But in a society such as China its disadvantageous to always pursue a moral vendetta. People in China are known to look the other way when dealing with things that don’t concern them. The way the issue would have been properly resolved would be to contact security or the relevant officer on duty. Please read my above post for more details of the incident. I believe that Fcuk was probably warning the man in a very condescending tone, despite using polite words.
It’s one thing to warn someone politely, but a different thing altogether if the person u are warning feels intimidated or insulted by you. I personally would be very insulted if a 14 year old punk with a mohawk demands that I pick up the rubbish which I forgot to throw in the bin, rather than a respectable old man. Theoretically it shouldn’t make a difference, but to me it does.
A black man will be more insulted if a white guy asks him to clean up after a mess than a fellow black brother. Regardless if there was any racism in the demand at all.
Kai, after reading the article more closely. The more likely scenario that I would imagine actually happened was that Fcuk went to grab the cigarette (unlawfully i might add) from the man, and the man said ‘don’t touch me’, upon which Fcuck effectively decked the guy. The guy who is decked uses the race card to get nationalistic support to wrongly get fcuck arrested. Are we supposed to sympathise with Fcuk who took the law into his own hands? I certainly don’t!
@YC
I apologize for my misunderstandings and the resulting confusion. I can not and, furthermore, would not wish to defend FDLR’s violent confrontation over smoking a cigarette. I can’t say with any authority how FDLR initially addressed the man and I don’t understand enough about Chinese culture to speak about why the man may have reacted as he did.
My comments were addressed to your comments, without proper context. But you didn’t say that FDLR shouldn’t have used violence (with which I completely agree), you said that he shouldn’t even have asked someone not to smoke in a no-smoking area (with which I completely disagree).
People in China are known to look the other way when dealing with things that don’t concern them.
I kind of understand why it is this way (the nail that sticks out gets hammered, or however it goes) but I think China will continue to have many problems until this changes. That is the point I was trying to make.
Corruption doesn’t begin with powerful officials doing whatever they want. It starts with a disregard for common courtesy and fear in the common man to stand up for what’s right.
@ YC:
Making presumptions of what happened contrary to the only record we have is NOT rational thought.
Now FDLR can respond to your list of questions himself but I’ll give you my answers based upon what we can reasonably judge from the narrative given:
1.) Yes, FDLR is legally allowed to request a fellow patron to not smoke.
2.) Yes, FDLR was able to exercise his legal right to make a request by opening his mouth and emitting sound.
3.) There are many potential consequences, and the most reasonable consequence was that the man would kindly put out his cigarette in observance of the establishment’s rules. Him refusing to do so could be imagined but even in China, it is NOT expected that people would 1) refuse to honor a simple request especially when the rules are advertised and 2) then proceed to malign you in hopes of getting bystanders to beat your ass.
4.) In FDLR’s case, being able to enjoy his time at the non-smoking coffee shop without having to breathe in second-hand smoke.
5.) The reasonable cost was the effort expended to make the request. It is, again, unreasonable for FDLR much less anyone else to expect that the man would be so arrogant, rude, and malicious. Are you seriously blaming FDLR for assuming that the smoker was a reasonable man?
6.) Yes, FDLR was able to open his mouth and emit sound. That sound was according to the only narrative we have, a polite request.
Look, you may doubt FDLR’s story or version of events, but unless you were there as witness (or you’re the smoker), it is all that we have to go on. Insofar as the story is inaccurate, incomplete, or wrong, we ALL reserve the right to retract our sympathy or understanding. THIS is “rational” whereas fabricating your own version of events in order to justify your own antagonism towards him relative to this issue is NOT.
Are you serious? “Authority?” Since when did anyone have the “authority” to smoke wherever they want? They have the FREEDOM to smoke constrained by the property they are on AND with whom they share. If he refuses to comply, the establishment can remove him because it is their property. A fellow patron may not remove him but the patron MAY COMMUNICATE their opinion or request.
Yet another presumption. Your premise (“what even a normal Chinese citizen would not ask”) is false and therefore your conclusion (FDRL’s request was inappropriate) is wrong. There is absolutely no support for your premise beyond your own assumption. Even if the sum total of your personal experience suggests it, how are you going to reconcile it with the fact that I can tell you, also from personal experience, that many normal Chinese citizens ask others to observe the rules.
We agree that he is embarrassed, maybe intimidated (at least after FDLR stood up) and yes, he doesn’t think the foreigner should tell him what to do. That’s why he is an idiotic ass not very deserving of any sympathy to coddle his insecure arrogance.
Why not first ask FDLR to clarify instead of making assumptions? What would’ve been the more “rational” thing for you to do, Mr. Rationality?
I responded to this point of his story as well and I suggested that the man, afraid of FDLR “touching” him, instinctively reached out to block/stop FDLR from doing so. This is not an uncommon reflex action, similar to extending your arms to stop someone you feel is charging at you. Note my comment where I said it was ironic that he asked FDLR not to touch him yet actually touched FDLR himself.
Have you been in a physical confrontation before?
Now, if FDLR comes and says “you’re right, I made the first move, and then he grabbed my arm…” then my position would change. However, I think you’re overlooking a very real explanation and citing it as an “inconsistency” or FDLR intentionally and maliciously leaving out a critical detail to gain sympathy.
This I will agree with you as an overreaction that a normal person would unlikely do. Yet, without determining right or wrong, a normal person does not have FDLR’s self-proclaimed bouncing/law enforcement/competitive fighting background. So FDLR’s background prompted him in reacting swiftly and decisively in a heated situation, perhaps to his detriment. He’s only human, and maybe his own instincts/reflexive actions were faster than his ability to consider all of the social context you’ve been so kind to hash out above. And, again, based upon the record we have, the smoker instigated and made first contact.
So the smoker was an ass and was embarrassed by FDLR, and in embarrassing the smoker, FDLR found himself in a whole shitload of trouble. Sometimes things just don’t work out peacefully…but are you seriously suggesting that FDLR’s actions are so unreasonable or so utterly foreign to an environment like China’s?
We all understand why the race card was played. It is still pathetic.
The only point that has weight with your whole reconstructive argument is that FDLR’s reaction was excessive. I can agree with that but at the same time I don’t find it surprising whatsoever that someone with some physical combat training is capable of being far more effective and efficient in physical confrontations. I can comfortably acknowledge that even as I criticize the smoker for being not just inconsiderate but also rude, arrogant, confrontational, and an insecure, lying scumbag.
You have fabricated and convinced yourself of an entirely separate sequence of events. That is NOT rational. According to the only testimony we have, we can rationally conclude that FDLR did not set out to take “the law into his own hands” but at most excessively subdued a perceived assailant. FDLR made a polite request, he did not get physical until the other party did so. Insofar as this narrative is accurate, FDLR can claim defense, but I am not sure how a court of law would rule on whether it was “excessive” or not.
It being disadvantageous does not mean one should not do so. I don’t think FDLR was pursuing a “moral vendetta” either, much less “always” doing so. Even in China, many people do things that are disadvantageous or endure discomfort to pursue the things that matter to them. Maybe you should channel all your anti-FDLRness towards all the signatories of Charter 08? We all know how disadvantageous that is.
Yeah, and so what? Is that a good thing? Does it matter if people don’t? Are there no Chinese who don’t? I believe breathing second hand smoke is something that DOES concern FDLR and your argument of considering social context is rapidly becoming unreasonably black and white. FDLR’s request, yet again, was reasonable and, yes, legal. A request by itself is not a moral vendetta nor is it taking the law into his own hands.
“Proper?” I disagree and there is no social context for you to insist that either just as accidents where people are injured or killed are often solved through direct exchange between involved parties without involving higher authorities. Why can’t one patron make a request of another patron as equals? Why must FDLR go “tell the teacher” or otherwise “tattle-tale” for him to “properly” resolve the matter? This is ridiculous.
Sure, maybe, and even then, it would not excuse the smoker for being an insecure douchebag that tried to “get back” at FDLR by lying through his teeth.
YC, your earlier hypotheses of social context were interesting, but since then, you’ve just committed yourself to trying to argue that FDLR is somehow the bad guy. You went from trying to rationalize why the smoker behaved the way he did to making wholesale presumptions about what “really” happened so you can promote your conclusion that FDLR is the bad guy. FDLR certainly is a bad guy, but the reason I believe so is because he has a habit of being intentionally inflammatory and offensive on these internet comments. My conclusion here is based upon evidence we have before us. Unlike you, I don’t need to fabricate and suggest an alternative version of his story and pin it on him.
I don’t get it, why are you so keen on doing that?
Recently 4chon was shut down by a DDOS attack by some script kiddy with a botnet. All you really need to start a hack attack is a bunch of zombies comprising a botnet in the right country.
The main problem with a Sino-Japanese zombie war would be that most Chinese hackers / cyber-criminals use Chinese botnets, because Chinese computers are notoriously unsecured. All, say, 2ch would have to do, would be to ban all requests from Chinese IPs, as they already ban postings by non-Japanese IPs. I’m not sure what kind of botnet Japanese hackers would have, or would it be any fun to have the Yakuza involved; a war between nationalist hackers is all fine and dandy when it shuts down community websites for a month or so, but when people start getting killed and fingers start getting cut off it’s no longer any fun.
Kai, I do appreciate it if you drop the smart-alec responses namely one like 1) 2) below.
1.)Yes, FDLR is legally allowed to request a fellow patron to not smoke.
- I never said he was not legally entitled to request someone not to smoke, he is simply not entitled to force someone not smoke.
2.) Yes, FDLR was able to exercise his legal right to make a request by opening his mouth and emitting sound.
- Trying to be smart again? refer to point 1.
3.) This was not in a coffee shop btw, it was in a shopping complex where he was having a coffee. So if you are unsure, perhaps you should wait for clarifications before making assumptions ;)
You are basing your assumptions based on your own standards. I don’t necessarily think that a grown man in front of his wife would necessarily listen to a visitor in his country telling him what he can’t and can’t do. I don’t think anyone in the man’s shoes would take well with being told
“i realize you are literate, but I am sure you can see the sign”
from someone who has no authority to actually enforce such regulations . I don’t care what he says about his ettiquette when he say’s a smart remark like that.
4.) As I explained in prior posts, no reasonable Chinese man, whether in front of his wife or not, would like to asked by a visitor in their country to not smoke in a shopping area and then get their arm ceased and cigarette removed forcibly. Talking it one step at a time, the Chinese man was only aggressive after fcuk grabbed his arm. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong assuming things but the excessive force used by Fcuk afterwards is disproportionate. He is more than likely be liable for assault.
5.) The reasonable cost is not only the superficial physical cost but also the possibility consequences of his action. If I am in a library and someone is noisy. I can choose to ignore the people talking so long as the noise is tolerable. I strongly believe that most reasonable people would not get into an argument with the person unless the noise was unbareably repetitive and annoying. This is because the cost of telling them to stop (regardless of being right or wrong) could lead to further disputes and further trouble. The same applies to China but in an even bigger magnitude.
Especially since you are seen as a ‘law wai’ in the eyes of the Chinese.
The reasonable cost here would be to assess, whether it was easier to move somewhere else or to confront this person. A reasonable person would consider whether asking someone to not smoke could possibly lead to dispute and an argument.
6.) The foreigner challenges his authority was actually a typo. I meant the foreigner asserts his authority. Kai, what separates the effectiveness of speech and communication is knowledge of psychology. I find it interesting to read books about communication and psychology for selfish reasons, because it does help me get more of what I want from others. Unfortunately, whether you would like to believe it or not, the Chinese man more than likely found that the foreigner was acting as an authoritative figure. The Chinese man obviously found fcuk offensive and rude.
Since you’ve stated your opinion on hypothetical terms, let me state mine on some real terms.
If I was in Korea, a country that I am a visitor in, and I see a man smoking in front of me, inside a shopping centre while I was having a coffee here is my analysis.
I’m in a country where I know nobody, where it is possible sentiment towards outsiders and where I wont perhaps be able to articulate the local language to justify myself in an argument if it arose. I consider moving the table next to me to avoid the passive smoke. Otherwise I have the option of asking him not to smoke. I would undoubtedly choose to move seats.
No, i wouldn’t try and speak Korean to and ask him not to smoke because quite frankly I’d feel like I am engaging in a direct conflict with him that I would rather avoid. Let’s suppose I say to him not to smoke and he does ask me to go back to my own country. I certainly would not be going to extremes to put him in a position where he is about to get beaten to a pulp.
There are correct methods to solve problems that are both legal and effective. Surely, if you went to primary or secondary school in US, Canada, Australia, you would realize that no matter how right you are in a situation, letting the teacher deal with the problem is always the orthodox and correct method. We learn this at a young age so it becomes a core value that we associate to be analogous to the way we treat the law and the relevant authority. It takes a little longer, you may not get the satisfaction of doing it yourself but it is the best course of action. If the manager of the shopping centre/coffee place was contacted this whole issue would have been resolved. You take a risk everytime you take the law in your own hands.
The reason why most people mind their own business in China is because the culture promotes it. If you want to be the one to stick out from the crowd, then you risk the chance of being criticized or worse yet condemned. By confronting the person directly rather than seeking the manager, he put himself at the risk of trouble. I won’t justify that what the Chinese man did was right but Fcuk should accept the possible consequences of acting outside societies norm.
And Kai, to be very honest, I’m not surprised at all that something like this happened in China. Do you live there now? Many Chinese (I wont say most) love to be in a situation where they can be patriotic and beat up a cocky foreigner. Give them one excuse and they will find make good use of it. Even better if the guy is Japanese. There are similar examples in other countries. You talk about what is rational, but doesn’t what i mention factor into what is rationall? Is that something that Fcuk should have considered?
@YC
You’re making _so many assumptions_ about the situation it’s not worth arguing. However, on principal, to answer some of your questions:
1. In any country, I travel a lot, I would look after my rights when I feel they’re being violated – whether they are ‘legally enforceable’ or not. You keep bringing up these situations that are totally race based, “would you say something to a black man?!?” — it makes me think you’re either scared of people who are not of the same race as you, or consider some kind of automatic beat-down because you’re not the same skin color. First of all, I can take care of myself – I’ve rolled around Nairobbery at night, alone, as a white guy, and didn’t feel scared at any time. Act like a victim and you’ll be victimized. Predators hunt prey, not other predators. I respect (or disrespect) all races equally in the sense that there’s someone of every color who can kick my ass, but only in extreme situations would be afraid to voice my opinions if they’re well within reason (such as can you stop blowing smoke in my face) no matter where or who it is to….
If you don’t have enough self-respect to stand up for what you believe is right, that’s allowed, but don’t try to blow your horn about other people who aren’t…well, for lack of a better word, pussies.
Hi Rick, I can relate and accept your methodology of thinking. Certainly there are perks and pitfalls to every personality; this I can accept. I personally take a much more cautious approach to life to assess situations for whether a conflict is necessary or whether avoidance is a better approach. Unlike you, I only stick up for something if I feel it’s legally justified and after assessing the possible consequences to my own safety and well being.
No one is buried in Yasukuni, but anyone who died while serving in the Japanese armed forces (including Koreans, Chinese etc) have their souls enshrined there.
The controversy is about the convicted war criminals who were executed after the war. The right-wing nuts who run the temple (the Japanese government doesn’t control it) decided to enshrine them as well in 1969.
@everyone talking about the whole FLDR thing-
And people wonder why I want out despite all Shanghai has going for it. Perfect example right here.
我是保羅・約瑟夫・勃朗特，其中一個最大的電子承包商在美國，這裡Katy的得克薩斯。现在我朋友和我是您的太久的惡意網站文丐的受害者。 我要求您中止或我將亂砍您您與性交的共產主義信徒!
I appreciate the long suffering Chinese people. I am howeve disappointed that all you can produce are low level hackers and poor quality products.
Get a life. My servers, websites of my customers have been hacked for some reason by you people.
eat your cats and leave the USA alone.
Jteebs
Surely, if you went to primary or secondary school in US, Canada, Australia, you would realize that no matter how right you are in a situation, letting the teacher deal with the problem is always the orthodox and correct method.
In fact, it’s the opposite. Kids are taught to stand up for themselves and handle their problems on their own as much as they possibly can. Running to the teacher is frowned upon, and a lot of time the teachers themselves will ignore the complaint.
See, in the US we call this ‘being a tattle-tale’ and the kids who do it are relentlessly mocked, sometimes even by the authorities they reported to. The teachers aren’t always there to protect you, and if you piss off your classmates there will be repercussions.
Jayman, you’re absolotely correct. It is of course, frowned upon by other kids when one kid goes to a teacher to express his problems. The classroom culture may very much promote the opposite of what we are taught to do. However, letting the teacher deal with the problem is still more orthodox and correct method. Reason is, when you take things into your own hands, then the consequences become outside of your control.
@ YC:
Smart-alec responses? Like this one?
I’ll treat you with as much seriousness and civility as you afford others. An attempt to denigrate others by pre-emptly implying that you’re arguing on the basis of “rationality” whereas they are not is not a good way to earn other people’s respect. Insofar as you started off being rational and not insulting me, I very maturely complimented your observations but stated where I disagreed, without having to falsely assert a measure of intelligence like “rationality.” If you’re able to restrain yourself from making smart-alec remarks like the one above, I’ll do my best likewise. Can we agree on this?
Now, let’s see if you make any more smart-alec responses for me to make more smart-alec responses back at you:
Where did he say he was forcing someone not to smoke? He ASKED someone not to smoke per the rules of the premises. The physical altercation was a result of the man being an ass about it, not because FDLR was trying to FORCE him to NOT smoke. Your reimagining of his story maligns him as feeling entitled to physically force someone not to smoke. That is wrong of you. It may very well be what you suspect of FDLR but absent further information other than his version of the events, you’re still just presuming things and not arguing on the basis of fact. That is a logic fallacy.
If you seriously want to go to extreme moral-relativism, then our conversation is over. The fact of the matter is that BOTH of us are necessarily making certain assumptions based upon our own standards. That is the very nature of judgment. My main disagreement with you is you basing your judgment more on your assumptions than on the stated facts of the only story we have. Is it more logical and rational to judge a situation by the version of events given by a participant or by the imagined version of events given by a stranger reading the participant’s story on the internet? As I’ve repeated many times now, that you doubt FDLR is understandable, but it is excessive and rationally unwise for you to go on a crusade to malign him BASED upon your presumptions. Please confirm that you’ve read this and agree.
This is your assumption based upon your own standard, and that standard appears to be that men are extremely egotistical and arrogant in China, so preoccupied with “authority” and “face” that they will rarely ever oblige a stranger with a simple request. I disagree with that assumption and standard of your’s. In fact, I find it somewhat insulting to Chinese men and culture. Are we further to presume that anytime anyone asks a man to do something without having authority from the central government, that man is expected to publicly mobilize bystanders to teach me a lesson?
And have you never heard of fellow Chinese citizens admonishing each other to aspire to the harmonious and civilized culture that the government often plasters banners for at city intersections? Either your interactions with Chinese people, and men in particular, have been exceedingly limited to a group of egotistical liars or you’re being unreasonable in making your argument.
I again state that your assumption here and characterization of Chinese men’s insecurity with simple public requests is off-base and inaccurate. I fully grant this one person may have felt intimidated or embarrassed but I disagree vehemently with you that such a reaction is so common that FDLR should have expected it and considered it before making his request. That is the crux of your argument against FDLR and I find it wrong. Are you going to insist that your characterization of Chinese men is correct so as to defend your assertions against FDLR?
No, according to the record we have, you ARE wrong for assuming things. Why do you persist in assuming FDLR seized the smoker’s arm even after I have explained to you that 1) the record does not state that and 2) it is a common reflex action, albeit unintended by the clearly intimidated man. Again, if FDLR comes on says he touched the man first, fine, but until he does that and someone witness to the event testifies otherwise, we cannot assume a narrative that does not match the one given. There simply is no evidence to support your version of the story, so you need to stop using your contrived version to substantiate you maligning FDLR.
I stated I agree the force is disproportionate. More importantly, I stated why his background played into it. Whether it is liable for assault due to excessive force that goes beyond self-defense is up for a court of law to decide.
Insert “reasonable” between “the” and “possibility consequences.” It is unreasonable to assume that the smoker would have reacted the way he did and especially unreasonable for him to go to such lengths of lying to get FDLR in trouble. That he is so insecure and egotistical as to take a request by a foreigner to not smoking when the premises clearly indicate he is forbidden to smoke is not FDLR’s responsibility to consider, it is FDLR’s unfortunate luck to have met such an asshole.
The smoker’s reaction was pretty high up on the “worst-case scenario” meter. The only thing worse might be the guy immediately stabbing FDLR with a spoon before FDLR finished making his request. Given that, it is unreasonable for people to live life always expecting the worse. We could not function that way. We would NEVER do ANYTHING. FDLR’s expectations and considerations (as far as I can tell) were reasonable. They were reasonable EVEN in the social context of China. I think your interpretation of Chinese culture and the egos of Chinese men is unreasonable. Since that is a key foundation supporting your argument, we might have to agree to disagree. Those reading will either agree with you or they won’t. I’m one who doesn’t.
A reasonable person would also take into account whether or not smoking is expressly prohibited where one stands. In the West, smoking may be assumed to be prohibited due to government policies and the ubiquitous signs everywhere. While it is the reverse in China, that smoking is allowed unless otherwise stated, this is where the reasonable FOREIGNER checks if his request and expectation is permissible given his immediate surroundings. There was a no smoking sign. I see absolutely nothing reprehensible, wrong, or unreasonable with FDLR’s request. Had the man simply ignored him, I reckon FDLR would’ve opted to either ask management (as you suggest) or left (as you also now suggest). It was the man being an ass confronting FDLR (by standing up first) that resulted in the ensuing mess.
As others above have already stated, I have no problem with everyday people, including foreigners, expecting even the locals to obey their own rules. The concept of face does not always mean defensiveness. In order to save face, many locals acknowledge their mistake and correct it, at least in front of those that would look down upon them for such a mistake. Why do you think Beijing admonished everyone to stop spitting for the Olympics, even going as far as handing out plastic bags for the locals to spit in instead of on the streets? To save face. The rules were always there before, and as we both expect, they were rarely followed or enforced, but the promise of it being embarrassing to foreign guests compelled them to do enforce and try harder.
The concept of face does not dictate defensiveness and please don’t make Chinese men sound so insecure. This one guy was, not all of us are.
So FDLR should live in China with complete deference to the presumption and expectation that all Chinese men think any request by a foreigner is an assertion of foreign authority? Get real. I welcome this cross-pollination of standards and expectations. It’s one of the few things that’s going to help China develop and interact more effectively (for its OWN benefit) with the rest of the world. There are times to be deferential to your host’s customs and norms, but unlike you, I don’t think this was one of them, especially when the host’s own rules are being broken. You can assume FDLR was being rude or offensive, but its still just an assumption and it still does not absolve the smoker for his own, well, face-losing actions. What the smoker ended up doing is EMBARRASSING to me as a Chinese person.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Please don’t tell me this isn’t you being a smart-alec. I stated my opinion on the record we have. You’re welcome to argue what I said is hypothetical, but don’t just state it as if it was a given. If something is “hypothetical,” it would be the contrived revision of what happened that you’re basing your attack on FDLR. Please confirm that you’ve read this, then kindly respond appropriately, ideally without simply “assuming” you’re right, rational, or talking on “real terms.”
…And that is what you would do. I wouldn’t fault you for it. But I don’t fault FDLR for making his request. People in China, foreigners included, make requests of each other all the time. In the vast majority of instances, violence did not break out. FDLR’s case is, thankfully, an exception to the general rule. FDLR speaks Chinese, he felt comfortable and confident in his ability to speak the local language to make a request permissible by him due to the clear no smoking sign present. It was unreasonable for the man to have retorted the way he did, then stand up towards FDLR, and then unintentionally put his arm on FDLR. Surely, the smoker did not expect FDLR to have the background he did, and just as FDLR was unfortunate to meet a insecure bitch of a man who would lie through his teeth to exact revenge, the smoker was unfortunate to meet some guy who knew how to decisively subdue his opponent. Both the smoker and FDLR were unlucky to have met each other. Fortunately, the vast majority of people are not assholes like the smoker and not trained fighters like FDLR. Hence, the world continues spinning.
Please acknowledge that you’re making assumptions, and you’re making assumptions based upon your own personal standards just as we all necessarily do. Try not to invoke “rationality” as being on “your” side unless you can explain why anything I’ve said thus far is irrational. I extend you the courtesy of explaining why I disagree with your arguments. You can do likewise. You treat me with respect, and I will treat you with respect. We can discuss heatedly and passionately without snide, even if unintentional, proclamations like:
Can we agree to this?
@ YC:
You’re not being intellectually honest here. I will explain: You repeatedly insist on framing the event as FDLR forcing the man to not smoke. HE DID NOT DO ANY SUCH THING. He made a request. If my primary or secondary classmate was doing something wrong, I can say “please don’t do that, you’ll get in trouble” or “please don’t do that, it’s against the rules.”
The physical altercation was a result of the man standing up towards FDLR and then putting a hand on him. It was not FDLR making his request. Please stop misconstruing the record.
He did. What he doesn’t have to accept is you maligning him. I don’t have to accept you maligning him either.
I’m not surprised either, but I don’t live my life fearing that every Chinese man’s ego cannot handle me politely requesting that they not smoke when there’s a sign that says so. I may often be too lazy to give a shit and I’m a patient guy, but I have often made similar requests based upon similar expectations.
I wouldn’t blame him for considering it or NOT considering it. If he did, I’d even feel somewhat sad that his impression of China and Chinese men is that way. I’d be sad that the insecure nationalistic douchebags of China have seared such a horrid impression upon him. FDLR himself explained that his negative impression of Chinese people that often fuels his venting with intentional inflammatory anti-Chinese remarks here came from this incident. I think that’s a shame. I’m ashamed this one Chinese guy felt his dick was on the line over a cigarette.
One of the things the Chinese tried so hard to show the rest of the world, especially during the Olympics, is that we can be good hosts and we will sacrifice ourselves to treat our guests right. Of course, if you look at it negatively, its also a matter of face and pride to do so, but this one Chinese smoker was an ass.
I’m not surprised by his nationalistic sentiments, but I’m far more appalled by his expectations:
- that he can freely ignore the rules,
- that he can dismiss another person’s request on the basis of race,
- that people should take his side on the basis of race, etc.
…and actions:
- making offensive comments,
- lying through his teeth,
- trying to beat up another person, etc.
…than I was of FDLR’s expectations
- that someone can agree to not smoke according to the rules.
…and action:
- politely requesting that the smoker observe the rules.
Again, I agree FDLR was much more physically adept but hey, I think the smoker “started it.”
@ jayman:
As YC pointed out, that’s the classroom culture, but not the official position of the school and teachers. Of course, the school and teachers prefer that everyone just gets along just dandy and never cause any trouble, but if something serious happens, the teachers and school know it is their responsibility and they have the authority to deal with it, especially if it involves protecting the kids, often from each other or themselves.
Of course, no teacher or school wants the kids to report every single little dispute or problem the kid has, especially those they can handle on their own (or just blow over), but I think your characterization was off. The kids will relentlessly mock or despise the tattle-tales, but not necessarily the teachers, and the teachers in general will not persecute a child for doing so.
Western primary schools may teach “conflict management” or “conflict resolution” to help kids learn how to deal with problems via communication and compromise, but I wouldn’t say they actively teach kids “the opposite” of going to the teacher.
Kai,
you have a solid argument. I disagree with point five that you listed.
Let me revise the events in order:
1.) Fck asked the Chinese man not to smoke
2.) The Chinese man refused and asked Fck to go back to his own country
3.) Fck persisted and said ‘I’m sure you are literate and can read the sign’
4.) The Chinese man said ‘don’t touch me lao wai’ and proceeded to grab Fcks arm.
The core of the problem, without prolonging this debate to another five pages can be seen below. I believe it is important to take causation in chronological steps. I will start below with the Chinese man refusing to listen to Fcuks demands.
If a Chinese citizen is asked by a foreign man to not smoke in a non smoking area in a shopping centre in China, is it reasonable, on a balance of probabilities, to assume that:
The Chinese person will refuse and feel angry/intimidated that he is being asked to remove his cigarette by a visitor in his country whom has no legal authority to make such demands?
That the person would simply refuse?
That the Chinese person may not take it well that the person asking is white and not Chinese?
That the Chinese person would resort to racism?
Next, we consider what happens when Fcuk resorts to saying something along the lines of ‘I believe you are literate and can read the sign, etc”
Is it then reasonable on a balance of probabilities, that a person would refuse a second time if asked a question worded in the manner was given after the initial refusal?
Next, regardless of whether we take my assumption or not, you agree the Chinese man at least felt that Fcuk was going to take the cigarette away from him. So he grabbed his arm.
Is it a reasonable response for a Chinese man, who feels that they are going to have their property taken from them to restrain the other person by holding their arm? I would argue strongly that the answer is yes. Or at the very least there is a 50% chance.
Now, I find this story inconceivable because for the Chinese man to grab Fcuk’s arm, he would need to be within arms distance. I doubt the Chinese person was sitting on the exact same table. However, I’ll agree with you and give Fkuk the benefit of the doubt. Despite what you say however, this is the core issue in this scenario.
Only lastly, would you then consider whether lying to get fcuk in trouble was reasonable. The fact he almost got his ass completely kicked and cigarette seized would indicate to me that it is more than likely that he would have resorted to lying to get what he wants.
In the end, it is a foreseeable consequence that regardless of who is right or wrong, that making demands of an aggravated man who is racist and who probably made it clear that he wasn’t going to listen, would lead to consequences or costs whether in the form of violence or not.
This was not the case of a man reacting violently and lying straight away to being asked not to smoke. This was a clear case of a Chinese man showing that he didn’t like being told by a Caucasian man and using derogatory remarks. Sure you may even argue that most Chinese citizens aren’t racist, but if you live in China long enough you know that’s not the case. At the very least it’s a 50/50 thing.
It is also foreseeable that there would be possible consequences of continually persisting to bother what Fcuk “then knew” to be rude and racist Chinese man in his country?
It is also foreseeable that a rational man would grab someone’s arm if they felt that they were vulnerable to being hit or having something taken from them?
Lastly, it is foreseeable that a Chinese man who was almost beaten up by a westerner would play the race card or at least lie to get revenge?
It was not the Chinese person holding Fcuk’s arm (whether to defend himself or not) that caused the resulting mess, it was Fcuk’s lightning fast reflexes that clearly humiliated the man. Thus causing the Chinese man to play the race card
Kai, it is of course UNREASONABLE to assume that a foreigner asking someone to not smoke in a non-smoking area would result in the foreigner getting beaten up or arrested. I have no dispute with you there.
However, on other grounds:
It is foreseeable however that a Chinese person may not agree to listen to the foreigners .
It is foreseeable that a Chinese person may feel threatened or intimidated by the foreigner.
It is foreseeable that a Chinese person may want to save face due to the above reasons.
It is foreseeable that a PERSON would hold another person’s arm in self defense.
It is not foreseeable to the Chinese person that a stranger is a trained law enforcer/professional fighter/bouncer with lightning fast reflexes.
It is foreseeable that after being beaten up that he would lie and play the race card to get his revenge.
So I once again, I assert my opinion that Fcuk could have handled the situation much better if he took all the above into consideration.
why are we even trying to to rationalise anything that fcuk do or say?
imo, all this analysis is stupid and pointless.
There is only really one golden rule to follow in such situations: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. if no locals are asking this person to stop then a visitor is in even a less a position to do so.
this fcuk bloke obviously thought he was better than everyone else, coming from a ‘civilized nation’ and tried to act all self-righteous on a local. the truth of the matter is, he probably did it for an ego boost rather than in the common interest of society. too bad he didn’t realise he wasn’t in in kansas anymore and, like most ego trips, it backfired on him.
When it comes to annoying public smokers just have your girlfriend (if you have one) ask the smoker to stop. Women can get away with a lot:)
I hate the comment “when in Rome….” blah, blah, blah. Many times this just doesn’t, or won’t be allowed to, work for ‘laowai’ in China. We aren’t allowed to be lazy at our jobs! hehe
@ YC:
I do too. That’s why I don’t think it was fair of your to make assumptions unsupported by the only evidence/testimony we have and then use it to malign FDLR. I understand you feel you have cause to doubt his testimony or suspect a different set of events, but my gripe with you is that you were going beyond what you have cause for.
No, I do not feel it is reasonable to assume Chinese people are all so commonly insecure. Next, the foreigner does not need legal authority to make such demands, he has legal freedom to do so. Please stop trying to confuse the issue.
No, I never agreed that “the Chinese man at least felt Fcuk was going to take the cigarette away from him.” Please do not put words in my mouth. Please stop making conclusions based upon unfounded premises.
The rest of your questions are invalid and moot because you’ve built them all off the assumption that FDLR was going to take away his property. There is nothing in the given narrative to suggest that. It was a fabrication of your own mind. You’ve strayed from the “real terms” into an imaginary world. I am frustrated that I’ve cautioned you on doing that time and time again yet you persist.
This is not about giving the benefit of the doubt. This is about going what information we have. Recall in the narrative that FDLR said the Chinese man stood up towards him. How far apart were they initially? Neither of us know, but it would be safe to assume they were within close proximity for the smoke to bother FDLR, and for FDLR to speak directly to him. Maybe they were at tables/seats NEXT to each other. You can ask him. Either way, it still doesn’t change anything. Where are you going with this?
Didn’t you state you weren’t trying to justify what the smoker did?
I think what he did was understandable, but not reasonable. It was immature, insecure, malicious, and pretty damn underhanded. It is pathetic and embarrassing.
Sigh. Obviously FDLR did NOT assume the smoker was “an aggravated man who is a racist” and probably did nothing to “make it clear that he wasn’t going to listen.” WHERE in the narrative does it suggest that FDLR knew the man was 1) aggravated, 2) a racist, or 3) made it clear he wasn’t going to listen BEFORE FDLR made his request?
Nowhere. It is unreasonable and irrational for you to make that assumption that FDLR should have been aware of that judging by the only record we have.
Uh, no, this WAS a case of a man reacting violently. FDLR makes a request, he reacts by being racist and territorial. FDLR responds by pointing out the obvious. The smoker reacts by getting up to intimidate FDLR and when FDLR meets the challenge, the smoker makes first contact. The smoker elevated a reasonable commonplace situation into a volatile one.
Each person has the freedom to decide when they will stand up for their personal dignity regardless of which country they are in. Just because you wouldn’t doesn’t mean you’re wiser or those that do are unwise. It is a personal decision and while you insist your way is prudent, others would say that sometimes people need to stand up for themselves. Please avoid moralizing your preference.
YC, I was the one who suggested that the smoker felt vulnerable and reached out to stop FDLR’s arm as a reflex action. It doesn’t change the fact that the smoker stood up towards FDLR first and made first contact. It is reasonable to believe FDLR reacted to the contact by subduing a potential adversary that initiated the confrontation by standing up against him. Please STOP trying to suggest that FDLR was going to take something away from him. You’ve done that so many times now.
Are these statements or questions? It is foreseeable seeing an insecure and pathetic Chinese man resorting to such measures. The problem with you is that you’re assuming FDLR should’ve known the smoker was an insecure and pathetic Chinese man who would resort to doing such things over smoking a cigarette in an area he was clearly not supposed to smoke in. I do not think it is reasonable to expect FDLR to have pre-emptively judged and concluded all these terrible things of the smoker he has never met before. It is further unreasonable to assume a person who says an offensive thing will automatically resort to the depths of instigating mob violence and lying to the police to get revenge. Why do you think an argument with a Chinese person will result in what the smoker did to FDLR? Why do you think foreigners should assume that of Chinese men? This is ridiculous.
No. It is conceivable, not foreseeable. It is much less reasonable and acceptable.
Again, I disagree with you that FDLR should have assumed all of this and thus made the decision YOU personally would have. Let’s just say FDLR might have had more faith in his common man than you did and what happened was an unfortunate but thankfully rare thing in the vast majority of interpersonal interactions between Chinese men and foreign men. I’m really sorry you have such a cynical view of not just Chinese men but of the inherent dangers of making simple requests like “please don’t smoke” when in a “no smoking” area.
We’re going in circles. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere and I’d rather not repeat myself endlessly. No one is stopping you from making the decisions you would make, nor is anyone saying you would be wrong in considering the things you would consider. However, the lengths of presumption and intentional mischaracterization you’ve made in pursuit of rationalizing your opinion ostensibly in an attempt to delegitimize my opposition to it as being unreasonable and, at times, irrational, leaves much to be desired. While I think FDLR’s reaction was clearly embarrassing to the Chinese man and so one-sided in its definitiveness, I believe the Chinese smoker instigated it. He bit off more than he could chew, and I’m not sympathetic whatsoever to the abject depths he went to “save face.” Do not mischaracterize this as FDLR disrespecting Chinese culture or social norms. This was the Chinese smoker disrespecting and wronging another human being, FDLR. And for what? Because of smoking a cigarette when he knew he shouldn’t have?
I assert my opinion that FDLR simply met the wrong guy at the wrong time and that was unlucky of him.
Having gone through American public schools myself, and after spending some time looking around the internet… I stand by my statements.
It is institutionalized. Whether it’s laziness, bad day, or simply trying to teach kids to deal with things themselves… as long as it doesn’t violate the so-called 3 B’s (blood, barf, body) it is not tolerated.
Kai, I can see your in your reply that you have failed to grasp what I mean by analyzing the scenario chronologically.
In case you missed it the first time, the scenario wasn’t a case where a Chinese person lied and violently reacted to being asked to remove his cigarette.
It was a chronological sequence of events that resulted in Fcuk putting the Chinese man into a position of submission.
I’ve tried to be as precise as I can with what is foreseeable on a balance of probabilities. Perhaps you fail to grasp what is meant by a balance of probabilities however on civil matters, more than 50% chance that something may occur is considered reasonable.
At the stage where the Chinese man refused said to Fcuk to mind his own business and go back to his own country, then FDLR COULD assume then that he was racist. At that stage, he could have taken different measures to handle the situation.
Instead, he decided to further aggravate the situation by demanding the Chinese man look at the sign and conceive the fact that he was wrong and that he should listen to what Fcuk had to say.
Kai, Samael has put it way easier than I could have ever put it with in depth analysis. I think it’s time for you to accept that there were better ways of handling a situation than a foreigner making demands of a local in a quasi-racist society to do something which he clearly did not want to.
I stopped reading this thread about half way through becuase, well, it was boring me.
KAI thanks for trying to defend me though I will say this. In the end, I just wish I would have left when the smoking annoyed me. I did not act in self RIGHTEOUSNESS. I acted in annoyance, and I did not do it out of my need to a “WHITE Authority”. I am actually mixed blood for all you wondering.
YC is typical apologist trying to make excuses as to why China is allowed to have what even Chinese deem to be unacceptable behavior. And for your info, I have seen people tell other people to get back in line when they cut, or tell them to “xian shang, hou xia” on the subway so please don’t give me the mind your own business excuse. I have also seen them fist fight over plastic chairs.
For clarification, I was very polite the first time I spoke to the man in the place. Not drawing attention to him. I did put my hand on his shoulder to get his attention as he was not facing me which prompted the “don’t touch me lao wai” which he shouted to get the attention of his fellow “comrades”
The funniest part of the whole story was when the police came and he told them also that I “punched” his wife, she said nothing but looked shamefully at the ground.
YC is only right in one aspect. i am a foreigner in China and my opinions, right or wrong don’t mean squat. It doesn’t matter what i do in China good or bad, I am and will always be a “FOREIGNER” and always be wrong when it comes to confrontations or disputes with Chinese.
Now in regards to the physical contact with that guy I agree the sweep was a bit much, but again, I didn’t think I just reacted to a hostile person grabbing me. (I have and would do the same had it been a black, green, or any other kind of person).
Notice I did assess the situation afterwards and tried to make an exit, however that didn’t work out.
YC, you can try to come up with a logical conclusion to prove me wrong here but that is a slippery slope as it does not alliviate the several instances of wrong doing by that guy which include; lying, escalation of physical violence, breaking of that institutions rules, and my favorite COWARDICE.
I’m not going to try to argue with you, you are just a typical apologist in as much as I am just a typical crybaby blog troll.
Kai, I can understand your obsession with being objective. However, to the ordinary person, this is clearly a case where things could have been handled better. This is what this entire post is based on. Do you, yourself, not agree that this is the case?
Could Fcuk have said to the man ’sorry but I’m sensitive to smoke, can you please not do it?’ or asked it in a more sensitive way?
Could Fcuk not have complained to management?
Could Fcuk not have continued to pester and make more demands after the man initially aggressively refused?
Could Fcuk have moved after that racially prejudiced attack?
Hi Fcuk, nice to see you here. I like your reply. What I don’t get is what triggered you to sweep him if you were the one touching him?
You see Fcuk, I wasn’t trying to prove that what the Chinese man did was right. Nor am I saying what you did was wrong. What I’m simply saying is that there was a better way to solve the situation.
I quote you:
YC is only right in one aspect. i am a foreigner in China and my opinions, right or wrong don’t mean squat. It doesn’t matter what i do in China good or bad, I am and will always be a “FOREIGNER” and always be wrong when it comes to confrontations or disputes with Chinese.
Now, it is very difficult for me to make a statement like this without getting my a$$ whooped by Kai for making unsupported assertions. So it’s good you pointed this out, rather than me.
Perhaps it took this experience for you to work this out. Something that I have always known about Chinese culture. My point is and always has been to assess a situation rationally before making any move whether it is legal/illegal, moral/immoral, period.
YC,
Yeah Kai tends to tear us new feces dispensing areas in our arguements (did that make sense?).
Well, I would like to say that this incident propelled me into a logical, rational thinking person who makes correct judgements on all occaisions, but more likely is there is bit of bitterness that compounds to the already existing angst inside me.
Obviously if I have the background I say I have (martial arts, bouncer, etc..) I have some issues with confidence and authority and am more prone to want to solve issues with a left kick to the head as opposed trying to rationalize things or just walk away.
Another reason I have found, as I stated above that rationalizing with most Chinese fails in situation that are not controlled and/or with someone you know as it often turns into “you don’t get it, you are a foreinger”
I wasn’t holding his shoulder btw, I tapped his shoulder, and not in a poke or aggresive way. He was sitting with his back to me. It didn’t escalate until he brushed me off with “its my country”. I then pointed to the sign and said “I know you can’t read, but there is a picture” which I am sure is why he stood up and said “dont touch me” (referring to the tap on the shoulder).
Yes I think under most circumstances i would walk away. Sometimes though, you have just had enough. You have had enough of people telling you you are a “lao wai” or trying to run you in circles in a cab, or telling you another price when the person in front of you just paid less for the same thing I could go on and on but the point is, sometimes you are just tired and you want to say something or better yet thrash someone :)
Look 99% of the time I just ignore it, that was a strange situation to begin with, could I have handled it better, of course, but I still don’t think that excuses that man’s actions.
BTW, sorry I have been gone for so long, I actually have to work these days, IT SUCKS LOL
I normally don’t chime in too much, but I just wanted to agree with something fcuk said:
“Sometimes though, you have just had enough. You have had enough of people telling you you are a “lao wai” or trying to run you in circles in a cab, or telling you another price when the person in front of you just paid less for the same thing I could go on and on but the point is, sometimes you are just tired and you want to say something or better yet thrash someone :)”
Except for the thrashing part, I agree completely. This is the foreigner experience in China. Most of the time, it’s pretty easy to ignore the little things, and even take pleasure in a “wow, we are so different, how interesting!” kind of way. Sometimes, though, on the wrong day, with the wrong person, in the wrong situation, it’s easy to just say “I’ve had it!” and blow up on someone. To those of you who haven’t, try living in a different culture some time, it’s a challenge.
I actually went through one of these today, which is why what he said made me want to chime in.
Back to work. Also agreed that that sucks lol.
living in a foreigner country, it is not easy. sometimes one little small thing can make me super angry. but after a while i really can understand myself better and all the difficult situations taught me more than i thought. actually i really appreciate.
whatever chinese,American,African, we are all different, i love the variety of the culture. why china have to be the same like US, why chinese have to behave like western. it will be so boring if everywhere is the same.
@ YC:
You cannot arbitrarily choose WHEN the chronological “order” begins. Everything that happened PRIOR to FDLR putting the smoker into a position of submission is directly related and relevant. The smoker found himself in a position of submission precisely BECAUSE he stood up towards FDLR first and put his hand on FDLR first. Don’t arbitrarily excise that to suit your interpretation of events or causation.
You HAVE been precise, but you’ve been PRECISE in repeatedly employing red herrings and straw man arguments. Surely all those psychological books you read discuss rhetoric and logical fallacies, right?
Your 50% chance is YOUR presumption. Please do not now attempt to treat it as a given fact. It is not and no one agreed to it. Your continued arguments are intellectually dishonest each and every time you build your house of cards on previously unsubstantiated or debunked premises and conclusions.
We KNOW FDLR could’ve done something different but no one is arguing about a plurality of options, we are arguing about the reasonableness of his actions. You have, at various points, argued that FDLR should not have asked the man to not smoke. Now, you’ve revised to saying he should not have reasoned with the man after the man retorted by telling FDLR to go back to his own country.
WHY NOT?
Why NOT reason? It is FDLR’s prerogative to either walk away or try to reason with the man, especially when he has the EXPLICIT support of the premises in the form of a clearly placed NO SMOKING sign. FDLR did not assume any authority beyond being a fellow patron and human being when requesting or reasoning. It was the smoker who behaved unreasonably through and through, HOWEVER understandably it is to you now that you EX POST FACTO know him to be a racist lunatic.
You talk about chronological order and rationality but your argument and sense of moral contempt towards FDLR is premised upon EX POST FACTO information. Even if FDLR knew the smoker was a racist after the smoker’s first retort, how was FDLR supposed to know the man was going to become physical and, what more, go to such ridiculous shameless lengths to get revenge?
Again, blame him all you want for not “foreseeing” that this Chinese stranger was a racist lunatic, but it is NOT rational for him to have “foreseen” all that happened from a chronological cause-effect order, no matter HOW much you INSIST it is. Did he know the guy was going to give him a shit load of trouble after taking him down? Yes, probably at the point the guy opened his mouth and started beckoning reinforcements. However, there is NO scientific basis for YOU to claim there was an x% chance that the man would do that AND that FDLR “should’ve” known, MUCH LESS 50%. So please, DO NOT randomly fabricate statistical probabilities and then use them for your arguments.
LoL. I have always accepted that there are always better ways to handle a situation IN RETROSPECT, after one knows more information about the other person in the situation. It is time for YOU to accept that it is unreasonable for you to suggest FDLR should have seen the future, judged a STRANGER to be a racist lunatic, and THUS have chosen to handle the situation differently than he did. The ONLY thing you have on FDLR is that maybe he took the guy down too decisively, and that he could’ve just brushed off the man’s arm or something. His request and attempt to reason PRIOR to that were ENTIRELY reasonable decisions and actions EVEN for a foreigner in China.
@ YC:
Uh, are you admitting that you’ve been fabricating as you go?
This is you being intellectually dishonest. Your argument was that FDLR should’ve foreseen everything you now analyze in your comfy (or uncomfy) computer chair and made a better decision that would have resulted in less trouble for FDLR.
My argument was that it is unreasonable for you to expect him to have foreseen or expected all these things. Not once did I ever say anything to suggest that I, or any “ordinary person,” is incapable of identifying how they COULD HAVE (notice PAST TENSE) done things differently.
Yes, he COULD have, but he didn’t, AND he didn’t HAVE to. You only think he should’ve because you have the benefit of knowing what the smoker ended up doing. No one disagreed that he COULD, we disagreed on you saying he SHOULD HAVE.
OMFG. Are you seriously going to now argue that tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention is OBVIOUSLY some sort of “physical aggression” in “quasi-racist” China?
Hi Kai, more or less this argument is futile. Fcuk has explained clearly that he tapped the Chinese man on the shoulder first which made the Chinese man grab Fcuks arm, in response Fcuk instinctively put the Chinese man into submission.
I think more or less Fcuk, teacher in China, and Samael agree with me. You are making less logical sense with every post. Perhaps your command of the English language is more limited than I thought. To avoid you claiming that this is a directly insulting remark and nothing else, let me tell you why I say this.
1.) You mention that I arbitrarily use causation chronologically to suit my argument.
This is false, I simply stated that the incident consisted of a few exchanges of words and physical contact. After each incident happened, there was a chance for both parties to consider what was said and whether there was an alternative cause of action. Are you disputing this? It seems you are arguing about semantics that aren’t there.
2.) You keep saying that I am making assumptions based on information that was not present. In my analysis I explained myself using the information that was given while questioning the facts. I mentioned BOTH, so don’t make it sound like I didn’t. There’s no reason for you to escalate your argument by claiming that I’m basing it or inconsistent information.
3.)
Your quote:
“You talk about chronological order and rationality but your argument and sense of moral contempt towards FDLR is premised upon EX POST FACTO information. Even if FDLR knew the smoker was a racist after the smoker’s first retort, how was FDLR supposed to know the man was going to become physical and, what more, go to such ridiculous shameless lengths to get revenge?”
Please stop mentioning that it was ex post facto information. Please understand that time is not static. At the stage where a simple request by Fcuk resorted into a reply such as ‘if you don’t like it, then go back to your own country’. I think it was more than reasonable to assume that he was racist. Fcuk did not need to know whether he was a lunatic or not. Furthermore the Chinese man was NOT a lunatic. He simply played the race card after getting his a$$ put into submission. Here you are making it seem like the Chinese man was getting physical, where it was in fact Fcuk touching the man’s arm and the instinctive response that he made when he was restrained that caused the problem.
You need to stop playing around with English words that you don’t understand. I’m sure you enjoy writing paragraphs of permutation and regurgitation of useless information but I’m not so happy to continually respond it over and over again.
@ FDLR:
Sorry about the new feces dispensing areas but I haven’t done that to you since we first met and then understood each other, which we reiterated at least twice. I’m sure more than a few people are confused as to why I’ve gone to such lengths to “defend” you, but I just thought YC’s suggestion that you should’ve known better than to “assume authority” by “making demands” about not smoking in a non-smoking area, even in China, was patently ridiculous. I liked how he then tried to argue that you ripped the cigarette out of the smoker’s mouth.
Wait, you didn’t, right?
LoL.
@ YC:
Anyway, this isn’t just about being objective, this was about you spewing bullshit (which is what fabricated and contrived premises/arguments are) and me calling you on it. As I said from the beginning, I thought your initial OBSERVATIONS were interesting and astute. The rest, not so much.
There you go again. Uh, hello, in between FDLR tapping the smoker on the shoulder (to get his attention) and the Chinese man grabbing FDLR’s arm was the two of them exchanging words, pointing to a sign, and the Chinese man FIRST standing up towards FDLR. I don’t think FDLR has said anything to change that sequence of events. What happened to your chronological order?
That you have the audacity to ask what you do in your points #1 and #2 suggests your grasp of the English language is probably worse than mine. But thanks for trying to substantiate your insult.
I never said time is static. WTF are you talking about? The basis of your continued argument with me is that FDLR should’ve anticipated/foreseen that the man was a racist lunatic that would go to the depths that he would. The smoker told him to go back to his own country. Okay, so FDLR can tell he’s a racist, but is it REASONABLE for FDLR to have extrapolated from that racist comment that the man would later try to get other Chinese to beat up FDLR and then claim to the police that FDLR “punched” his wife?
IS IT?
No. Hence, your argument fails.
Sorry, I think trying to get your fellow race to beat up the foreigner and then lying through your teeth to the police is being a lunatic. Maybe you disagree. To me, playing the race card is just involving race in an argument. Lying through your teeth to the police is not “playing the race card” though it may involve it.
I didn’t make it SEEM, I am repeating the sequence of events as given to us by FDLR. YOU’RE the one who is trying to say FDLR tapping the guy on the shoulder at the BEGINNING of the conversation is some sort of physical aggression on FDLR’s part.
So I reckon pointing out the whole difference between “could” and “should” touched a sore point with you?
LoL, you are FREE to stop responding at any time you choose. OR you can continue substituting legitimate arguments based upon factual record with insults against my English. Your choice. I’m having a blast either way.
Hahahahaha, Kai, you can be funny. It’s interesting how you actually try and nitpick on every minor detail that you can while being so inept at understand the words you are using.
The funny thing is, if I went to all the extremes of nitpicking that you have. I would be spending hours on this site to come up with a thesis of how you are incorrect. This is not what I intend to do. But for the fun of it, I will nitpick a little for the purposes of showing you how myopic you are to the whole matter.
Do you understand the word objective means ‘to an ordinary person’ and subjective refers to ‘the actual person’?
I have no basis to make my assumptions of Fcuk except that he was an ordinary or rational person. A person that should have taken into account the consequences of his actions. Don’t play around with the word ‘objective’ if you have no idea what it actually means.
Anyway, too hungry to write anymore for now, I’m going to grab some food to eat :P
Kai, stop being an imbecline: READ before typing:
I did put my hand on his shoulder to get his attention as he was not facing me which prompted the “don’t touch me lao wai” which he shouted to get the attention of his fellow “comrades”
In the original events described:
His reply “this is my country, Ill smoke where I want, if you dont like it go home”. To this I countered (in Chinese) “i realize you are literate, but I am sure you can see the sign” (pointing to the sign). At this point he stood up, I stood up and he said “dont touch me lao wai” and then proceeded to grab my arm.
Clearly he said ‘dont touch me lao wai’ after Fcuk pointed at the sign. So PLEASE THINK before you write. It’s not that difficult but stops you from sounding like an idiot.
Please also stop trying to catch me out of place, you’re more likely to screw yourself over more.
My comment about time not being static is a satirical way of mocking your inability to comprehend what is being written.
Do you understand that the sequence of events was:
1.) Fcuk asking the guy not to smoke
2.) The Chinese man responding this is my country, Ill smoke where I want, if you dont like it go home”.
3.) Fcuk saying ‘I realise that you are literate but im sure you can see the sign’
4.) NOW CLARIFIED (SEE ABOVE) TOUCHING HIM ON THE SHOULDER
5.) The Chinese man said don’t touch me lao wai and proceeded to grab his arm.
6.) Fcuk putting the man into submission.
What part did you not understand that there was a chance for Fcuk to not go through with the sequence as it stands and make an better assessment as he is being given more information of the character of the Chinese man? Do you understand that these events were dynamic rather than inseparable?
*sigh….. ^^”
@ YC:
LoL, you “imbecile,” did you fail to read the following?
You make it easy.
And your tangent about objective and subjective was retarded for the sorry attempt at taking it out of context. But go ahead and keep trying to fall back on insulting my English. I only need to point at your own idiocy to retort. Easier that way for me.
What are you responding to here? Did I somewhere say FDLR pointed at the sign before the smoker said “don’t touch me lao wai?” I recall I was laughing at you for suggesting that FDLR’s tap on the shoulder was FDLR’s physical aggression.
LoL, I can only catch you “out of place” when you’re actually “out of place.”
quoting you:
I didn’t make it SEEM, I am repeating the sequence of events as given to us by FDLR. YOU’RE the one who is trying to say FDLR tapping the guy on the shoulder at the BEGINNING of the conversation is some sort of physical aggression on FDLR’s part.
There you go again. Uh, hello, in between FDLR tapping the smoker on the shoulder (to get his attention) and the Chinese man grabbing FDLR’s arm was the two of them exchanging words, pointing to a sign, and the Chinese man FIRST standing up towards FDLR. I don’t think FDLR has said anything to change that sequence of events. What happened to your chronological order?
Read above CORRECT sequence of events, I think your misinterpretation cost you this debate. Sorry.
Gentlemen,
Stop this nonsense. There is so much logic flying back and forth I can’t keep up.
Hey I politely and softly tapped the guy, it was not a threatening gesture, his and my nightmare started when he stood up and grabbed me.
Anyway, Kai, Im just illustrating your great ability to make people see the error of their racist ways (me) lol. Actually I already am quite self aware about that problem and have learned to embrace my inner angry child.
YC, I get what you were trying to say and I somewhat agree with you on some points, and in some I dont. Let’s just leave it at that. In the end regardless of the sum of all actions that day is the first real time I felt that Chinese were a part of the larger organism CHINA that does not really like my half asian/white ass. And the bottom line no matter how you try to defend it is that Chinese do not like FOREIGNERS, nor do they want us here. (Maybe not outright aggressively, but there is a small part of them that wishes we would just get back on our little boats and go home).
Anyway, I never thought I would be breaking up a scuffle of two such great minds!! Look guys, if I hated it here I would go home, which may in the end happen. But for now I have chosen, just as Teacher in China has to endure the barrage of CHINA. Love it, hate it, its like an abusive spouse, you just keep coming back hoping they will change hahah. (that was a great white trash example)
Someday, when you guys are ready I will tell you some more stories…. but if that one causes such an uproar I better not tell you my fight at the massage parlor (not a brothel) with 6 peasants and a fire extinguisher LOL
For the purposes of a well rounded written submission next time, please ensure you analyse what is written in it’s entirety before making a comment. While you’re purpose is to debate for Fcuk, it’s still necessary to consider the submissions the opponent may write. In this case you failed to read the facts clearly and the penalty is losing this debate.
It’s not that bad not getting your way on an online forum. Even if you do manage to write more and win the majority of your disputes here. Losing once in a while is perfectly fine.
@ YC:
LOL! Wow, you make it SO EASY:
I thought #4, where FDLR “tapped” the smoker on the shoulder because the man was not facing him, occurred before #1, asking the smoker to stop smoking. Here is FDLR’s words:
As I read it now, I can see ambiguity so I’ll let FDLR clarify the sequence of events. My interpretation was of him tapping the man to get his attention at the beginning when he wanted to ask the man to stop smoking. You interpreted it differently. I could be wrong, or you could be wrong. If you’re wrong, well, you’re wrong.
If I’m wrong, then I would grant that it is conceivable that the smoker interpreted the hand as FDLR first being physically aggressive, even if FDLR did not intend so. Even so, it would not change the fact that I think your argument, that FDLR should’ve known the guy was a racist lunatic and thus made different decisions in the first place, is unreasonable.
But hey, I’m willing to give you a brownie point if that makes you feel better. I have no qualms about making a mistake and owning up to it on this point. It is irrelevant to my opinion about your argument.
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 but I didn’t really expect Kai to hop into the band wagon.
Arguing on technicalities is fairly difficult without a set objective adjudicator to decide on a winner. It’s much different to law school, where there is actually a correct doctrine of approaching problems based on the rules of law that are set out by precedent. Arguing what reasonable foreseeability, objective, subjective, balance of probabilities, legal and factual causation is a long and winded process. I simply can’t bring myself to explain this to Kai and showing how effective such an analysis is to a scenario such as the one you explained. Even without explaining the legal terms and theory, it would take me at least three thousand words to give a correct analysis as well as spending a day to ensure that it is very difficult to pick apart. Not to mention it would futile to use this analysis unless the other person had some background in law.
In essence, I found you to be very reasonable person. I’m actually surprised that you were so reasonable in your responses. To the extent that I actually agree with most, if not all that you have said. The simple message (despite the intent to scrutinize you a little :P), was to say that it’s not a good idea for a white guy to tell a Chinese guy what to do in China. Even less so, if the Chinese man can be seen to be a racist and uncivilized person.
OK FOR CLARITY:
1. Dude smoking (not facing me sitting back to back)
2. Tapped politely on the shoulder
3. Asked him could you not smoke over here
4. He responds (FCUK LAO WAI REN my country)
5. I Pointed (no touching him) explaining he cant read but can see sign
6. He stood up (angered probably by the comment saying “don’t eat my tofu
7 I stood
8. He grabbed, then was tossed
Is that clear enough I can take pictures in sequence if not
@ YC:
Wow, did you just “call” the “debate?”
Wow, that’s so cute. LoL.
Wait, are you doing a victory dance?
Like you, I’m going to dinner too. I’ll be sure to check back afterward and see if I have to award you the brownie point. Just don’t forget, I still think your argument is unreasonable bullshit. ;) You’re free to feel the same way about mine. We both suspect that FDLR is flattered by the attention and most everyone else thinks we’re having a pissing contest. ;) Till then, cheers.
Kai,
>>It is irrelevant to my opinion about your argument.<<
It’s completely relevant. The fact the event occurred after the words had been exchanged, show clearly that it was an event that could and should have been avoided by a reasonable person. It’s the only way things could make sense. Otherwise, Fcuk would also have to explain what caused him to put the Chinese man into submission.
YC, I hear you and could sense the bit of sarcasm as well. Kai is great guy too, I think you guys would actually be good friends.
I think we should all invest more time in systematically unravelling Chinese on these forums personally, but even that is time consuming and not that rewarding because in the end we still lose.
I used to trash people on local news forum, until they finally just stop posting my comments lol. I did test them though by posting under a different name and some glorious comments about the motherland and trashing the US, those got up there just fine.
Anyway, I look forward to some serious future banter. I am in some respects having a renewed look on China since leaving Shanghai, which makes me think that a lot of these traits might be Shanghainese as oppossed to all Chimatrons. But then again, its love/hate and we shall see.
I’m off to work out my aggressions in the gym. I’ll catch you two later. Keep it real
To Kai,
I do think it’s futile to discuss this matter any further. Any readers of this forum are free to make their judgments and comments about what we have discussed.
In essence, if you read my reply to Fcuk, you will find what I’m trying to get across.
I don’t feel its necessary to prolong this debate any further. My sarcastic remark about time not being static and further explanation has not elicited a response on your behalf. I assume it’s because you either you still don’t understand or you are ignoring it because you can’t find a response.
I still feel that between stage 1-7 that Fcuk has listed, somewhere along the lines of stage 4-5, this whole scenario could have been avoided. That stage 4 is a foreseeable consequence of stage 1.
Feel free to disagree but try and understand that the Chinese man was not a lunatic. He reacted to being put into submission. That this occurred after Fcuk had a chance to reconsider his course of action.
However, let me point out that many readers of this forum have agreed that it is unwise for a foreigner to make demands about a Chinese person in China, regardless of who is right or wrong. Fcuk also now understands this. From the comments he has left, it is even probable that he did what he did because he felt enough was enough. I’m not condemning anyone for their actions. I simply feel that there was a better course of action.
@ YC:
*burp* I’m back.
Not to mention it would futile to use this analysis unless the other person had some background in law.
You know nothing about me. I hate to whip out my penis and have a cock-fight with you, but your egotistical idiocy compels me: I studied law and graduated from Berkeley. Why do you think I’m such an argumentative prat? Because I have the horrid predisposition and training that fostered it.
Do you need references? Or are you mature enough to set aside your presumptive proclamations of how you read psychology books and somehow have a better background in law than I do, a person you know nothing about? I mean, how egotistical must you be to repetitively ASSERT, and largely ONLY assert, that you’re right or more intelligent? Disgusting.
That said, FDLR corroborated MY interpretation of the sequence of events. Therefore, you saying…
…is you yet again being a presumptive ass, presuming you have a monopoly on the truth, and that only your interpretation could possibly be right. I, on the other hand, had another entirely logical interpretation, yet humbly reviewed the record, acknowledged ambiguity, acknowledged that I could be wrong, and allowed FDLR to clarify. In the end, I was vindicated, and you, with all your insults of my English, were wrong.
No brownie point for you.
And yes, whether he tapped the smoker before #1 or afterward IS actually irrelevant to “my opinion of your argument.” Why? Because my opinion is:
I still think you criticizing FDLR, for not anticipating or “foreseeing” all of these things, as being unreasonable. I don’t give a shit if “many readers of this forum have agreed that it is unwise for a foreigner…” because I never argued that it IS wise. I argued that it is NOT unreasonable for a foreigner to ask or consider asking a Chinese person in China to kindly not smoke in an area with a clearly visible non-smoking sign. If you want to prove my opinion wrong, you have to prove why it IS unreasonable for a foreigner to do so.
Other parts of my “opinion” of your arguments also include:
I still think it was intellectually dishonest of you to fabricate or make presumptions of FDLR’s narrative to fit your criticisms against him.
…and…
I still think your tit-for-tat arguments against me for disagreeing with you have more empty proclamations and assumption of truth than substantive rhetoric.
BTW, if I ignored your “time is static” comment, it is because it is worthless to me. If you demand that I tear apart every phrase you type out, I welcome you to take the first step and start with my comment about you “repeatedly employing red herrings and straw man arguments.” Don’t assume you’ve confounded me just because I opt not to respond to everything you write. That is again you being far too egotistical, just like when you assumed you were right and assumed you won the “debate.”
Now, you’ve begrudgingly revised your argument as you’ve had to, sometimes with extra prodding on my behalf, but you have! Whereas you once condemned him, you now retract it and take a much less prescriptive position. That’s good. Congratulations, I’m proud of you.
Now all you need to do is let go of your cock for a moment and shut the fuck up about what you do not know, the least of which is what you THINK you know about me and my background. CHEERS.
Kai, I would appreciate that you don’t put words into my mouth. I said that it would pointless to discuss legal approach to problem solving to a person without a law background. I didn’t say that you didn’t. However based on on your inability to understand causation and foreseeability, I believe I made an accurate assumption.
I’ve never said it was unreasonable for a foreigner to ask a local person not to smoke, I said there was a better way of solving the problem. I said that he could have handled the situation better. Again, don’t put words into my mouth.
Please, reread my first post:
I think you should not ignore the fact that you misassessed the situation and overestimated your own ability. It was your own culturally insensitivity or for a better word, tolerance, that got you into your mess.
I don’t retract this statement. I still believe that after assessing the situation in it’s cultural context, a better solution could have been found. You have this tendency to make assumptions based on your own distorted comprehension.
“repeatedly employing red herrings and straw man arguments.”
I believe you are referring to yourself here. Refusing to discuss an issue of paramount importance such as the fact that these events happened in order and that he had time to change his mind at any time. is an prime example of a red herring argument.
I made my analysis on the correct facts while questioning them in the process. In subsequent replies this is obvious. You seem to be ignoring this. A prime example in fact of a straw man argument.
Also Kai, hope that I don’t offend this question but what is the difference between intellectual dishonesty and dishonesty ^^?
@ YC:
Okay, whatever, we’ll let others decide whether I’ve put words in your mouth or not. I feel you’ve been disingenuous throughout this discussion, but that’s just my opinion. Others can decide for themselves if they’re even bothering to read.
That’s right, you said…
…and then you insulted him with:
Do I need to continue?
Uh, no. You suggested a sequence of events unsupported by the record. I pointed that out to you. You insisted your interpretation was correct and it was the ONLY way things would make sense. I said it was not. FDLR came in and said I was right about the sequence of events and you were wrong. Somewhere in there, you said “time is static” which I did not respond to because they were empty words. And then you seize me ignoring those words and interpret that as a red herring?
YOU harping on the “time is static” phrase as if it is going to save your dignity is the red herring aka DISTRACTION FROM THE MAIN ISSUE that YOU were WRONG about the sequence of events. LOOK UP A DICTIONARY.
Whether or not I give a shit to respond to “time is static” has nothing to do with the main fact that YOU were PROVEN WRONG about YOUR interpretation of the sequence of events and I was right, despite you gloating about how you were “right” ABSENT proof.
The straw man arguments (again, look it up) refer to you fabricating events such as FDLR grabbing the cigarette out of the smoker’s mouth and then maligning FDLR him with them.
You made your analysis on a combination of the facts, your own misinterpretation of those facts, and your own IMAGINATION. You built your arguments at length upon that analysis. Hence why your subsequent arguments spiraled into abject idiocy. It was I who repeatedly asked you to go by the record, and not your presumptions. Did you listen? Not really.
Oh for the love of God.
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.
I’ll keep you to your word Kai, let the record speak for itself.
I understand your frustration of being unable to comprehend basic legal principals and artificially building your super-ego. I certainly hope my ‘Intellectual’ dishonesty hasn’t hurt you too much. LOL!
” Now let’s consider what was wrong with how you handled the situation:
…and then you insulted him with:
If you were more observant and humble”
Yes, you are trying to put words in my mouth again, I didn’t say that it was unreasonable to make his demands. However, what I did say was that there were mistakes in how he handled the situation including his lack of observation to Chinese culture and being humble.
Your command of English is appalling. I can’t believe that you still don’t understand what i meant by saying ‘time isn’t static’. I explained that to you, it was a satirical way of saying that the chain of events occurred chronologically. Glossing over the fact you don’t understand this IS a ‘red herring argument’.
You keep saying that I base my assumptions on made up facts.
This is INCORRECT, I based my assumptions on the correct sequence of events. I gave a section of my argument discussing what was logical under Fcuk’s inconsistent explanation of events in ADDITION to my original explanation based on the objective facts.
I’m glad you decided to decided to grace us with your absence. Increasing the use of the word ‘$hit, a$$, F$%$’ certainly doesn’t increase your credibility. Nor does it contribute to the civility of this discussion. Goodbye and good riddance.
Don’t you two guys have anything better to do with your time?
YEAH! how can you argue that China is hypocritical? We can do whatever we want to our people, as a government, the consequences don’t matter because they are Chinese. Other people shouldn’t care. Same as Rawanda, why should other governments step in to stop it? Tibet has been conquered by us Chinese, so we should be able to do what we want with them. They are of the people now. What Japan did to us was wrong because its a foreign government trying to impose their ideals on us Chinese!
@john chang
[QUOTE] Tibet has been conquered by us Chinese, so we should be able to do what we want with them. [/QUOTE]
the area where the japanese committed their atrocities were conqured by japan at the the time. thus they could do whatever they wanted. nothing wrong with that.
T_T omg kai how do u do ur pro quote squares?!!?!?!?
whaaa, I am amused you people have gone this far, typing must be very exciting.
@ Samael:
Use the “blockquote” HTML tag, not the “quote” tag typically associated with UBB forums.
I’m crossing my fingers that John Chang was being sarcastic.
Hi,
I’m Japanese. I must confess that I didn’t know the news that Yasukuni Shrine’s website was hacked until I saw this blog today. I regularly read China blog in Japan, and found nobody including right-wingers ever mentioned this news. The website of Yasukuni or other war-related stuff has been frequently attacked by Chinese, so this can hardly be any news in Japan.
I don’t agree with fireworks saying “I don’t think the Japanese will be standing still.” Some government’s website has often been attacked by Chinese hackers. So nobody cares about hacking-related news.
Most Japanese would think how rude, aggressive, and invading Chinese people are in nature if they knew this news. I don’t know. That’s my personal opinion.
@Rio, it would be silly to overgeneralize from this incident though.
The Chinese need to understand that these pple are war heroes by Japanese standards, they risked their lives to fight for Japan!
Izumo Yasugi which is the origin of yasukuni is angry to China.
@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”.
Before you jump all over me for a typo, I meant to say “Langdell” but apparently missed the D.
And “rational being” instead of ration.
This is why I try not to post when I’m angry.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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
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.
It’s not likely this was done by Americans. Most Americans don’t know the history between Chinese and Japanese people.
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….