• Japan mayor says wartime sex slaves necessary
    101 replies, posted
[QUOTE=James*;40644804]Please present to us your hierarchy of atrocities[/QUOTE] death is worse than rape a large number of deaths is worse than a small number of deaths a large number of rapes is worse than a small number of rapes so reasoning even qualitatively, we can see that if a small number of rapes prevents a large amount of deaths then that is the preferable option to the alternative.
how is the fear of a peasant woman more or less important than the fear of a city person?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40644947]how is the fear of a peasant woman more or less important than the fear of a city person?[/QUOTE] that was a rhetorical flourish, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a peasant or a city woman that gets raped
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40644962]that was a rhetorical flourish, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a peasant or a city woman that gets raped[/QUOTE] neither of them get raped, both live in fear of being raped because of the occupying army's policy regarding women. [editline]14th May 2013[/editline] or is their utility not lowered by living in constant terror?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40644945]if a small number of rapes prevents a large amount of deaths then that is the preferable option to the alternative.[/QUOTE] Maybe preferable but still not justifiable
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40644973]neither of them get raped, both live in fear of being raped because of the occupying army's policy regarding women. [editline]14th May 2013[/editline] or is their utility not lowered by living in constant terror?[/QUOTE] yes of course their fear is factored in but compared to actual rape it's a whole other thing plus you must treat both sides the same - if we accept the hypothesis that sex slavery reduces more violent war crimes (which is still unproven), then we also need to evaluate the terror of the people wondering whether they might be thrown onto a funeral pyre
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40643913]But not all Japanese troops had sex slaves, and indeed not all countries that committed war crimes had sex slaves. Conversely not all countries with sex slaves have committed war crimes. We need to take a more granular look, to see how the presence or absence of sex slaves within a group of soldiers contributes to their likelihood of committing war crimes.[/QUOTE] Minor hitch in your not all countries with military sex slaves have commited war crimes...considering sex slaves are often seen as a war crime in the first place. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40645006]yes of course their fear is factored in but compared to actual rape it's a whole other thing plus you must treat both sides the same - if we accept the hypothesis that sex slavery reduces more violent war crimes (which is still unproven), then we also need to evaluate the terror of the people wondering whether they might be thrown onto a funeral pyre[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that being forced into sex trafficking with fear and the use of force is in many criminal codes considered to be on par with rape, alternatively with sexual coercion, which generally carries very similar penalties. The you have to consider the fact that this was widespread practice, organised and to top it off, many of those women were trafficked across borders against their will more often than not. which consitutes a fairly serious crime as well.
[QUOTE=James*;40645002]Maybe preferable but still not justifiable[/QUOTE] it's war. war is all about making these kinds of moral tradeoffs. both options are horrifying but if you want to actually prevent as much evil as you can rather than make a self-indulgent show of [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=psychology-of-taboo-tradeoff]"oh you cannot trade evils against each other"[/url] sophistry, you have to learn to see evil not as one homogenous mass but a many-shaded thing. [editline]14th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;40645038]Minor hitch in your not all countries with military sex slaves have commited war crimes...considering sex slaves are often seen as a war crime in the first place.[/QUOTE] i've already responded to this and now that I think on it, it's also the noncentral fallacy.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40641378]It is possible to argue for it on utilitarian grounds[/QUOTE] which is why most people discredit utilitarianism
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40645042] i've already responded to this and now that I think on it, it's also the noncentral fallacy.[/QUOTE] Essentially what you're comparing here is organised war crimes versus essentially wild war crimes. Generally speaking the organised ones carry a much much worse offense. From a pure utilitaristic approach, many genocides should be allowed. As letting the ones who commit them run around commit the genocide might result in less deaths on all sides, and less terror than resisting and possible intervening. Same goes if you yourself are being invaded.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;40645097]Essentially what you're comparing here is organised war crimes versus essentially wild war crimes. Generally speaking the organised ones carry a much much worse offense. From a pure utilitaristic approach, many genocides should be allowed. As letting the ones who commit them run around commit the genocide might result in less deaths on all sides, and less terror than resisting and possible intervening. Same goes if you yourself are being invaded.[/QUOTE] Well yes that's kind of the point. All else equal, wars should end as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible. It is better for one side to destroy the other in a quick, decisive, devastating blow, than for there to be more moderate attacks from both sides, which drags on for longer and results in more misery. [I]Tender-handed, grasp the nettle, and it stings you for your pains. Grasp it like a man of mettle, and it soft as silk remains.[/I]
I wonder how the weeaboos who proclaim Japanese culture to be so much better than ours are going to rationalize this? [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40645158]Well yes that's kind of the point. All else equal, wars should end as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible. It is better for one side to destroy the other in a quick, decisive, devastating blow, than for there to be more moderate attacks from both sides, which drags on for longer and results in more misery. [I]Tender-handed, grasp the nettle, and it stings you for your pains. Grasp it like a man of mettle, and it soft as silk remains.[/I][/QUOTE] I guess this was Israel's thinking during the six day war. Have to admit, it was incredibly effective.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40645042]it's war. war is all about making these kinds of moral tradeoffs. both options are horrifying but if you want to actually prevent as much evil as you can rather than make a self-indulgent show of [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=psychology-of-taboo-tradeoff]"oh you cannot trade evils against each other"[/url] sophistry, you have to learn to see evil not as one homogenous mass but a many-shaded thing.[/QUOTE] Only if you believe evil is a quantifiable thing that can be subject to cost-benefit analysis You could argue raping 5 people to save the deaths of 10 is a greater evil than the deaths of 10, as both sides are committing evil acts rather than just the one
[QUOTE=James*;40645184]Only if you believe evil is a quantifiable thing that can be subject to cost benefit analysis You could argue raping 5 people to save the deaths of 10 is a greater evil than the deaths of 10, as both sides are committing evil acts rather than just the one[/QUOTE] Well then yes of course you could do that but then you're left with ridiculous results like being unable to choose between a person getting pricked on their finger vs an entire civilization being wiped out in nuclear hellfire. And we already implicitly reason this way anyway - when people complain about how donating a dollar to africa will do more good than spending it here in the West, they are making a utilitarian calculation whether they realize it or not.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40645220]Well then yes of course you could do that but then you're left with ridiculous results like being unable to choose between a person getting pricked on their finger vs an entire civilization being wiped out in nuclear hellfire.[/QUOTE] Okay but in that case there's a moral argument beyond 'self-indulgence' in granting war crimes a special status as something you don't compromise on. And if I understand that article correctly there's nothing implicitly wrong with 'sacred values' beyond hindering negotiation, and if we accept war crimes are entirely unjustifiable this is irrelevant anyway.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;40643773]Sure, but by now so many of them are essentially ignorant of what actually did happen in the war. Considering the japanese did a lot of war crimes, including their treatment of POWs, that theory probably doesn't hold much merit.[/QUOTE] Well that's funny because I just asked my fiancé and she told me that they do cover all that in school, but it's boring to a lot of people so a lot don't pay attention in history class (funny, they're just like our school age kids! Wouldn't ya know). Bottom line, don't make sweeping generalizations of the Japanese culture if you really don't know.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40645220]Well then yes of course you could do that but then you're left with ridiculous results like being unable to choose between a person getting pricked on their finger vs an entire civilization being wiped out in nuclear hellfire. And we already implicitly reason this way anyway - when people complain about how donating a dollar to africa will do more good than spending it here in the West, they are making a utilitarian calculation whether they realize it or not.[/QUOTE] Jesus fucking Christ, do you have to shove your logic cock into every discussion? We're talking about a fucking politician, not what you think is or isn't justifiable according to your fucking code of morality. If you want to have a discussion about utilitarianism, bring it to the fucking debate section, and keep it there. Fucking hell, I mean if you didn't do this in every shitting thread you ever touched then maybe I could deal with it, but it's like the only thing that gets you off in life is getting people to run a fucking cost benefit analysis on injustice and crimes against humanity. Yeah, utilitarianism makes sense. But running into a thread about how an orphanage was burned down by a pedophile and saying "it would have been better if he had raped them all because rape is better than death" has nothing to do with utilitarianism, it has to do with being a complete shithead.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40641106]I think you'd be wrong to say that Japanese people are in general unaware of the fact that the Japanese military committed war crimes, but it's not that surprising that some wouldn't be aware of specifics like a particular unit. Can Germans name a particular unit of the Wermacht that was especially atrocious? Perhaps, but you wouldn't call them ignorant if they just had a general idea that the German military committed atrocities. It's no different in Western countries.[/QUOTE] Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler was pretty terribad. That was SS, not Wehrmacht though.
It probably was necessary from a military point of view. doesnt make it any less of a crime though.
[QUOTE=tr00per7;40646284]It probably was necessary from a military point of view. doesnt make it any less of a crime though.[/QUOTE] Yeah and how did that work out for them?
[IMG]http://puu.sh/2TEcs.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://puu.sh/2TEdY.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40646299]Yeah and how did that work out for them?[/QUOTE] well, did the soldiers stay disciplined?
[QUOTE=tr00per7;40646331]well, did the soldiers stay disciplined?[/QUOTE] Yes but the question still stands.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40646345]Yes but the question still stands.[/QUOTE] Well, japan lost the war, but that was hardly due to the fact they raped those women in china. They must of thought at the time, our soldiers are battle weary, let them have their way with the women to keep morale up. I still said it was a crime and the mayor who said it is a complete insensitive idiot to try and justify war crimes.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40640819] Fucking disgusting, not really surprised this is coming from Japan though.[/QUOTE] Why is this an okay thing for a fucking moderator to say It's totally fair to paint all of japan based on what some dumbass nationalist says
[QUOTE=tr00per7;40646464]Well, japan lost the war, but that was hardly due to the fact they raped those women in china. They must of thought at the time, our soldiers are battle weary, let them have their way with the women to keep morale up. I still said it was a crime and the mayor who said it is a complete insensitive idiot to try and justify war crimes.[/QUOTE] So if it didn't help them win the war then it was ultimately unnecessary (even if it had helped them win it would not be justified) so then it was just more disgusting war crimes for no purpose.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40646501]So if it didn't help them win the war then it was ultimately unnecessary (even if it had helped them win it would not be justified) so then it was just more disgusting war crimes for no purpose.[/QUOTE] I don't think they could have saw into the future and known whether they won or not. Didn't a load of soviets raped German women when they were advancing on Berlin? And they were counted as winners of the war, so I guess rape was necessary there even though that was probably done out vengeance for what the Germans did to the Russian's. I never said it was justified, just from a military perspective it may have been necessary, the same way bombing raids on civilians by the british on germany or vice versa or the hiroshima and nagasaki nukings were necessary. To help the war effort, and cripple the enemys war effort.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40646472]Why is this an okay thing for a fucking moderator to say It's totally fair to paint all of japan based on what some dumbass nationalist says[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure he was just expressing disgust to the warcrimes committed, not to the Japanese in general.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;40646567]I'm pretty sure he was just expressing disgust to the warcrimes committed, not to the Japanese in general.[/QUOTE] "not really surprised this is coming from Japan though" [editline]14th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=tr00per7;40646554]I don't think they could have saw into the future and known whether they won or not. Didn't a load of soviets raped German women when they were advancing on Berlin? And they were counted as winners of the war, so I guess rape was necessary there even though that was probably done out vengeance for what the Germans did to the Russian's. I never said it was justified, just from a military perspective it may have been necessary, the same way bombing raids on civilians by the british on germany or vice versa or the hiroshima and nagasaki nukings were necessary. To help the war effort, and cripple the enemys war effort.[/QUOTE] Your logic is kind of broken. The rape didn't really add or subtract anything from the war it was just a sick side effect. Just because the two happened alongside each other doesn't mean it was part of the success of the Russian army.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40646613]"not really surprised this is coming from Japan though"[/QUOTE] Is it at all possible he was referring to war-time japan, or are you just suggesting that we have a racist mod?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.