erlols comments

Deporting someone for something like this is stupid. It is also undemocratic in relation to free speech.

That said, J.police is regarded as one of the most efficient and effective in the world. One of the reasons being the simplified legal framework and procedures to take suspects into custody. Over-bureaucratized procedures do not help police – see the story of the ISIS guys hiding in the house in Belgium.

I also believe that all this criticism on whale/dolphin hunting in Japan is extremely hypocritical. Don't get me wrong, I am for animal rights, but a hundreds of whales do not compare with billions of chickens, pigs, cows, lambs, etc. slaughtered daily in every country. In addition, animal livestock is waaaaay, waaaaay more cruel than hunting.

The only argument that holds here is the one about the extinction of certain species. However, I believe to avoid animal suffering is more important that to prevent species extinction (see chicken factories vs whale hunting). The whole 'species extinction thing' always sounds to me like a pretentious talk of a collector that wants its beautiful collection to stay intact (for his own pleasure).

I think it all depends on where you are in Japan, where you go, and where you come from (in the case of foreigners). It also depends on who you are with, your job, etc. It sounds like truism, but in fact it is really hard to generalize when it comes to people lives. While the mentioned problems exist in Japan, in other countries (and different cities within countries) many different issues can arise. The discrimination thing for instance can vary a lot according to where you live and what kind of company you work for.

So Japan, as any other place, can be good or bad. It all depends on your condition and your personality.

Ok, fair enough. Middle East is far form Europe, but when it comes to border countries (e.g. Libia), a powerful, stable government is necessary. Instead of forcefully send back people it's better to prevent them to come in the first place.

I don't think bombing countries is the answer. The best way to control immigration and keep crazy nations full of religious people from doing bad is to establish dictatorships. Look at Libia. For three decades Gheddafi did a great job in preventing hordes of migrants from central Africa to set sail into the Mediterranean. In Syria Assad did the same. The problem is that these dictators should be chosen by the West as enlightened people, promoting secularization rather than just using the iron fist for their own interest. A good historical example is Ataturk in Turkey. Also Morocco's regime did well overall.

Islamic countries are full of people believing in god and Sharia. So how do you deal with them in a democratically? Religious faith is implicitly undemocratic. Democracy works (not that well anyway) with educated people and secular institutions. I believe iron first leading to a transition toward secularization is the only option for Islamic countries.

A few thousands refugees wouldn't even impact too much the country, so that is not even an issue. But for those advocating mass immigration as a solution to shrinking population dynamics let me remind you that:

1) Immigration policies cost a lot (education, social security, etc.) and payback depends on whether they will be employed and pay taxes. This is should be not taken for granted as it depends on many variables such as economy status, labour market, fiscal policies, etc. So before speaking of immigration, several preconditions should be fulfilled.

2) Immigrants coming from certain cultural backgrounds find it difficult to integrate and often become source of troubles.

3) In the long run industrialized countries will have to cope with zero demographic growth anyway, so just deal with it now instead of procrastinating.

Aside from 'refugees' and the whole label thing, rejecting mass immigration is a very, very smart move. it is not about racism, it is about math. Large scale immigration (especially when it comes to muslim men) bring costs and problems more than benefits. Period.

In the majority of cases this is how it works, at least for men.

1) Your body and your brain tell you to have sex with every attractive girl.

2) Morally (it's not necessarily about religion, can be simply empathy) and for practical reasons you think you should not to cheat on your partner.

Ultimately, I believe what goes against biological and spontaneous feelings is wrong, as it can harm your psycho-phisical health.

Cultural relativism + sentimentalism + political correctness = Blindness to reality

The West needs more realism and less (often hypocritical) sentimentalism.

As if that mattered. Fashion is not about beauty and beauty 'standards' are long gone. Welcome to the present.

As for the rest of your points, you seem to be one of those people who have fallen victim to the spin that the Syrians are economic migrants, and not fleeing a country that has been ravaged by war.

Apart from what I "seem to be", my questions are still valid. I don't care much about the status or label we put on Syrians. As I've pointed out, to me extreme poverty is as bad as war. So the point is, regardless why they decide to come, are they a liability or not?

As for your comment, I agree that a state cannot run on direct democracy because people are not enough educated to decide on complex policies (eg. fiscal/monetary policy). However, when it comes to simple, ethical issues, I think people know very well what is good for them. The problem of representative democracy is that I might want to vote for a certain party for many reasons but disagree with its agenda on other issues. So, instead of being forced to chose a party you don't like just for a few points in their agenda, referendums come as very useful tools.

Right. So while now we agree that we disagree on the criteria allowing refugees to flood Europe, do you agree/disagree that:

1) Immigration policies should be decided by the people 2) Economically immigration is more of a liability than a resource in the case of A) uneducated migrants and B) recipients countries with a huge welfare state and a bad economy (e.g. Italy) 3) Socially/culturally immigration is often a source of problems

Ok. And so that's your opinion. Someone else might say they should stay and fight or no-one (certainly not Putin) will fix things.

And ultimately the point is that some people don't care enough about these wars – not to the point to import troubles and also pay more taxes for it. Is it so hard to understand?

As for Immigration being a resource or a liability (economically) is often a matter of math. I doubt, for instance, that thousands of uneducated Africans on social security could be a resource more than a liability for a continent experiencing economic slowdown and trapped into an ubiquitous welfare state. And this is just about economy. I will not even touch upon the long term consequences of incompatible cultures forced to coexist, the crime, the fear, etc.

What I mean to say is that there are different degrees of adversity in various war scenario. So for example states differentiate between war refugees and economic migrants, but probably they both suffer a lot because of their condition. So where do you draw the line?

Regardless, you cannot force someone to be compassionate. That is why I believe immigration policies should be resolved democratically trough plebiscite. I believe people should be free to chose when and who to help.

Strangerland ,

"It's not like it could be human decency to help people who have no home because it's been destroyed by war. Couldn't be that."

I understand compassion as a human thing, but again states exist for the interest of their citizens. They are not charity. Immigrants are often a liability and a source of problems.

In addition, human misery is endless. Should we pay for all Africa's poverty?

And again, if these people flee from their country, who will fight for rights and freedom? Did europeans flee when monarchs and popes made people's lives miserable? No, they fought and that's why today we have freedom.

It is a mystery why so many politicians in Europe support immigration. Immigration might bring some cheap labor and cheap kebab restaurants (enough already), but the rest is all troubles. Why are leftist so blind? What good does this crazy immigration bring? Once again, nation states are not charity organizations. They exist to protect the interests of their citizens, not the interests of Africans or Syrians. I always thought Immigration issues should be handled through referendum. It is the perfect case of non-technical issue that does not require representative democracy logics. I'm positive every european country would display a 90% or so vote against immigration only if people were allowed to directly express their will.

1) Japan apologized already for the war abuses, which are inclusive of several forms of violence (see 5).

2) Japan cannot give money to every woman now claiming having having been raped 70 years ago. It's just ridiculous – same as the idea to institute special trials for every new case that might arise.

3) War compensations are negotiated between states because a state cannot compensate single individuals. So money are given to recipient states which than proceed with redistribution.

4) Random rapes by soldiers is not the same as the establishment of a forced prostitution system.

5) Civilian abuses happens during every war and that's why compensations exist. How's rape different from murder, torture etc? Why should it require a special status and special compensations? What if tomorrow a guy without a leg asks for compensations because his case wasn't explicitly mentioned in the peace treaty?

Since when a country sign a peace treaty, accept apologies, receive compensations and later on claims compensations were not inclusive of something – in this case the forced prostitution / sexual abuses? Does every single war abuse require a special compensation whit its own label? I think compensations come with some sort of declaration referring to all war atrocities. Is it that the issue wasn't explicitly mentioned in the peace treaty so it had to be brought up two decades later just to piss everyone off? Is it because some stupid Japanese politician said some prostitutes were not forced to work (which might be true but silly to say)?

Ultimately the question is:

What do you honestly think has been the major source of troubles in East Asia relations? Japan revisionism or Korean/Chinese political exploitation of historical issues for propaganda?

Pfff.. SK was a dictatorship until the other day. What right does it have to keep blaming Japan when SK elites themselves were the major cause of people's troubles for so many years? And what's this story that war compensation did not include compensation for the forced prostitution? Since when that's an extra issue? How about the compensation for the trees cut or the stolen food etc.? Does every single war abuse require a special compensation whit its own label? Ridiculous. As for China, the only reason why this issue is still alive is the fact that SK governments kept adding fuel to the fire with stupid propaganda. Of all the wars of all times, of all the apologies and peace treaties and compensations in the history of man kind, this is the only case when, thanks to mass media, a government can continue asking money and apologies from another government for something that happened 70 year ago. It's like comedy science fiction. And all the people posting on this forum saying Japan is the bad guy should look more closely at SK and China governments and what they do instead. Some Japanese politicians and their wives do stupid things? Yes. But the point is that the whole story is stupid to begin with. Plus lets talk about what SK and China own to Japan in terms of the economic development accomplished in the last 40 years? Who did they borrow the developmental state model from? Instead of asking for money and apologies they should be thankful and apologies for being so stubborn.

Why are so many people fixated with Japan should open up to immigration? Are you so sure Japan will overall benefit from it? It's a very complex issues but many take a lot of things for granted. Beside, I believe similar decisions should be made by the people through plebiscite. So once the will of the nation is expressed, there is nothing to complaint anymore. In addition: Nation-states are not charity associations, they exist for the interests of the citizens. I believe this 'help the others' rhetoric is ridiculous. Is against the very raison d'être of a State. Plus, if these people flee outside their messy countries, who will reform them? Western people fought for their rights, they did not run away.