mt9334 comments

Onichan has beautiful music...even if, they have not sold enough to be considered "hits".

As for her tattoos, I liked how she looked without them, but as she is a favorite artist of mine I can not find a fault in her even with her tattoos. Whatever was troubling her on that day, may her troubles fade away into memory.

It is not the format that is the problem, it is the Editorial staff. When my respectful comments are removed SOLELY because I am in disagreement with the content written, then I see PROPAGANDA, not News.

Perhaps the new Title should read: "Japan Propaganda Today"?

As a music genre that glorifies drugs, misogyny, materialism, etc....Rap has caused more harm than good. Period.

Uchi to soto.

Japan culture abides by this, and Gaijin ought respect the culture of Japan.

"A Japanese whaling fleet returned to port Friday after an annual Antarctic hunt that killed more than 300 of the mammals as Tokyo pursues the program in defiance of global criticism."

Bravo!! Gambatte!!

By what authority does any nation go by to demand that another nation abide by its principles?

I applaud Japan in its defiance. Whales are animals. Period.

Humans ought kill animals as they deem fit. Period.

BRAVO!

In a country that has historically viewed the taking of ones own life as a legitimate means of retaining honor, and saving ones family from shame, it seems to me to not be surprising that suicide rates are what they are. What other nation has such views on taking ones own life?

If, no other nation has an honorable view of taking ones own life, then to compare Japan to other nations is an invalid comparison.

Note, I am not passing judgement on the act. I am making an observation based on my own research of Japanese culture and society.

@Patrick,

All valid questions that you raise...

Unfortunately, the life expectancy of my comments posted on here is about as long as the duration needed for a missile launched form NK to strike Japan. (not very long at all)

"How reassuring is this [Trumps Congressional speech] for those who still believe and champion liberal democracies and globalization? Not very much in my view."

As well is should not be.

Liberal democracies are the antithesis of what Trump and his ideologies stand for. That the writer views Trump as a direct threat to Liberalism justifies the votes of those that helped place Trump in office.

"Income inequality has soared and what wealth that has been gained has been “distributed” unevenly."____This begs the question that income equality is true and correct. In a Capitalistic society or world, why should those that are at the lower end of the food chain be compensated equally as those that are higher up?

Because it is fair? Who said this world is fair? By what right may we expect fairness?

Liberalism presupposes the values and ideals that Conservatism espouses, yet works to undermine the very values that it holds near and dear.

A Utopia, as I understand the term, is the desired goal of Humanism. I am not a Humanist, and therefore would never claim that any action here on Earth, by man, would result in Utopia. With that said, it does seem reasonable to me to conclude that if Neighboring nations around Japan have issues with the US, and if the US would cease to have a presence in Japan, then those issues would no longer be a factor.

@Kurisupiso,

Agreed.

"However, this time the result is nuclear destruction because NK likes fireworks. "

Really?

Do you reasonably believe that NK "likes fireworks"? Unless you hold that NK's leadership is irrational, then I can see your conclusion being plausible....but what evidence do you have for this?

That you have failed to consider that Rational Irrationality, in the Game theoretical sense, is at work here reveals more of your misunderstanding of the situation rather than NK's leaderships actual irrationality.

Sorry..typo in my previous post.

I meant to say, " Speculation however does not mean that reason is NOT behind the conclusions, or that the conclusions are false..."

I too do not understand the motives behind what NK is doing....but underestimating NK and thinking them "mad" seems to me to be a grave error, and underestimating a potential enemy cab be fatal.

@inkochi,

You are entirely correct.

When one attempts to ascertain the motives behind anothers actions, particularly when no motive has been made explicit, then they must remain speculation. Speculation however does not mean that reason is behind the conclusions, or that the conclusions are false, for all countries must need engage in such "speculation" every single day...that is what most often brings peace (or war).

For please note, how easily the claim is reversed...is it not only your speculation that for another to attempt to ascertain "...what motives are (or are not)..." is merely speculation?

I understand the premise that if one is to represent ones country in world events, and on a world stage, then one ought to show an outward sign of respect for what one represents. That is reasonable.

But, in the NFL, one is not representing ones country, merely ones team. If, the NFL in general, or the team in particular, deem that one ought to stand for the national anthem if one is a team member, then that is their prerogative as Governing body or owner. But, if no such rule exists, if it is merely an unspoken rule that is expected but not required, then standing during the anthem must then be optional.

To be sure, this would be rational...unfortunately rationality is left at the doorstep when emotions run wild, as they usually do when this topic is raised.

By giving a notion a name, for instance "isolationaism", what is being attempted is to somehow discredit the notion by merely describing it for what it is perceived to be. A mere description, especially if the description is misleading and erroneous, does not in any manner address what the notion brought up.

NK wishes to be perceived as "dangerous" and a force to be reckoned with..rather than the alternative, "weak" and inconsequential....in that sense, it has succeeded. To call their actions "Dumb" is to not understand the reasoning behind them, and actually reveals the ignorance of the speaker rather than the rationale of the NK leader.

Is NK a threat to Japan?

Well, first answer the following;

What is the relationship between NK and the US? What is the relationship between the US and Japan? What is the relationship between the NK and Japan?

Seems to me, if NK and the US don't get along....and the US and Japan do, then that increases tension between NK and Japan, would you not agree? (especially if the US has a presence in Japan)

"the most dangerous thing about NK is how dumb they are."

No. The most dangerous thing is when a people think that those of a different view are "dumb".

THAT is what causes war.

With that said, NK is a threat to Japan as long as the US is present in Japan.

Ok, people....will you thumb me down, or answer my question?

If, as most on here claim, it is "wrong" to do this to these animals, then there must be a corresponding moral law that prohibits this. Any moral law necessitates a corresponding moral framework as its grounding.

My question simply is, which moral framework are you appealing to when the claim is made that it is wrong to cage these animals?

Note: to claim that it is obvious and does not require the grounding to be articulated is merely to say, "You are wrong for not agreeing with me." Furthermore, to claim that there is no moral law that prohibits this, but that it is a social convention would be to admit that a society may deem it correct to cage these animals and one would be mistaken to assert that it was wrong for "them" to cage them.

So, which will it be? Thumbs down, or putting your money where your mouth is?

What is surprising is that what is deemed to be "offensive" is equated with "injurious". While terms claim one is to expect to come across "offensive" comments, and should not take that "offense" to be the same as "injury", those very same comments are then deleted because of their supposed "offensiveness and vulgarity".

If, only those comments on here that one is in agreement on are deemed correct and acceptable, and those in disagreement are deemed "offensive and vulgar" and then silenced....then despotism is rampant.

John Stuart Mill, in his writings on Liberty argued that ESPECIALLY if one holds that the other is wrong, then all the more so should they be allowed to express their opinion. For if they are silenced, if open dialogue is not allowed, then those "false" beliefs are driven "under-ground" and no longer able to be refuted. It is through public discourse, through the dialectic of argument that false ideas are exposed and the truth is brought forth. Sadly, that pubic discourse is a fading reality....as evidenced by the many times my respectful, though contrary views are deleted from these pages.

@Strangerland,

Thank you! Much clearer!

Now, if I may inquire further?

You claim that in defense only, is war justified. Ok, fair enough. May I ask, is it justified when ones own safety is not at risk, but the safety of others is at stake? In other words, think of WW2, the Germans killing Jews....US citizens, in their own soil, wree not being harmed....was war justified to protect another?

@Strangerland,

Premise 1: War is never justified.

Premise 2: Defending against a warring state is justified.

When one defends against an unreasonable attacker, with military force, then that is WAR. Period.

In your first premise, you categorically state that war is NEVER justified. Then in your second premise, you give a scenario where it IS JUSTIFIED.

Do you not see your contradiction?

"Oh, so war is the goal here, right?"

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

There are however many instances where war is justified.

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"They should have written the banner in Kanji and Hiragana only, to show they are not just copying some idea from abroad, and mean business on a local level."

They are JUST COPYING SOME IDEA FROM ABROAD.

"... but without a deterrence North Korea will see us as weak.”

Exactly. Japan need be a Super Power again...in it's own right, and not depend on the U.S. for ANYTHING.

Either, you are Nuclear ready and seen as "dangerous", or not...and deemed "weak". Your choice.

@Toshiko,

Those two cities that were bombed were filled with civilians, not soldiers. Families. Children.

"Democratic"?? More like "Barbaric".

"“THAAD is purely defensive, that is the only defense measure we can take facing the massive threat posed by DPRK,” South Korea disarmament ambassador Kim Inchul said."

Ha! What else would he say? In a purely Game theoretical sense, he would have to say this!

N. Korea must play it's best option in case THAAD is capable of offensive measures...and that is pursue it's Nuclear deterrent. S. Korea knows this...the U.S. knows this as well (And Japan, China, Russia, etc..). This is all a huge strategic plan by all sides to come out with an advantage. Those that would demean the N. Korean Government for pursuing it's best strategy reveal their ignorance of the situation, and their bias to their own countries.

We consider N. Korea "dangerous"..and that is EXACTLY what they are aiming at. To be considered NOT DANGEROUS is to be weak. In today's world, no country would desire to be seen as a weakling.

“I don't mind living in a man's world, as long as I can be a woman in it.”

― Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn

The question presupposes that objective Truth exists.

Yet most on here, including the moderators of Japan today, have indicated by either their actions or their words that they hold to Relativism. So, either a majority consensus is appealed to committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, or an appeal to an authority is made, committing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Others appeal to Reason. Those that do so presuppose that our Reason is a reliable standard by which to measure truth, thereby asserting that Man is the measure of all things. If "OUR" reason denies a propositions veracity then the proposition must be false. The blatant circularity is obvious. How do you know it's true? Because my reason tells me it is true. How do you know your Reason is correct? Because my Reason is true. Circular. Fallacious.

I know that it is politically incorrect to even hint at the solution....but there really is only one way out of this epistemological problem....

Ultimately, what is claimed to be Truth must be compared to a "standard" by which we may then determine if it is true.

Look at the typos...are not the typos in question most with the adjacent letter on the keyboard, or a letter left out?

Truth be told, the AP has it derriere hurt because Trump has attacked the so-called "Journalism" such as the caliber of the above fine piece.

I, for one, am lovin it!!

(Yes, I purposely misspelled "loving", so?)

Mr. Stuart Pimm, Sir,

You write, "For example, we humans split from our nearest common ancestor with chimps about 10 million years ago."

This statement, if true, would mean that humans derived from chimps. And furthermore, that chimps evolved from a previous animal, and so on. To be sure, Darwinian evolution makes no claims on the origins of life on this planet, but it does give an account for the variety of life that we see today. It explains how all animals came into existence through an unguided process. No God or intelligence was involved. (at least, this is the Darwinian claim)

Therefore, all animals owe their existence to an unguided process. They were not brought into existence by a Transcendent God, they came to be what they are by a series of unguided steps. What follows from this?

Well, for one thing, what is....is. There is no objective morality to any action other than what we assign to it. Animals kill other animals. Animals go extinct at different rates throughout history. Period. Since there is no design, no ultimate plan, then the rate of extinction that we see in the fossil record, just happens to be what happened throughout the millions of years of Earth history. I can no more say what ought to be the rate of extinction than anyone else. After all, the well known Maxim that one cannot derive an ought from an is applies here.

You continue with, "But those challenges are compounded by the fact that many of the world’s leaders are either turning a blind eye to these challenges or, worse, denying the problems even exist. "

What "Problem"? Higher extinction rates than what occurred previously? Why is that a "problem"?

Keep in mind, there is no Design here. Nothing is as it ought to be, it just is.

Humans responsible for the accelerated rate of extinction of certain animals? So? Since there is no Designer, no ultimate plan, nothing other than what we deem to be correct, then ANY rate could be deemed acceptable. There is no ultimate guidebook by which we are able to look up the extinction rates of animals and say, "Oh, the rate is off here...we ought change our behaviour."

Your worldview, which is made plain by your statement that humans evolved from chimps cannot serve as a grounding for your preaching that we OUGHT do something about the extinction rates of animals.

Now, I DO believe that we as humans have been poor stewards of Nature. That we have destroyed our planet with blatant disregard, and that we OUGHT change our behaviour. But, my grounding for this is much different than yours. In my worldview, my ancestors were not chimps, or even fish.

In other words, I agree with your conclusion that we as humans are responsible for the extinction of certain species. I also agree that we ought be MUCH BETTER stewards of nature. But, my conclusion Follows from my worldview.

Perhaps, you should, for arguments sake, be honest with yourself and follow your presuppositions to their logical conclusion. A world where there are no "oughts", but only those that we deem to be correct for us. A world where a child is different from a chimp only in a matter of degree, and not in kind.

To quote Hobbes, you would find yourself in a bleak world where there is:

“continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

But then, this is after all a Darwinian world.