Monday, October 09, 2006
Even the Chinese are disgusted
The North Koreans have managed to disgust the People's Liberation Army. That's no small achievement.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Oct 09, 02:12:00 PM:
I thought this was quite humorous (in a very dark way of course), so I repeated this story at lunch to some of my colleagues, but by the time I got to the "punch line" of disgusting the PLA, they were looking at me in such a horrified way that the whole thing kind of fell flat.
Anyway, I need to work on my delivery.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Mon Oct 09, 05:23:00 PM:
No, you need to work on your sense of humor. Sicko.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Oct 09, 05:32:00 PM:
What was the punch line Phrizz? Was it when the shackled her and dragged her back to a certain death in a prison camp?
this is a story of pathos, not humor. Or am I just setting up another straw man?
jeeze.
By , at
Mon Oct 09, 05:44:00 PM:
No, what is funny is that they managed to "disgust the PLA," an organization which has not been noted for its standards of kindness or humanity to people. The idea of the PLA pointing their fingers and holding their noses is at the very least ironic, and if you don't find it so, then I fear that you have had a little too much moral clarity for breakfast.
And skip: I forgot that not only do you completely argue past the points people make, as you again demonstrated in your response to my post in the other thread, but you also argue ad hominem. So classy!
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Oct 09, 09:47:00 PM:
I've known a couple dozen high-ranking guys in the PLA over the years. Every one of them was a gentleman.
By , at
Mon Oct 09, 11:09:00 PM:
I've thought for a while that the USA should do it's best to encourage a PRC takeover of North Korea (and Burma).
It would be better for everyone than the current state (except the actual Korean leaders).
It is militarily possible.
It is politically possible for China AND for the USA. The Chinese people (that I speak to) know the NK is a psycho basket case and would go along with any reasonable excuse. The US population would probably go along with say... US Air Support for Chinese Troops helping in the collapsing humanitarian disaster.
The South Koreans and Japanese would scream about it... but deep down they would MUCH rather deal with the sane and commercial Chinese.
China gets a huge, ego boosting, success, that doesn't actually take it into conflict with the USA.
The Chinese military is now occupied for the next decade or so.
What's not to like?
By , at
Tue Oct 10, 09:17:00 AM:
"I've known a couple dozen high-ranking guys in the PLA over the years. Every one of them was a gentleman."
Priceless.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 10, 10:13:00 AM:
Oh I see, now it's irony.
Oh, yeah Irony. sure phrizz.
Perhaps you don't like the points I'm making and that's fine. What you said, sir, is that "decency" is basically up to an individual to decide.
I believe that to be a prescription for anarchy and I've said so quite clearly. It seems to me that many, many people now object to any restraints on their behavior. In large part these are the same people who rail endlessly that former congressman Foley should be drawn and quartered and every republican everywhere must resign in embarrassment.
that's the point phrizz and I'm frankly not surprised you don't see it. if there are no generally agreed upon standards for decency, then Mr Foley did NOTHING WRONG.
Rather than respond to the point you've chosen to assault my debate style. That, too, is quite revealing.
have a nice day.
By , at
Tue Oct 10, 12:26:00 PM:
because I just can't leave it alone for some reason...
"What you said, sir, is that "decency" is basically up to an individual to decide..."
Nope. Obviously you didn't read my posts very carefully, or didn't understand them. I'll try again. You may be unaware of it, but "decency" has some legal connotations and there are laws against things like public indecency, see for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decency
So if you choose to call something "indecent" then you are in some sense suggesting that it should be illegal. Due to my libertarian streak, I happen to believe that it is in our best interests as a society to avoid laws which regulate what is decent and what is not. I find it odd that as a Republican, whose party pays lip service to the idea of small government, that you do not share this view. The more laws regulating our behavior we have, the less free we are by definition. Now OBVIOUSLY some laws regulating behavior are needed so that we can function as a society, but it is a matter of degree, and I happen to believe that the minimum possible set is the best set, because an enforced homogeneity of ideas and behavior will rob America of what makes it strong.
"that's the point phrizz and I'm frankly not surprised you don't see it. if there are no generally agreed upon standards for decency, then Mr Foley did NOTHING WRONG."
Let me explain to you what "setting up a straw man" is, because this is a pretty good example of it. It is to misrepresent the opponent's position and then argue against it. When I advocate the minimal set of legal restrictions on behavior, rather than a maximal one to insure more comfort all around, I am in no way advocating permitting relationships between a congressman and his 16 or 18 or whatever year old page, because there is a power dynamic present in their workplace that clearly makes that relationship inappropriate. You have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented my position here.
Also, I made my argument in specific reference to someone who suggested that the behavior of the Columbia students who stormed the stage was "indecent" and that they should face expulsion. I argued that they should be disciplined but not expelled; they should face the consequences of their actions in this case, and learn that suppressing speech no matter how uncomfortable will not be tolerated, but to expel them would remove their voices from the debate in a way that ultimately would be counterproductive. How did you get from their to a "perscription for anarchy?"
"Rather than respond to the point you've chosen to assault my debate style. That, too, is quite revealing."
I have amply responded to your points. I said what I did because your debating style was (and continues to be) unnecessarily confrontational, abrasive, and irrational; you write in a way that seems uninterested in actual dialogue, but only focused on "winning the argument."
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 10, 01:06:00 PM:
Nowhere in you posts have you made an effective connection between "decency" and the law.
if you wish to argue that there should be no laws that speak to decency, then we still have a disagreement.
I agree that these laws should be at a minimum was well, but this minimal set of laws must have as its compliment a citizenry that has a strong sense of self control. That's what decency means to me.
So perhaps therein lies the misunderstanding.
