Back

The General Debate Thread

#26
qwertyytrewq Wrote:
vix86 Wrote:Immigration brings labor. This is especially important if you are faced with a problem where you need more people to fill positions being vacated by retiring poeple.
I'm skeptical of that (that old people are retiring). I don't know about Japan but in many other countries, youth unemployment is very high because the baby boomers refuse to retire (Spain is an extreme example with 50% youth unemployment). The older generation are holding on to jobs until they die and in the meantime, the youth has to make do with the fall in full time spots are the rise in casual/part time ones.

If in reality in Japan, the supply of jobs is greater than the demand for it, then bring in immigration I guess.
I believe its similar in Japan, many old people aren't really retiring. But the question about the benfits of immigration didn't really specify a timeline for when to allow immigration. Japan will eventually need more labor for positions, some of it unskilled, some of it skilled. If nothing else, they'll need a larger number of workers to assist in the health care sector to aid in helping retirees. Right now they are cruising along just fine, but the whole thing is a ticking timebomb.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:
vix86 Wrote:Immigration brings money. Every new person entering the country and getting a job will be spending money in that country, that's increased capital flow. It also brings a new source for taxes.
I'm skeptical of this point too. I guess this mainly depends on whether this immigration will involve skilled labor or unskilled labor. If the former, then the benefit/productive capacity of this "economic unit" will outweigh the costs. If it's the latter, then this might be a net loss situation because the demand for welfare/resources (such as water) will outweigh the tax money procured from this economic unit (because he/she has an average to low income).
True, if the people that are immigrating are coming in and moving straight into a position of poverty and resulting in the system having to hold them up, then they are definitely straining the system more than helping it. But in some countries, they won't even let you into the country (legally) without having proof that your job will provide enough income so that you can support yourself without minimal state assistance. In those cases, you are still receiving an income, although possibly meager, and buying goods (food, consumer items, etc.), and that generates tax money.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:
vix86 Wrote:Immigration brings new culture. Again, possibly a bad thing depending on your thinking. This fits closely with "new ideas." But new culture doesn't necessarily translate into increases in the economy.
I guess that depends on what kind of culture this new culture is. If for example, 100,000 Germans migrate into Japan, that might work because for example, Germans are just as hard working as Japan, Japanese people like German culture, and Japan and Germany has a historical link (Imperial Japan and the German Nazis were buddies at one point, I believe Adolf Hitler even make positive comments about Japan and called them honorary "Aryans"). In this case, I don't see why it can't work, as long as Japanese and Germans wish for it to happen.

On the other hand, if for example, 100,000 people migrate into Japan from a hardline conservative majority Islam 3rd world nation, then I am finding it hard to imagine how it would be a good thing. For example, in some of those countries, "honor killings" are an acceptable form of punishment on a father's daughter. Also, some Muslims believe that if you're not Muslim then you must become one or, if by any chance a Japanese person converts to Islam than converts back out again, then some Muslims that former-Muslim Japanese should die. Last time I checked, honor killings and apostasy isn't part of Japanese culture so in this case, these two countries really need to make a compromise before the immigration occurs (if ever).
Thats why I think culture is a gray area. The gains are always going to have questionable value depending who you ask. Its also possible that reverse culture transfer happens too, that family from a poor 3rd world Islamic country might come to Japan and realize how ridiculous their prior culture was and change (I've seen it happen to so many Japanese that go abroad.)

qwertyytrewq Wrote:
vix86 Wrote:Living in the 'ghetto' is generally associated with being poor, and that would have to be some crazy culture shock to bring you to steal, rape, and murder. As for lack of support, support in what?

Being poor or living in areas with great poverty, tend to have large amounts of crime and illegal behavior, and as result I'm still wondering if maybe the studies over looked this somehow.
Is it possible to migrate citizens from poor countries into a rich one (Japan) but without the associated crime and ghettos?
I suppose that depends on the country of origin in question. If they are simply coming from a country with a low cost of living, then it might be possible to immigrate people without ghettos. As an example, many parts of India are pretty poor and the cost of living is very low, but there are many IT workers in the country. When they move from there to Japan, its not hard to imagine that they move into a job that provides decent income and allows them to live in okay housing.
Reply
#27
vix86 Wrote:
qwertyytrewq Wrote:
vix86 Wrote:Immigration brings money. Every new person entering the country and getting a job will be spending money in that country, that's increased capital flow. It also brings a new source for taxes.
I'm skeptical of this point too. I guess this mainly depends on whether this immigration will involve skilled labor or unskilled labor. If the former, then the benefit/productive capacity of this "economic unit" will outweigh the costs. If it's the latter, then this might be a net loss situation because the demand for welfare/resources (such as water) will outweigh the tax money procured from this economic unit (because he/she has an average to low income).
True, if the people that are immigrating are coming in and moving straight into a position of poverty and resulting in the system having to hold them up, then they are definitely straining the system more than helping it. But in some countries, they won't even let you into the country (legally) without having proof that your job will provide enough income so that you can support yourself without minimal state assistance. In those cases, you are still receiving an income, although possibly meager, and buying goods (food, consumer items, etc.), and that generates tax money.
Actually, yes, that reminds me, in Japan, you can't get a work visa (working holiday visa aside) without having proof of a job to go into, and sponsorship from that company.
Reply
#28
Since this is the current trending hot topic on this forum:

Hypothetically, suppose a 5000-post contributing member of this forum decided to abandon it (due to lack of interest, busy etc) but not before editing all of his posts into nothingless (replaces entire posts with a period).

Does he have that right?

Discuss.

Note: this is not a question of whether it is a shitty or not shitty thing to do.
Reply
JapanesePod101
#29
I do believe they have that right, but it's a terrible and shitty thing to do. Very glad uisukii didn't.
Edited: 2013-12-20, 9:52 am
Reply
#30
I totally wanted to do that on a forum many years ago, but I stopped after ~20 posts because DAAAAMN that is a tedious task and takes a ridiculously long time to finish.

However, the Internet is a cruel place, and posts from many a years ago can come back to haunt you, so I get it. Also, it's your content so you can do whatever you want with it. Annoying though it may be.
Reply
#31
Zgarbas Wrote:However, the Internet is a cruel place, and posts from many a years ago can come back to haunt you, so I get it.
Think so? We are all using pseudonyms. I do use Tzadeck for a lot of internet things, but I never use it for anything that makes my identity public.
Reply
#32
Unless you change your pseudonym regularly I think you're pretty prone to exposing lots of private/personal things online, even if your real name isn't one of them =).

I'm not sure how this applies to a language learning forum where most people never post any sort of private information and most posts are about anki reviews rather than personal experiences, but the point still stands.
Reply
#33
New topic.

I was on reddit again and someone pointed out that Japanese movie DVDs seem to rarely come with subtitles, not even Japanese subtitles. In contrast, every Western DVD comes with subtitles, even non-English languages.

There are two ways to approach this issue: politically and free marketally.

Politics: Some people claim that Western DVDs always come with subtitles because the lobby groups for the disadvantaged (such as deaf people) are very active so it may be legally required to have subtitles on all DVDs. If you don't have subtitles on your DVD, then you are "discriminating" against deaf people and you would be punished. Japan, being a "racist" and "sexist" (debatable) country who is apathetic towards the deaf people means that social rights for deaf people in Japan are "50 years behind the West". Which leads to the current situation: Japanese anime/movie DVDs rarely have subtitles.

Free Market: The other avenue of explanation could perhaps be merely economics (demand and supply). In this school of thought, even though Japan is "racist" and "sexist" (debatable), they do not in fact discriminate against deaf people (under this school of thought). The reason Japanese DVDs do not come with subtitles is simply because the population of deaf people is low (a minority) and businesses being profit-driven, do not think it makes good financial sense to spend money creating subtitles when the demand for subtitles is so insignificant.

The questions therefore are:
In the case of USA, is it "right" for deaf people lobby groups to legally force businesses to have subtitles available?
Similarly, in the case of Japan, should Japanese media companies be legally forced to offer subtitles on every DVD?
Assume that DVDs with subtitles will cost a bit more than DVDs without subtitles because creating, proof-reading etc subtitles cost money.
Reply
#34
I wish everything had subtitles =(. We don't believe in subtitles around here (unless it's a translation, obviously) and I have a hard time watching local media because of it. And no, we don't have any deaf rights movement whatsoever; they're as isolated as it gets. No one's bothered by it because minorities aren't people.

Subtitling isn't as difficult if you don't have to translate. It's a few hours' worth of work; usually a pro subtitler is expected to handle multiple projects per day, and editing into subtitles takes considerably less time than translation+proofreading+editing. Programs these days make it pretty easy to implement the subtitles in a movie: the time stamps are automated and don't have to be manually implemented so much as just checked after the program does it.

The extra costs are pretty insignificant and I don't see why it would make DVDs more expensive... the bonus in comprehensibility is awesome, and a minority which otherwise wouldn't have access to such media gets to have it, thus increasing the numbers of consumers and improving the quality of life for everyone Big Grin . (5 extra buyers per DVD covers the subtitler's pay, I think).

So yeah, I'm totally pro mandatory subtitles.
Reply
#35
Well, if the deaf groups spent their money and lobbied and the companies weren't willing to spend more money counter-lobbying then it would seem that it's "right". In this case I would assume it would cost the more money and time to counter-lobby than the amount lost to add subtitles.
Reply
#36
Sauzer Wrote:damn you scientists and your fact-biased agenda!
That would require climatology to be a science to begin with, and it is not. In order for something to be declared science, it has to:

1. follow the scientific method.
2. have predictive power.
3. be testable.
4. be falsifiable.

Climatology does not have a single one of those properties. They show the results but not the calculations. They throw away or alter the data so that it fits the conclussion rather than the other way around, they silence and force out of job the colleagues if their studies don't support their political agenda, their models have been failing every single prediction since the beginning and the margin of error is getting wider each year (it's already on 30%), and that's because those models have design mistakes that would make any mathemathician or statistician blush. Their pet theory is so flawed, they are going to change its name for the THIRD time in 2015.

Will Eisner wrote once a history of a swindler who would go to horse races, take notes of all the previous winners, and then make up the next winners, to trick people into believing that he had accurately predicted all the race winners up to that point. That is what climate "sciencists" are doing and it's incredible how many people fall into that trap.

The problem isn't that the manbearpig is an imaginary issue and probably made-up by politicians to deviate attention from their real goal, the problem is that making decisions based on those fake models has a very high risk of ending in tragedy. Last year we heard of the climatologists who got trapped in polar ice and couldn't be rescued because the ice was so thick. They got in that situation because they made a VERY BAD decision based on DEEPLY FLAWED data. They have also suggested really dangerous initiatives to "fight global warming" that could really mess the ecosystem if applied. And please note that of the TEN greatest ecology disasters in the world, half of them were caused by deranged ecologists acting on the wrong assumptions.
Reply
#37
Hold yer horses feller, I never said I agreed or disagreed with anything anyone said on this thread. I'm not even sure why you're answering to me.

You seem very passionate about the subject, but my oh-ever-so-slightly cynical comment was a way to point out that this is not quite the place to discuss the use of rhetoric and logical fallacies in science and politics today.

This is the internet, don't fall to obvious baits. You're not going to change anyone's mind here.
Reply
#38
erlog Wrote:Also, if you think that "man made global warming" is part of some kind of agenda then I have some bad news for you about Japan. Both global warming and evolution enjoy broad support to the point that claiming you don't believe in either one will get you looked at like you have a 3rd arm or something. That book only has an agenda in so far as Japan, itself, has an agenda.
There's a difference between global warming and the global warming agenda. Global warming is merely the observation that the climate is changing, and to some extent this is caused by industrial CO2 and methane emissions. True, that's not a very controversial statement at all, it's proven science. But it certainly says nothing about whether that's even a negative, let alone about what the course of action should be in addressing it politically.

The global warming agenda, on the other hand, is not science: it consists of various stories and propaganda along the lines of a common theme. It's various, wildly differing apocalyptic predictions mildly related to climate science, that can only be prevented by the government forcefully hindering industrial activity. It's a political agenda, motivated by pseudo-religious environmentalist/marxist zeal, and an especially stupid one at that. To paraphrase a recent statement by US Secretary of State John Kerry, their general attitude is "what's the harm in killing off industrial activity in the name of climate science?". If you don't understand why that's stupid, read up on the broken windows fallacy in Economics.

Besides, if the global warming agenda really was as widely accepted in Japan as you claim, its proponents wouldn't feel the need to propagandize about it everywhere, especially in schools and children's books and entertainment. I am yet to pick up a childrens' book about Evolution. And yet, most of them have a chapter about the global warming agenda.

And there is no purpose to it. Children are neither equipped to make a decision about the issue, nor to do anything about it. It's complex science, that should be taught in college, along with Evolutionary Genetics (which is the established science, btw., Darwin's theory is obsolete).

The only purpose, much like the purpose the Church has in infiltrating the school system in Christian majority countries, is indoctrination. Get 'em while they're young and naive, and easily scared by the prospect of Hell/apocalyptic global warming.
Edited: 2014-05-27, 1:27 pm
Reply
#39
I'm merely trying to explain why having a "manmade climate change" chapter in the book can be seen as evidence that the book isn't good, as the creator of the thread implied.

Also, it's true that I'm very touchy about this issue, but that's because I believe I know enough about the subject to understand they are fraudsters, much like Houdini knew enough about magic to understand the tricks spiritual mediums were using to scam people. It's really unfortunate that Michael Chrichton died so young, because being a scientist himself, he spend the last year of his life trying to stop this nonsense from entering the social imaginary, which would mean people would believe in it without any proof and regardless of contrary evidence.
Reply
#40
Perhaps the global warming and increased occurrence of weather anomalies all over the world do not have a causal relationship. Either way something is screwed up about this planet, and there's plenty of observations about that. The climate is changing and people all over the world are witnessing it's negative consequences each and every day.

Meanwhile I can enjoy the warmer summers and milder winters up in the north. So it's not all negative at the very least. Anyway, I used Japanese for busy people and I didn't like it. The explanations of the grammar were inadequate and the book just kept feeding me set phrases without really getting into what's going on in the sentences. I don't think there are kanji either, so you're stuck learning the language through kana or even worse, romaji. It's crap.
Edited: 2014-05-27, 1:46 pm
Reply
#41
There was some reports about off topic posting in this thread.

To be clear this is the "General Debate" thread and anything goes as long as its civil.
Reply
#42
john555 Wrote:...climate change is more politics than science
@John555, or really anyone else who feels like responding: 5>15? (from
or, if you actually want to watch a well put together video:
) You are right though, climate change is more about politics; but that's because it's already an accepted idea for all but the seemingly willfully ignorant and/or uneducated in the (mostly) US/Canadian populace. Plugging your ears and saying "LALALALA" really loudly doesn't change the science. And even if you (single or plural) don't believe in science (!!!) how can you morally substantiate the "drill baby drill" ideology that has permeated the modern world? Do you really believe that in the name of the "invisible hand" we should rip the world apart, whether climate change exists or not, until the externalities come back to bite us in the collective butt? Or do you just believe that externalities don't exist? Have you actually thought about the issues at hand or do you just consume without thinking?

The above might have been a bit harsh/sarcastic but, I am actually fascinated by people who deny climate change and would love to understand your logic here (I mean this literally, I would really love to read about how you came to your conclusions).
Reply
#43
REH94 Wrote:The above might have been a bit harsh/sarcastic but, I am actually fascinated by people who deny climate change and would love to understand your logic here (I mean this literally, I would really love to read about how you came to your conclusions).
Perhaps john555 (or people like him) deny climate change because it is in his financial interests to deny it? For example, maybe he is the CEO of a big multinational oil company, and this company does whatever it does on a daily basis. The problem is that these daily activities have a side effect: slowly polluting the world day by day. john555 might very well care about climate change and the negative effects his company has on the environment but... his desire for profits are greater than his desire to rape the environment a little bit less (at a cost of profits). Or if john555 isn't a CEO of this company, then he is a stockholder of this company. The outcome is still the same: personal financial gain is more important than a sustainable public environment.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that there is little point convincing some climate change deniers using logic and science because those particular climate change deniers only listen to money. That is their logic: is it in my financial interest to support or oppose something? Then I will support/oppose it. Science? I don't care.

So if they don't answer to science, then we have to make doing the right thing financially attractive. For example, if we can convince them that environmentally friendly corporations and activities is a financially lucrative proposition, then these climate change deniers will vote with their dollar. Easier said than done of course.

It's no different to religious people. Their logic is not so much money, but feelings. My gut feeling says God is real. Science? I don't care.
Reply
#44
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footb...39793.html

If you don't follow soccer, Japanese soccer fans in Brazil made the worldwide news recently for picking up their own litter, instead of the usual hooligan behavior like blowing up cars, assaulting civilians or looting shops.

But an interesting point was raised. Since Japanese soccer fans cleaned the stadium not only of their own litter, but other people's litter, they have effectively made a job obsolete. The Brazilian cleaners, whose job is to clean, in this case, don't have to clean. And since there's no job available, they will probably not receive wages that day.

The issue is this: should Sports fans (not just soccer fans) pick up their own litter after a match is finished (thus depriving cleaners of an income)? Or should they leave as much litter as possible so that the cleaners have a job to do and can be paid for the job of cleaning?
Edited: 2014-06-17, 11:36 am
Reply
#45
qwertyytrewq Wrote:The issue is this: should Sports fans (not just soccer fans) pick up their own litter after a match is finished (thus depriving cleaners of an income)? Or should they leave as much litter as possible so that the cleaners have a job to do and can be paid for the job of cleaning?
Overall, it's better for the economy if people just cleaned up after themselves. However, it's true that the cleaners lose in the short-term.
Reply
#46
vileru Wrote:Overall, it's better for the economy if people just cleaned up after themselves[/url]. However, it's true that the cleaners lose in the short-term.
Should we care about the interests/livelihood of cleaners at the cost of the efficiency of the economy? If so, why?

Or is it better for the economy if we ignore them (so they'll lose their jobs/die)? If so, why?
Reply
#47
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Should we care about the interests/livelihood of cleaners at the cost of the efficiency of the economy? If so, why?
Yes, because there'll be a political uproar and short-term economic consequences if all those people lost their jobs at once. Ideally, a government program would ease the transition by giving them time and resources to find new jobs.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Or is it better for the economy if we ignore them (so they'll lose their jobs/die)? If so, why?
Yes, it's better for the reasons given in the website I linked above (assuming that the fans clean up after themselves). Cleaning is a maintenance cost. With the elimination of that cost, consumers are more likely to spend their money on produced goods. Production stimulates the economy more than maintenance, which is explained in the link above.
Reply
#48
qwertyytrewq Wrote:
REH94 Wrote:The above might have been a bit harsh/sarcastic but, I am actually fascinated by people who deny climate change and would love to understand your logic here (I mean this literally, I would really love to read about how you came to your conclusions).
Perhaps john555 (or people like him) deny climate change because it is in his financial interests to deny it? For example, maybe he is the CEO of a big multinational oil company, and this company does whatever it does on a daily basis.
Oh God! I only wish I WERE the CEO of a big multinational oil company! Then I'd be rich...where can I send my resume?
Reply
#49
Arupan Wrote:I studied Japanese at the university without ANKI and by translating (the so-called "grammar-translation method) but most people find it way too hard to think in a language other than their target one and still produce an accurate sentence. So whatever it is, just do it. Time spent on this forum is wasted time. I mostly use it in order to improve my English.
Hi Arupan, it's nice to see that someone else has used the "grammar-translation" method (which is what I used to learn Japanese), given how there seems to be a bias against the "grammar-translation" method. I personally prefer this method. It's hard yes but it pays off in the end.

By the way, your English looks perfect to me (and I am a native English speaker so I know).
Reply
#50
john555 Wrote:Hi Arupan, it's nice to see that someone else has used the "grammar-translation" method (which is what I used to learn Japanese), given how there seems to be a bias against the "grammar-translation" method. I personally prefer this method. It's hard yes but it pays off in the end.
The "bias" isn't against the "grammar-translation" method, it's against any method that has no rationale for it, and every reason to be avoided. In fact Arupan, in the post you're responding to, has identified the reason why this method is a bad idea: "most people find it way too hard to think in a language other than their target one and still produce an accurate sentence". And that's an understatement. Most people find it impossible to do that. You know why? Because it is. Because that's not how natural languages work.

That's a result that's been observed time and time again, with people who've put themselves through learning a language this way failing to be able to actually use what they learned time and time again.
Reply