[Zgarbas]

Hello!

This thread is here so that people can continue debates (started here, or on other threads) without hijacking other threads for it. In other words, whenever that post about whether or not that one guy was right about this thing manages to get some responses and is on the verge of derailing the thread, please continue the discussion in this thread. Of course, if you wish to start a debate that is not political from the get go, feel free to do it here.

Rules are:
1. Do not personally insult other users.
2. This should be needless to say, but no hate speech.
3. If you see that a debate has long died (say, the last post about it older than 5 pages or a few months), don't rebut it; if you must, you can re-start the argument, but continuing a dead discussion would be confusing.
4. Please try to not turn the debate into a flame war.
5. Argue, argument and present/defend an opinion, don't just bash the others.

(If you think some new rules are needed or have any suggestions, feel free to do so!)

Didn't know if this is general or political. Anyway.

Thoughts on the legalization of gambling in Japan? Will it happen any time soon?

The laws stifle other industries(near the bottom) that are not necessarily even related to gambling, yet exceptions are made for obvious gambling like pachinko.

Yeah, I've always wanted to go to Japan, but there's just no casinos, so I think it's boring. If they had casinos, I'd go. I am no industry expert, but could gambling really bring about tourism? Sheldon Adelson seems to think so. For things like drugs and prostitution I usually think regulation, rehabilitation, and taxation are all better than something like the prison state in the US, but Japan is quite a different story altogether. And gambling is also different. There isn't already some massive black market gambling happening. It seems that international casino business moguls are pushing for some glitzy resorts. They say it will generate billions. I just can't personally imagine saying to my hypothetical spouse: "Hey honey, let's go on vaca to Japan. I heard they have great casino resorts!" but then I'm some kind of cultural elitist.
Perhaps it's a better economic alternative than some other industries that push out-of-the-way places to sign up: “We absolutely need it,” Yoshifumi Matsuyama, the chairman of Oma’s Chamber of Commerce, said of the plant. “Nothing other than a nuclear plant will bring money here. That’s for sure. What else can an isolated town like this do except host a nuclear plant?”* or maybe gambling oozes sludge in a different way. I urge people to think beyond five years about these kinds of things.
Perhaps it will force people to innovate or find new economy stimulators to not legalize gambling. Hmm I sound socially conservative, no? Protect the family! Protect good old Japan!

*http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world/asia/31japan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think gambling is perhaps the one thing where draconian laws might have some justification. It's an industry that basically just saps the money of people who don't understand probability.

But why ban gambling and then allow the stock market speculation or worse yet effectively subsidize it? makes no sense.

Zgarbas Wrote:Hello!

This thread is here so that people can continue debates (started here, or on other threads) without hijacking other threads for it. In other words, whenever that post about whether or not that one guy was right about this thing manages to get some responses and is on the verge of derailing the thread, please continue the discussion in this thread. Of course, if you wish to start a debate that is not political from the get go, feel free to do it here.

Rules are:
1. Do not personally insult other users.
2. This should be needless to say, but no hate speech.
3. If you see that a debate has long died (say, the last post about it older than 5 pages or a few months), don't rebut it; if you must, you can re-start the argument, but continuing a dead discussion would be confusing.
4. Please try to not turn the debate into a flame war.
5. Argue, argument and present/defend an opinion, don't just bash the others.

(If you think some new rules are needed or have any suggestions, feel free to do so!)

Avoid third person opinions.. Argue against the opposing sides, don't let other person argue for you.. For example, "X says that what you are saying is wrong."

nadiatims Wrote:I think gambling is perhaps the one thing where draconian laws might have some justification. It's an industry that basically just saps the money of people who don't understand probability.

Well, I think having a problem with gambling is more about impulse control than not understanding the math.

Anyway, I would make gambling illegal if it were my choice. A gambling addict not only destroys his own finances, but also his family's, and many end up being physically and emotionally abusive to their families (This is a mix of correlation and causation. Abuse is more likely to begin with because most gamblers have impulse control problems, but the stress from financial problems increases the abuse, and abuse is also used by addicts to protect their addiction--they keep their family too afraid of them to successfully stop them from gambling). And, unlike drugs which are a mixed bag to some extent, there really isn't a positive side to gambling.

I would like to reiterate my point that women's rights take away from other, more important issues, and would also like to state that sexual assault of males is not taken seriously enough in our society and that female victims of rape get a disproportionate amount of attention.

i would also like to assert that the education in the UK should be entirely revamped.

[Zgarbas]

By disproportionate amount of attention, do you mean being slut-shamed, victim blamed, called liars, or being humiliated even when in court? Because last time I checked the main opponents to male sexual abuse weren't the females fighting for equal rights, but the men who bring up arguments such as "If I were in that boy's shoes I'd love to get fondled" which you can find as a reaction to almost all news stories revolving around sexually abused males.
You can't just put one group's rights on hold till another group catches up, which is what I understand by your stating that women's rights steal the spotlight. The problem is that male rights activism is almost entirely dedicated to making fun of women's rights instead of fighting for their own, which is probably why the only groups who bothered caring that the recent reformation of the definition of rape also lists the possibility of men being rape victims were the feminists... Also, it steals the spotlight because there is a disproportionate amount of females that are rape victims, under-reporting notwithstanding. Rape and its social stigmas are still a controversial issue, regardless of the victim's gender; you can't just ask women to grin and bear with it just because men aren't getting enough attention, especially when it's the same women fighting for rape awareness that are doing the bulk of male victim awareness... Maybe try asking men's rights activists why their main concern is the possibility of falsely accused rapists, or why they feel insulted that they have to buy women flowers, instead of the underreporting coming from male victims; I think you'd find the real issue for the lack of progress lies somewhere around there.

I wonder if there ever was a time when someone thought that the educational system in their country shouldn't be revamped.

raharney Wrote:I am astonished at the all the shallow criticisms of Benny’s project. But then again, maybe I shouldn’t be for what is being revealed here is a certain self-referential episteme about language that works on a number of traditional but outmoded Romanticist assumptions:

What Benny is aiming for, perhaps, is a pre-nationalist Romanticist situation where being able to speak a few languages and dialect, with no worries about professional accreditation or the condescension of the bourgeois intelligentsia caste, was simply the norm. Or perhaps he is aiming for a postmodern condition where language acquisition is wrenched out of the claws of the singularity and finitude obsessed crypto-apartheidist gatekeepers of linguistic nationalist discourses and returned to the people: i.e. us peasant, workers, and peregrinating flâneurs.
Either way he is happily challenging those who are unhealthily obsessed with the supposed invisible boundaries between “cultures”. So good on him.

Can someone rephrase the above in plain English?

qwertyytrewq Wrote:

raharney Wrote:I am astonished at the all the shallow criticisms of Benny’s project. But then again, maybe I shouldn’t be for what is being revealed here is a certain self-referential episteme about language that works on a number of traditional but outmoded Romanticist assumptions:

What Benny is aiming for, perhaps, is a pre-nationalist Romanticist situation where being able to speak a few languages and dialect, with no worries about professional accreditation or the condescension of the bourgeois intelligentsia caste, was simply the norm. Or perhaps he is aiming for a postmodern condition where language acquisition is wrenched out of the claws of the singularity and finitude obsessed crypto-apartheidist gatekeepers of linguistic nationalist discourses and returned to the people: i.e. us peasant, workers, and peregrinating flâneurs.
Either way he is happily challenging those who are unhealthily obsessed with the supposed invisible boundaries between “cultures”. So good on him.

Can someone rephrase the above in plain English?

"I am surprised that so many people are criticising Benny's project. That said, maybe I shouldn't as he seems to be working towards an outdated idea of what fluency is.

Benny's aim is to be able to speak a lot of languages, yet he has no need or desire to obtain qualifications, which for the majority of language learners is not an option.

That said, perhaps he just likes to pretend that it is possible to learn a language with little effort so that he can sell this idea to the masses of people that are desperate to learn a language but cant be bothered to put in the effort.

Regardless of everything else, he rebels against the usual ideas of what language learning is, and how you should go about it, which is a good thing. On that basis he deserves at least some credit."

Japan supposedly has a lot of problems. Aging society, suicide rate, death from overwork, lack of "creativity" in industry and business, bad public education, too homogeneous (too many Asians), being weird/wacky/WTF, too sexist, too racist, too speciecist (whaling, overfishing of Tuna), too nationalist (history textbook, land claims geopolitics), too strong a currency, too weak a currency, too polite, bad at teaching/learning English, pollution, Yakuza, corrupt government, etc.

By far, the most commonly suggested suggestion to solve some of these problems is increased immigration of people from other countries.

What are the benefits of increased immigration?
What are the costs of increased immigration?

Benefits of increased immigration, off the top of my head, would be things like: younger workforce, increased variety of different cultures, increased visibility of different cultures, increased knowledge of other cultures, increased knowledge of other countries, increased comfortability with other ways of doing things, increased numbers of Japanese citizens able to speak, or comfortable with speaking other languages, increased concrete/ tangible links to other countries.

Costs, once again, off the top of my head: these benefits usually take more than one generation to be seen. Old people (the majority/ near majority) of the population especially seem resistant to allowing integration of migrants into their communities. Etc.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:What are the benefits of increased immigration?

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.

Immigration brings new ideas. Depending who you are this could be a negative, but if you consider the scenario where a country is stuck in the same old kind of thinking and is falling behind globally due to every other country adopting newer ideas. Then bringing in new people can spur growth.

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.

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.

Immigration brings new blood to existing gene pools. People co-mingle with the natives and the current ethnic groups change. I personally don't think this is a bad thing.

Quote:What are the costs of increased immigration?

Immigration changes the culture. New culture cause the old ideas to become staler and "old fashioned" in the eyes of newer generations. Of course, you don't need immigration to cause this happen, the internet does a good enough job of this now.

Immigration dilutes the pre-existing ethnic groups. Put more simply "the purity of race." Immigrants will co-mingle with the existing natives and the traits currently present will morph.

Immigration may bring crime. Over in the Christian thread, toshiromiballza had cited some stats about immigration and crime in Europe and I decided to google it. The studies done to date, actually do seem to suggest that immigration has led to a rise in crime in many European countries. In some cases, this is even true when accounting for socioeconomic differences as well. Although, studies in the US have shown there to be no real effect from immigration on crime. So there is something at play which makes crimes more likely from immigrants in Europe than the US.

There are probably many other pros/cons, but that's just a few to start with.

vix86 Wrote:Immigration may bring crime. Over in the Christian thread, toshiromiballza had cited some stats about immigration and crime in Europe and I decided to google it. The studies done to date, actually do seem to suggest that immigration has led to a rise in crime in many European countries. In some cases, this is even true when accounting for socioeconomic differences as well. Although, studies in the US have shown there to be no real effect from immigration on crime. So there is something at play which makes crimes more likely from immigrants in Europe than the US.

Several factors that could lead to increased crime that I can think of right now are, culture shock, ghettoisation, and lack of support. These wouldn't necessarily come under socio-economic status, so may have been over looked in the studies.

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.

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.

Culture shock can lead to a downward spiral. It may take a long time before someone is depressed or nihilistic enough about their prospects/ place in their new country before they start becoming violence/ resorting to crime to survive.

With the ghetto, some cities seem to have policies in place that seem to lead to the concentration of new immigrants, eg the ban lieu (spelling? have I misremembered the term even?) system in Paris, which, much more than the socio-economic status of the immigrants, seems to collect them in areas far from employment prospects, which of course, means another downward spiral.

Lack of support can mean a lot of things, from welfare provision, training/ education, language support/ language classes, and more.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:too homogeneous (too many Asians)

I fail to see how that is even remotely a "problem."

ktcgx Wrote:Benefits of increased immigration, off the top of my head, would be things like: younger workforce

Yes, I think in a world plagued by selfish materialistic people, capitalist slave-owners, and globalist pigs whose only goal is filling their filthy pockets with even more money, that's a great idea.

vix86 Wrote:Although, studies in the US have shown there to be no real effect from immigration on crime. So there is something at play which makes crimes more likely from immigrants in Europe than the US.

Those studies were done on violent crime only. You start with less serious crimes and then advance to more serious crimes. Just like with drugs. Adding other crimes to the equation would show a different picture. Coming to the US illegally is also a crime.

vix86 Wrote:

qwertyytrewq Wrote:What are the benefits of increased immigration?

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.

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).

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).

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?

toshiromiballza Wrote:

qwertyytrewq Wrote:too homogeneous (too many Asians)

I fail to see how that is even remotely a "problem."

According to some groups of people such as leftists and multiculturalists, it is a problem.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

ktcgx Wrote:Benefits of increased immigration, off the top of my head, would be things like: younger workforce
Yes, I think in a world plagued by selfish materialistic people, capitalist slave-owners, and globalist pigs whose only goal is filling their filthy pockets with even more money, that's a great idea.

I'm going to agree here. While leftists/multiculturalists support increased immigration with a noble or idealized motive, the bulk of the support of increased immigration comes from capitalists/business owners who solely have the profit motive (more people to drive down wages). A critical approach should be taken when deciding if there should be increased immigration and the level of immigration.

Reposting from http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...#pid199433

toshiromiballza Wrote:LOL! I'll be damned if you're not my college professor. In any case, I won't know what your response will be, because this is the last time I opened this thread. I've got better things to do than argue with ignorant leftists (or read your nonsense). Take care!

http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...#pid199356

Since what's going on in this thread is exactly the same as the other thread (arguing with "ignorant leftists" and reading their "nonsense"), just wanted to clarify if you actually had any "better things to do"? Better things to do include but are not limited to: attending company board meetings, going on a date with your girlfriend, taking care of your sick mother, home renovations, participating in a non-violent protest, writing a letter to your senator, watching reality television.

Or does your "better things to do" consist of arguing with ignorant leftists in a separate thread?

Which I guess is a technically legitimate loophole IE. "I've got better things to do than argue with ignorant leftists (or read [their] nonsense)... [in] this thread [such as] argue[ing] with ignorant leftists (or read[ing] [their] nonsense) [in a separate thread]"

Apologies for the fragmentations in the quoting. Words in square brackets were added by me in order to create a cohesive quote with correct grammar/punctuation.

quark Wrote:Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate with you, because there's no point in doing so.
...
I just don't think you're worth devoting that much time to.

See above.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:It always surprises me when lefties/liberals attack freedom of speech.

It shouldn't necessarily be surprising. Supporters of freedom of speech often want to have the privilege of calling black people niggers (in a malicious manner and outside of the context of a comedy club). If this supporter of freedom of speech is white and male (usually the case) and calls a black person a nigger, and if or when the black person being called a nigger proceeds to physically attack the white male, the white male might respond "you're oppressing my right to free speech!"

What is the net result of this exchange? Well, the black person is offended, his day ruined for arguably no good reason. Similarly, the white person suffers physical harm for again, arguably no good reason.

What I think is the logic of the leftist/liberal is that by opposing certain forms of speech (such the privilege of calling a black person a nigger outside a comedy club or friendly setting), the entire above scenario is nullified. The black person continues having a good day without being disturbed by white people and the white person does not receive physical harm and continues doing something productive (such as fixing a car, going to the bank, or watching a movie) rather than unproductive (calling a random black person a nigger).

Zgarbas Wrote:(man, didn't we give out a warning to HonyakuJoshua to stop randomly mentioning his violent personal life? I'll let it pass this time. Again.)

I don't remember a warning but I do remember another member in the Feedback Forum making a thread complaining about that (the fact that he keeps mentioning his violent personal life). That thread was deleted on the same day though.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Reposting from http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...#pid199433

Not my fault somebody came to a different thread and started accusing me of racism and bigotry, to which I defended myself. If this were to happen in the other thread, I wouldn't have known about it and wouldn't respond.

Excluding myself from said thread does not mean I will exclude myself from other threads, no. And if I see somebody posting something false, misleading or dishonest, I will reply with a rational response. However, I might follow suit and leave a discussion when (not if, when) the counter-arguments become nothing but baseless ignorance, subjective nonsense and insults.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Reposting from http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...#pid199433

Not my fault somebody came to a different thread and started accusing me of racism and bigotry, to which I defended myself. If this were to happen in the other thread, I wouldn't have known about it and wouldn't respond.

Excluding myself from said thread does not mean I will exclude myself from other threads, no. And if I see somebody posting something false, misleading or dishonest, I will reply with a rational response. However, I might follow suit and leave a discussion when (not if, when) the counter-arguments become nothing but baseless ignorance, subjective nonsense and insults.

Oh okay. The impression that I got from your parting post was that you were sick of debating with leftists/multiculturalists. You had better things to do. The last thing that you wanted to do was to debate with leftists/multiculturalists whether it's this thread or the next. In reality, you're happy to continue debating with leftists/multiculturalists in any thread, just not in that original thread in which you announced your exit.

Thanks, it's clear now.

I must say in all fairness I aim to give a fair account of myself. I won't mention my "violent" personal life anymore, I just did it in the name of exposing tolerance and lack of tolerance. I walked past a load of dead animals today and it disgusted me.

Dude please don't stop mentioning your violent personal life.

I think we were all pretty much WTF at first, but now that that's worn off they do make for pretty fun reading as random anecdotes.

I clicked on this thread expecting a debate about Robert Lee vs. Stonewall Jackson.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:just not in that original thread in which you announced your exit.

I'm fine with it as long as their arguments can still be considered arguments, and not personal opinionated nonsense and willing ignorance.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:According to some groups of people such as leftists and multiculturalists, it is a problem.

For something to be considered a problem, there must be a valid reason to make such a claim. For example, drinking and driving is a problem because it can be harmful to oneself and others. Japan not being diverse enough is a problem because...?