Occasionally some western soldiers commit a crime, except in the west the media picks up on it quicker than you blame all your problems on the west and the offenders will almost certainly be punished. In Bangladesh it seems the government has a differnet approach to the media, unless you can somehow blame this on the west.
Finger pointing is awesome. Guess what, dummy? This isn't about the east. This is about the west. We're supposed to be better than the east and we're fucking up just LIKE THE EAST. That is what this is about. Of course the east sucks, IT'S THE EAST. But we are not SUPPOSED to suck, and yet WE ARE.
Do you understand this thesis?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-18 5:45
>>6
So you admit that the core of your argument is to concentrate solely on crimes committed by westerners?
There's nothing to "admit" to, you dumbfuck. The west has remained as strong as it has thus far by remaining critical of itself- the moment we stop questioning ourselves is the moment we become as weakened and debilitated as the east.
I have done nothing wrong, but acted with impunity in regards to questioning if we are really better than the east (vastly superior) or whether we are just trying to "get by" by being better by a smaller and smaller margin until we wake up one day realize that we've become China.
Obviously, you're too stupid to realize this and that's why you made the assuption that I'm needlessly and recklessly and above all MALICIOUSLY attacking the west (MY west). People like you don't even understand the meaning of self-criticism and it is this flaw that makes you diametrically opposed to change and therefore- UTTERLY ANTI-WESTERN.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-18 8:56
>>8
\"There\'s nothing to \"admit\" to, you dumbfuck.\"
Except for this statement, I agree with everything you said.
\"The west\" has both good and bad values and has done good and bad. >>1 Said we should protect western values, then provided a link which contained bad values and instances westerners do not abide by good values. Clearly stating that all western values are bad, that any values which sound good never occur due to hypocrasy and implying that the bad values are western in origin and exist nowhere else.
>>1 must admit why he/she is ignoring facts which prove that westerners are not all bad and also admit that westerners are not the only hemisphere to have done bad things. He/she must also admit his/her motives.
Name:
Anti-Chan.2006-10-18 13:03
"Except for this statement, I agree with everything you said."
Go puff on a dick.
"The west" has both good and bad values and has done good and bad. >>1 Said we should protect western values, then provided a link which contained bad values and instances westerners do not abide by good values. Clearly stating that all western values are bad, that any values which sound good never occur due to hypocrasy and implying that the bad values are western in origin and exist nowhere else.
Spectacular fail. You will find your failure highlighted in bold. I've also underlined it for further emphasis on your lack of cognitive ability. No where on that site did anyone or anything say that "All western values are bad." - That was a delusion brought on what I can only believe is a combination of retardation and a lack of reading comprehension.
>>10
The title of the article is \"Western values\".
It then provides a list of evil values or instances where good values are not followed...
Colonialism
Respect for Human Rights
Totalitarianism
Freedom of Speech
Imperialism
Racism
Militarism
Respect for Democracy
Children\'s Rights
Whilst instances of where good values are not followed does not neccesarily mean that they are not western values, mixing these values with evil values is a clear unequivocal statement that the article writer believes western values includes...
Colonialism
Totalitarianism
Imperialism
Racism
Militarism
Which is a lie.
When you talk about the west you talk about everyone in anglo diaspora nations and europe. When you claim western values are evil you are persecuting all people who dwell in \"the west\".
Bear in mind that I don\'t deny any of the facts provided, I am pointing out the fact that in order to know the truth you need to accumulate all the facts.
AB implies C
A implies D
B implies E
Person F has reason to persuade person G to think E is occurring and has access to the information G is shown. What facts will person F expose person G to?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-19 16:36
>>10
The poorest shittiest nations on the planet are the same ones that blame the west for all their problems. It could either be because the west has wronged them or because whoever sets back the nation is blaming someone else for their problems.
Let\'s take Japan, South korea, North Korea and Vietnam as examples.
Oops I\'ve just won the internet fight lol
Name:
Anti-chan2006-10-19 18:04
"Whilst instances of where good values are not followed does not neccesarily mean that they are not western values, mixing these values with evil values is a clear unequivocal statement that the article writer believes western values includes...
Where did he lie? Or are you delusional? America (The true west) was built on colonialism and racism; or did you forget about that whole "sellin' niggers" thing? And since, you believe the west includes "everyone in anglo diaspora nation and Europe". Then I think France, Britian, Italy and Germany fall firmly under Totalitarianism, Imperialism and Militarism. Modern America has shown several instances of unessacary Militarism since WW2. These are facts you can wiki or find in any American High School history book.
"Bear in mind that I don\'t deny any of the facts provided, I am pointing out the fact that in order to know the truth you need to accumulate all the facts."
...
"Person F has reason to persuade person G to think E is occurring and has access to the information G is shown. What facts will person F expose person G to?"
If you're not denying any of the facts then get the fuck out of the thread, you brain-dead fuckstick. The only implication that is of any relevence is what the facts implicate. If the facts implicate that the west isn't really "the west" anymore; then that is not the fault of the writer, that is not the facts fault, that is the fault of the west.
Criticism is a good thing. Your argument is basically "Don't tell the truth; because OH MY GODWHAT WILL OTHER PEOPLE THINK?"
This quote by me..
\"Bear in mind that I don\\\'t deny any of the facts provided, I am pointing out the fact that in order to know the truth you need to accumulate all the facts.\"
Is completely different from this interpretation by you...
\"Don\'t tell the truth; because OH MY GOD WHAT WILL OTHER PEOPLE THINK?\".
Therefore you are deluded.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-22 4:29
>>17
Wrong, I wrote that and I am not anti-chan. you fail, dude, get over it.
You're smoking PCP from a makeshift pipe of baby skulls, while sitting on (and sucking on) a mountian of dicks.
If you're not denying the facts provided, then what exactly constitutes "all the facts"? And unless the existance of these HYPOTHETICAL, MYSTERIOUS facts negates previously known DEMOSTRATED AND PRACTICAL facts, then you don't really have shit to say, do you? You know; A point? Or do you just bang away at the keyboard like some kind of retarded monster?
Person F has reason to persuade person G to think E is occurring and has access to the information G is shown. What facts will person F expose person G to?"
The article is saying that all western values are evil by only showing evil western values.
What would you think if the article was titled "black values" and only showed evil values which some black people had and instances where blacks don't follow good values? You would be doing the same as me saying that while the facts are true the article only shows one side of the story and is extremely biased.
Just because I'm black doesn't mean I don't understand that black culture has some fucked up values. If I did what you're doing now, I'd be just as wrong (as you are now).
What I'm saying is that the article is making a point: That these are IN FACT western values...we've just stopped following them. The article is NOT saying: The West has no good values. You just fail at Reading comprehension.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-24 14:13
>>22
You just keep repeating things that I agree with and trying to pass them off as if I don't agree with them. You are beating down a straw man, so yes I have to keep reminding you that the straw man isn't me.
"The article is NOT saying: The West has no good values. You just fail at Reading comprehension."
The title of the article is "western values", yet the article writer clearly does not rank the values and facts in order of importance, but by whether they are evil or good values which are not followed. There are no instances or attempts to say that the article is focussing on evil western values for whatever reason. The article is biased and attempting to pass off al western values as evil. It doesn't have to clearly state it's malicious intentions, it's ignorant solid silence concerning good western values speaks volumes.
A = good western/black values
B = bad western/black values
C = the west/blacks is good and bad = the truth
D = the west/blacks only does good
E = the west/blacks only does bad
A+B implies C
A implies D
B implies E
Person F has reason to persuade person G to think E is occurring, so G only displays the information B.
The same logic that you use against racism, that racists generalise, ignore facts which go against their argument, blow small occurances way out of proportion, swap causes for effects and effects for causes despite the evidence to the contrary etc etc... is the same logic I am using to claim that this site is biased.
The article clearly implies that the values in question are, in fact, western values, just that the west is not following their own values.
In other words:
U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL.
And everyime you post a reply, that's the response you're gonna get.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-24 22:33
>>28
That's not the whole picture though. The article is not about all of western values, but it claims to be. Either by purce chance and extreme stupidity the article writer happenned only to get a hold of facts which suggest the west is evil or the article writer is biased.
The article clearly implies that the values in question are, in fact, western values, just that the west is not following their own values.
In other words:
U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL. U FAIL.
And everyime you post a reply, that's the response you're gonna get.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-25 10:22
>>30
What does that have to do with the article leaving out good western values and instances where westerners follow those values intentionally?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-25 10:29
>>30
In case anyone else happens to care about this thread, this is ignorance. I've already acknowledged the points anti-chan made, yet she repeats them endlessly, not even attempting to invalidate my point that the absence of facts which show that the west isn't 100% evil or at least an explanation as to why they were left out shows that the article writer is biased.
Either anti-chan agrees and is just trolling or anti-chan is an extremist of some sorts who absolutely cannot contemplate the idea that the west isn't 100% evil.
1. You are a sad faggot for posting twice, trying to desperately garner internet support for your shitburg assertions. That shit is auto-matic fail.
2. I'm a guy. Not a girl. Not that it matters. Word on 4chan is that you prefer tranny manpussy floppy cock-style. Nothing wrong with that. This is after all: 4chan. But your undying love for dick chicks and countless gender issues is not the issue here.
3. RE: >>31 - This is exactly the point of the article, you lamebrain fuckwit. Westerners are no longer intentionally following those values.
4. RE: >>32 - I've already invalidated your point. You keep saying the article is saying something that it isn't without any proof.
5. As an American, I can say honestly that you are the problem with America as it stands. Your over-optimism, MaCarthy-like tactics of declaring someone an "extremist" or a "traitor" and inability to criticize our government, serves as nothing but a huge distraction to the numerous faults within our system and finding logical solutions to those faults. You have zero devotion to change and zero loyality to truth and that, my dear pervert, makes you UNAMERICAN.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 16:29
>>33
"Westerners are no longer intentionally following those values."
How dare you discriminate against all westerners because of the acts of a few.
"You keep saying the article is saying something that it isn't without any proof."
No i don't. I'm saying it doesn't have enough proof to make a statement about all western values, just evil western values. Yet it declares itself to represent all western values in the title "western values". This is why if it were titled "evil western values" I wouldn't have a problem with it.
"How dare you discriminate against all westerners because of the acts of a few."
lol wut? I never said that. But I'll tell you what...in a democracy there should be no such thing as "acts of a few". This is a majority government and if the system is working properly then it is the majority's fault for any wrong doing or discarding of tradition western values by the western governments.
"I'm saying it doesn't have enough proof to make a statement about all western values, just evil western values. Yet it declares itself to represent all western values in the title "western values". This is why if it were titled "evil western values" I wouldn't have a problem with it."
No, you fucking idiot. They label it "Western Values" to make the point: "These are traditional western values" and then they provide sufficent evidence that "The west" (or at least western governments) have stopped following these values. It's that simple. Unless you have proof that this ISN'T happening then you fail, lose, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 1:14
Does 7.62 leave a better hole than 5.56?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 21:09
Anti-chan don't be such angsty monkey
Name:
Xel2006-10-29 7:43
Sara Robinson has made some articles that explain why society looks the way it does - it essentially boils down to cycles, that changes between individualist and collectivist movements. An Excerpt:
"The complete cycle (or saeculum) comprises four phases (or seasons) each lasting about 17-22 years:
1. High -- a spring of extreme conformity, communal focus, large-scale planning and building, economic security, institution-building, and extreme optimism. What was once radical now becomes firmly codified establishment dogma throughout the culture. As it ends, people become more sophisticated and curious about the world. (1945-1964)
2. Awakening -- a summer of social experimentation, expansion of individual rights, inner-directed growth, devaluation of old establishment institutions, emergence of a new set of social ideals. Old dogma is destroyed; and the dominant values and aspirations of the next era emerge before disillusionment eventually sets in. (1890-1910, 1964-1980)
3. Unraveling -- an autumn of institutional and infrastructure neglect, culture wars, economic bubbles, sex scandals, drug prohibitions, fanatic religious movements, political corruption, runaway corporatism, and general decadence. With the old consensus intellectually, economically, culturally, and physically in tatters, things begin to fall apart, preparing the way for the new. (1910-1929, 1980-2001)
4. Crisis -- a winter in which the world is politically, economically, and physically (and usually violently) remade, with a new establishment and new institutions built around the ideals and values that emerged during the previous Awakening. Individual rights are at low ebb. Attention is outer-directed as communal priorities, teamwork, and conformity re-emerge, and people re-engage with the larger society. (1773-1794, 1844-1865, 1929-1945, 2001-2020?)
Looking at this cycle, the current disarray in our planning infrastructure is apparently right on schedule. We've been here before -- in fact, a lot of people have noticed how much of our current political and social landscape does in fact look like the 1930s. The theory tells us quite specifically how we got here, and points to both the opportunities and concerns that we're likely to encounter going forward."
>>35, there's no reason to throw insults around at Anonymous. When you insult him, you insult all of us, including yourself, by lowering the quality of the debate. You have a valid point to make, but you're sounding like a Troll, who's real goal is to make people disagree with his espoused viewpoint.
I agree with the general message you are trying to get across; minus the name-calling and inteligence attacking. But the latter part is enough to make me want to sage your thread, which I am doing now.
Anti-chan's always been like this. Even when anti-chan posts anonymously you can tell him apart from everyone else by the excessive hyperbole, swearing, insults, and liberal use of bold.
Anti-chan has anger issues (just watch the reply to this). Nothing to see here. Move along.
Name:
Anti-chan2006-10-30 0:13
>>40
stinky poophead said: "Anti-chan has anger issues"
nuh uh.
thast mean/
u dont knpow what you are talking about.
faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-30 9:41
>>41 Somehow I doubt it's the same Antichan...but I could be wrong. Maybe Anti-chan is a moniker for someone purposefully acting like a jackass? I'm not completely familiar with all of 4chan's memes yet.
Hello fuckers. This is 4chan. You're toilets and I'm a puckered anus unleashing torrents of shit on your faces for great justice. Explain to me; in sorted detail why on a website where nigger, kike and baby rape memetics stand together as equals, should I not seek to destroy fuckbrain wielders of shitty logic using a couple of insults?
The problem is, you fuckers are too fucking soft. You've got literal retards leading your countries, vapid watered down ideologies running your societies and you're whining that I shouldn't talk shit or at the very least piss on some moron's (lack of) intelligence?
Is this really debate? I don't think so. I don't think I should have argue the truth, when I know it's the truth. I don't think I should have to respect stupidity. And the truth is if I actually had my way I wouldn't argue with anyone who appeared illogical to me. I'd end their life in the most cold and callous way possible as punishment for dragging down the collective consciousness of the entire human species. If I could, I'd eliminate their souls and any memories anyone ever had of them.
In summation: Any and all qualms or problems me stem solely and only from feelings of inadequacy in yourselves. If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But don't bitch out and run off about "anger issues" and start fagifying yourself because I threw a couple of insults around. That's just silly.
Did I mention that this is 4chan?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-30 20:29
*yawn*
Long story short the west has done some pretty bad things, but every nation culture creed and race has an evil history. Singling out one group is wrong, if you have to write about the evils committed by a particular group and that group only, have the common courtesy to make it clear that all humans are capable of evil and you do not wish for your facts to be used to skapegoat or persecute the group you are talking about.
Objectively speaking, singling out one group is wrong. But subjectively, when dealing with our present-day society, isn't wrong. If you can't single out what evil is, then you're trying deny the reality of evil.
We can say for sure that (under certain circumstances) alot of things the west has done to the rest of the world are what we, westerners, would percieve as immoral, wrong, or evil. The message in the article is simple: The west ceases to be the western when it stops following it's own values.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-31 18:46
And you just crossed the line.
lawl is dat sum e-penis bravado there?
What are you going to do? Scream obscenities at him while covering your screen in spittle?
You're funny. You feel like I'm spitting venom, all with my face twisted up in anger, so you assume I'm sitting here all worked up and shit. Meanwhile, my shit flows free into your mouths with very little effort or discomfort.
Every notice that everytime you bring up "Anti-Chan anger issues" you completely and utterly fail at even coming close to refuting my arguments? I mean, can you at least show me how I'm wrong first or is all the fecal matter really that distracting? Somehow I doubt that, you've a got the demenor of someone that gets shit on daily. You should be used to it.
What I meant was: He crossed the line, from right to wrong. Simple as that. But of course you assume it's about some other shit. Why this is the case is written in >>43
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-31 21:16
I'm not trying to refute your issues, guy. I don't even know what this thread is about.
I concur with >>49. There's nothing to refute anymore; the thread is impossible to follow because of all the free venom all over it. An interesting opening topic, but this thread is weighed down by copious quantities of fail.
We'd be better off bringing this arguement up another time.
If I'd started this thread, I wouldn't have wanted to be the one whose conduct killed it.
This thread started to fail the moment you weepy little pointdexter fucks started up with your whining. "Wahhh, my bed is too small! This cock in my ass is too big." You don't seem to understand the inherant fucktardedness of bitching about swear words and insults on 4CHAN.
>>46
"Objectively speaking, singling out one group is wrong. But subjectively, when dealing with our present-day society, isn't wrong."
Since this is all subjective and has nothing to do with science or the court of law, who decides how large the white skin tax is? Al Sharpton or David Duke?
Your argument doesn't make any fucking sense. If you have to "advance coloured people" (and ignore unfortunate white people for being white?) why not take the money off people who have been proven to be racist. You'll never get white people to vote for black reparations or whatever if you tell them they are guilty of a magical subconscious form of racism they were unaware of and should be punished.
Shouldn't you be busy protectile vomiting sperm into a gaybath house's jizzbucket?
Name:
Xel2006-11-02 15:08
>>56 You have absolutely no clue of how poorly your parents raised you, huh?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-02 16:32
>>54
what's there to understand, the question is:
whose subjectivity is the correct one? and how is this decided?
talebans think america is evil, america think talebans are evil.
who's "right"?
Name:
Not-that-Fucktard-AntiChan2006-11-02 17:47
There is something to be said for the core hypocracy pointed out in the article. If the west does not follow it's own values, and doesn't attempt to live up to its ideals, it ceases to be "The Enlightened West" and becomes just another region with it's own self-centered, self aggrandizing ideology, just like everybody else.
What parents, fool? I was raised by The Predator. Ever see that movie? That guy was impossible to grow up with. Evertime I asked him something, like, I dunno: "Dad how why did you leave/kill Mom?" ...and it's straight to the that fucking thing on forearm. He was so avoidant that I think I developed some issues with intamacy and such.
...at night I can still hear the beeping. :(
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-02 22:41
Get with the program liberals... NOT EVERYONE IN THE WEST IS EVIL. This has been the jist of every counter argument since this thread started. If you are going to continue saying THE WEST DID THIS THE WEST DID THAT you immediately fail every debate. "The west" consists of 100 millions of people, you can't tar them all with the same brush. There is no such thing as collective guilt. >>59
The thing is not everyone in the west is going around claiming the west is perfect. So whatever the article is trying to do, it certainly doesn't apply to good people in the west. Much like neo-con crap doesn't apply to good muslims, even though they try to pass off all muslims as guilty of something.
You are essentially what you despise the most. It reminds me of grade school when the kid next to your farts and calls you a "farty farty poo pants". Even though they know they are the true "farty farty poo pants", they prefer to shift the blame at the cost of humiliating themselves rather than be humiliated by others. It's a sad state of affairs when someone elveates pride above truth. It also suggests they have a low mental age.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-02 23:37
Get with the program liberals...
lol is dat sum indoctrination dere?
It's pretty sad when a person so unthinkingly paints with such a broad brush. It really lowers the quality of discourse.
That all humans are made equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is not the american way, it was merely adopted by americans and it was chosen because it generates happiness in people presently and in those who will exist in the future.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-12 18:14
All humans aren't made equal.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be given equal rights, however.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-12 19:44
The western way creates the best standard of living for its' citizens than any other society at any time, ever. It is vastly suprerior to any of its' alternatives. People who do not understand this point should be given a free one-way ticket to the country of their choice in order to immerse themselves wholly into their preffered society.