Comments on: 40 Koreans Killed Overseas This Year

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:40:13 +0000

Sonagi,

Indeed.

By: Sonagi

Sonagi — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:11:51 +0000

Ut,

Arguing with abc is like trying to untangle a ball of yarn while the cat’s still playing with it.

By: arthjourneyman

arthjourneyman — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:42:07 +0000

Hi guys, I’ve worked with a lot of Korean-American and Korean-Canadian teens, many who came over at a young age like Cho and can’t even converse in Korean anymore. There is no nationalistic reason as to why they don’t carry US passports…many simply don’t know of the weight it carries, simply from never having needed it in day-to-day life for them to have found out. They are like many other young people of today…they don’t do something unless it impedes on their short visioned future, and not because they want to establish their national ties.

By: abcdefg

abcdefg — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:34:14 +0000

There are at least 2 contexts that my comments postulate whereas your reply supposes just 1. Simplifying, this means we shouldn’t take “expresses allegiance” as a retranslation of “has naturalized”. Doing so misrepresents my argument, trivializes “allegiance” and gives it the irrelevant sense corrected earlier, not to mention the absurd results. For example: the naturalized America hater who “expresses allegiance to America” even though he plots against it.

And in case you forgot, “expresses allegiance” is the condition that I introduced, and that to give your first attempt at contradiction any weight at all.

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:43:40 +0000

When a person takes the citizenship oath (at least in the case of the United States), he or she declares “true faith and allegiance” to the United States. This declaration is expressed in the future tense. The person further declares that he or she takes “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” Nota bene that said allegiance (et al.) is called an obligation; it binds the person from that point forward. In the absence of evidence that a person no longer professes this allegiance, such allegiance can (indeed must) be presumed from the solemn oath he or she took.

Words mean things, and a fortiori, solemn oaths. Hence, my position remains that the inference “expresses allegiance” from “has naturalized” is a valid deduction.

By: abcdefg

abcdefg — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:10:08 +0000

You are focusing on the basics and missing the nuances of that comment of mine that you originally replied to.

-Sure, if you are taking an oath then you are by definition “expressing allegiance”. That is of course a tautology, but it’s not the language game pertinent here.

-Now, recall the use of tense in my previous comments — “Has naturalized” — “Feels allegiance” — “Expresses allegiance…”. Do you see my point?

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:39:30 +0000

#51 - You’re still wrong re: “expresses…” No matter what the person “feels,” in order to become naturalized, he must express allegiance. There’s no way to become naturalized without taking the oath. What he feels at that point or any other is immaterial. As for bringing in the legal sense, you’re right; there was no need.

By: abcdefg

abcdefg — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:16:40 +0000

Correction: “It’s still VALID for “expresses…”"…

By: abcdefg

abcdefg — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:09:25 +0000

Yes, it’s valid for “feels..” (I’m glad we now agree). But it’s still invalid for “expresses…”; in fact the legal side of “allegiance” is not the sense of allegiance we’ve been using since comment 14. (In other words, guess who’s “muddling the issue by bringing in…” irrelevant considerations? It ain’t good abcdefg. ;))

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:40:27 +0000

#49 - Pardon the imprecision in my use of “safe inference.” I meant “deductively valid.” As for the rest of your argument, it’s valid in the case of the proposition “feels allegiance to America.” It’s invalid in the case of “expresses…” You’re muddling the issue by bringing in temporal and emotional factors. In the case of the proposition “expresses…” the only time that’s material is the time at which the expression is made. Legally speaking, whether the person changes his mind (or “feels differently”) at another juncture is immaterial—and since citizenship is a question of law, the legal standard is the deciding one. Once he expresses allegiance, he is legally responsible for that allegiance unless and until he formally renounces it.

People do in fact exercise many motives for naturalizing…

Please refer to #48.