Perhaps it may help to think of this Mizar as a Vulcan, that analytical, logical mind dedicated to objectivity as a means of overcoming an unfortunate history of irrationality.

Right.

You may well doubt it. You may well continue to ascribe to someone’s statements the basest motives without bothering to produce a single piece of contravening evidence or a logical argument to support such accusations. You must do so, however, at the risk of encountering an incredulous reaction.

“2. Reverse can be asked. Why take it as rhetorical rather than literal?”

Because it falls to the accuser to justify the accusation. And so far, your sole argument has been that you doubt it. The point you need to make to prove an accusation is not whether you doubt, but whether there is merit in your doubt to the extent that others should join you in your doubt.

“You once again take the assumption towards rhetorical with the preset mind that I am some crazy, whacked out Angry KoreanTM.”

Embedded in this argument is the smug assumption that you know my mind. Is the justification for your argument then ommicience?

“3. Regardless of rhetorical/literal, to claim immaturity/overreaction on the part that denounces a statement that blatantly overgeneralizes a group of people based on race…”

“Based on race”, you state. But can you document a single reference to race? If you can point to such a statement, you will have proven your argument. Otherwise, the base motives you ascribe remain unsupported.

“ ‘Blaming others for pointing out our foibles as a society is in fact part of the problem that perpetrates some core problems in Korean society.’ ”

“Way to put words into my mouth. Isn’t it so much easier to make arguments when you can decide what you’re critiquing with no regards to what has been actually said?”

This is not so easy for a logically rigorous debator, which I am encouraging you to be.

When Aussie pointed out one of the foibles of Korean society, you reacted by labling him a racist. You did so without first bothering to ascertain his motives for doing so. You never asked for clarification. You simply portrayed him as racist or, as you phrase it “put words into his mouth.”

“More than taking a position with regard to Aussie’s statement, I’m faulting your response - which is to look for racists under the bed.”

“Lol… Do you know what you just said? ‘Forget about what you were actually talking about in the first place - let me reformat your arguments so that I can make arguments against it.’ Great idea. Let’s take everything out of context. That’ll lead to accurate assessment of the issue.”

Your reading comprehension difficulties notwithstanding, you alone are the one making accusations of racism here, and without support for the argument. Slander is serious business and can get you into trouble. This is why I am encouraging you to think and to express yourself with more logical rigor.

“ ‘Finally, let me reiterate that the racist argument no longer works. Too many people see through it now. They know better. It’s unseemly.’
1. Yeah. You and…. oh.”

Sorry, I cannot parse the argument here.

“2. Your assumption towards the rhetorics (i.e. interpretation) rather than literal (i.e. actual), once again, is the flaw in your thought process.”

That is precisely what I have challenged you not to do. But rather than accept my advice, you deflect the critique onto me, thereby proving my argument that blaming others for pointing out our foibles as a society is in fact part of the problem that perpetrates some core problems in Korean society.

You have persisted in accusations which you fail to even attempt to present proofs for.

3. “Obviously, not all Koreans hate non Koreans.” And yet, here you are, defending the statement “Koreans hate everyone except Korean nationals.”

“I’m defending nothing. I have no bone to pick, no position to defend. I’m merely holding you to the defense of your own arguments, a standard of intellectual honesty which you repeatedly refuse to engage in.

I do so because I enjoy the opportunity to assist you in developing your skills as a thinker and writer. And I also do so as a pure exercse in logic to while away a moment of boredom. Naturally, I would far more enjoy an honest debate with a worthy adversary or else with someone who has a sufficient attention span to properly read what is being asserted and to respond to it in a logical manner.

Nonetheless, thank you for engaging me in a bit of banter. It was a fun.

I’m going to go ahead and let your comment answer this one.

“It might be to you, but to the purveyer of objective cultural criticism, the racist strawman argument is an all too transparent expression of denial that results from an intense sense of national inferiority.”

So who’s the “purveyer of objective cultural criticism”? Aussiethunder? The invisible, inaudible one who hasn’t been arguing against the racist nature of his/her comment? Me? I guess that leaves only one person when it comes to who you’re talking about…

“nor is the ideal of complete objectivity required in order to offer an educated observation”

And yet you have been constantly accusing me of being dangerously subjective towards the Korean side. Nice.

“Am I? Did I state this about you specifically, or did I pose this as a general cultural critique and even include myself in the criticism? Please reread.”

Lol… so you don’t deny that you assumed that I am included in the “Blame everyone but Koreans” mentality. Nice. Making the claim general doesn’t help you, since your claims on the mentality was part of your argument against my claim of racism in Aussiethunder’s comment.

1. I highly doubt Aussiethunder was channeling the spirit of Johnathan Swift (or his equivalence) when he wrote that comment.

2. Reverse can be asked. Why take it as rhetorical rather than literal? You once again take the assumption towards rhetorical with the preset mind that I am some crazy, whacked out Angry KoreanTM.

3. Regardless of rhetorical/literal, to claim immaturity/overreaction on the part that denounces a statement that blatantly overgeneralizes a group of people based on race is to justify expressing statements that characterizes people based on race.

“Blaming others for pointing out our foibles as a society is in fact part of the problem that perpetrates some core problems in Korean society.”

Way to put words into my mouth. Isn’t it so much easier to make arguments when you can decide what you’re critiquing with no regards to what has been actually said?

“More than taking a position with regard to Aussie’s statement, I’m faulting your response - which is to look for racists under the bed.”

Lol… Do you know what you just said? ‘Forget about what you were actually talking about in the first place - let me reformat your arguments so that I can make arguments against it.’ Great idea. Let’s take everything out of context. That’ll lead to accurate assessment of the issue.

“Finally, let me reiterate that the racist argument no longer works. Too many people see through it now. They know better. It’s unseemly.”

1. Yeah. You and…. oh.

2. Your assumption towards the rhetorics (i.e. interpretation) rather than literal (i.e. actual), once again, is the flaw in your thought process.

3. “Obviously, not all Koreans hate non Koreans.” And yet, here you are, defending the statement “Koreans hate everyone except Korean nationals.”

Am I? Did I state this about you specifically, or did I pose this as a general cultural critique and even include myself in the criticism? Please reread.

“2. By ignoring my argument that you yourself cannot possibly achieve something called “objective cultural criticism”, you are sidestepping an important issue: no one can ever be ‘objective’ when it comes to cultural criticism. There’s always a neverending tug-of-war between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.”

I ignore the comment simply because it is irrelevent, ie. a “strawman.” No one has claimed omnicience, and nor is the ideal of complete objectivity required in order to offer an educated observation. If that were the case, no claims could be offered on any subject whatsoever.

Only you can answer that question, which is your rhetorical response to a rhetorical statement.

More than taking a position with regard to Aussie’s statement, I’m faulting your response - which is to look for racists under the bed. Obviously, not all Koreans hate non Koreans. Presumably the two of us do not. Aussie’s statement was what we call a hasty generalization and thus flawed if taken as a literal representation.

But why take it as a literal representation rather than a rhetorical device, a rib at some of the general tendencies of Korean society in the spirit of, say, Johnathan Swift? Why simply impute racism to the statement?

I point this out because I’ve seen this sort of overreaction become habitual in many Koreans. Others, however, manage to laugh in a self-depreciating way, and this is a strength. Jews are a great example of this. They have actually faced prejudice in ways that Koreans cannot imagine, and yet they still manage to remain dignified and maintain a sense of humor.

My point is there are positive ways to deal with things and negative ways. Blaming others for pointing out our foibles as a society is in fact part of the problem that perpetrates some core problems in Korean society.

Finally, let me reiterate that the racist argument no longer works. Too many people see through it now. They know better. It’s unseemly.

This is the inherent flaw with your critique.

1. You are assuming that I would denounce any and all criticisms against anything Korean related. Not only is this ad hominem (how does what I feel about other issues relevant in this particular discussion?) and a false one at that (since I don’t even fall into the Angry KoreanTM mold you’re so hellbent in trying to have me in), it’s also a false causality (how can my opinion on one issue reflect the widely varying stances that I may or may not take?)

2. By ignoring my argument that you yourself cannot possibly achieve something called “objective cultural criticism”, you are sidestepping an important issue: no one can ever be ‘objective’ when it comes to cultural criticism. There’s always a neverending tug-of-war between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.

This is because you are logical and unbiased, and these traits are rare in a society that expects one to pay homage to what Chomsky refers to as the mindlessly parroted conventional pieties.

For example, why is it those great atheists who founded America - Paine, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al expressed themselves as deists rather than atheists, much as they eschewed the construct of a personal god? Why is it politicians on both the left and right need to pretend to be men of faith to be the least bit electable? When you critique what people hold dear and do not question, you must preface your argument with the qualifier “I understand and respect your right to believe as you do, but….”

I don’t blame people for being socially programmed, but I do question the unexamined assumptions that color their perception of reality.

In any society, there are root assumptions that need challanging. America needs this, and so does Korea. It’s easy to dismiss my observations as “negative views”, and this is understandable because it’s painful to reexamine ilogical assumptions. But if you examine brutal truths, you will begin to see that they encourage self examination, and thereby offer the way to solutions. But this way cannot be dictated by others because they depend on awareness and consequent commitment to action. Thus the need for Mizar5s in society.

Yeah, because the word “because” in my summarizing sentence doesn’t mean I’m explaining my reasonings, right? And it’s not like you’ve made any arguments against it; you just keep strawmaning without actually addressing the point.

“Substitute the phrase “people inclucated in Korean culture” for Koreans, and the flaw in your syllogism becomes immediately obvious.”

“Koreans” and “Korean culture” are two very, very separate things. For one, the term culture is so nebulous that it is laughable for you to substitute it for the concrete term “Koreans”. It’s quite hilarious of you to assume that such distinction is syllogism.

Look at the sentence in question. “Koreans hate everyone except Korean nationals.” I’m a Korean, and according to Aussiethunder and to an extent, you, I hate everyone except Korean nationals. Is that an accurate statement? Is that a fair statement?

Of course not. My characteristics have already been determined by this sentence simply based on race (Korean). But you’re right. Assigning characteristics on people based on race is so not racist. That’s just, uh, ‘valid cultural critique’.

Repeating an assertion does not constitute evidential proof. You have merely compounded the error, and in so doing, left the assumption unexamined, which is unfortunate for you in terms of personal awareness.

Substitute the phrase “people inclucated in Korean culture” for Koreans, and the flaw in your syllogism becomes immediately obvious.