In my light-hearted attempt to turn Minrou's argument about the Rape of Nanjing into a syllogism, I wrote after establishing the major and minor premises that Japanese never lie, and the soldiers who raped Nanjing were in fact Japanese:
> 3. These Japanese soldiers say they were just chasing Chinese soldiers, and > never killed or raped any civilians. > And Minoru responded: > I didn't say "and never killed or raped any civilians." Who says so? > If they don't kill people, what are they for? US soldiers did killing and > raping in Vietnam, I heard. They all do those things basically. > No, you just make it sound like the large-scale infamous massacre of Chinese civilians and mass rape of Chinese women (and even girls as young as 10), well known to anyone who has taken a high history course as the Rape of Nanjing [Nanking], never occurred. Some US soldiers certainly did kill and rape civilians in Vietnam. What they did not do, however, was sack Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam, then proceed to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants. And I further wrote: > 4. Conclusion: There was no Rape of Nanjing. > And Minoru the Muser produced this gem of reasoning: > What is that? I know that it's a title of a book written by a > Chinese-American woman. I believe that the book exists..I believe that she > wrote much of it based on what she read. If I am not mistaken she could not > have witnessed the incident as she wasn't born then. Chang Kai Shek's army > had hired an European as a part of its war effort to work for their > intelligence/propaganda department to make Japanese look barbarians more > than they really were in order to make the Western world to be sympathetic > so that it can obtain support. Those are the things that the woman read to > wtire her story. > It is hard to know what to say in response to a paragraph like this, Minoru. Yes, the Rape of Nanjing is a book (by Iris Chang), but the title is taken from the events I mentioned above. "I believe that the book exists". What the hell is this supposed to mean? We are not debating the ontological status of some book, for Christ's sake! "I believe that [Chang] wrote much of it based on what she read". I would hope so. This is normally referred to as "research". You should try doing some of it sometime before posting your "musings". And I then wrote: > There we have it, QED. No Chinese civilians were killed. No Chinese girls > were raped. No massacre occurred. Most Chinese people even welcomed the > Japanese troops with garlands of flowers and confetti. All those > eyewitnesses who claimed that a massacre occurred were hallucinating. Or > they were dupes of commie propaganda. And Minoru the Muser responded: > You can believe whatever you wish to believe like: "No Chinese civilians > were killed. No Chinese girls were raped. No massacre occurred"(all your > words, not mine). Minoru: 1. Buy a dictionary. 2. Look up the word "mordant". The look up the word "wit". 3. The enroll in a remedial reading course.... Oooppppsss, I see I am repeating an earlier post to Alan. [snip] And I concluded: > > A mind is a terrible thing to waste.... > And Minoru responded: > Whose? Yours or mine? > If you have to ask that at this point, Minoru, you really are clueless. JM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Persons posting messages to not_honyaku assume all responsibility for their messages. The list owner does not review messages prior to posting, and accepts no responsibility for the content of messages posted. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
