Red or White poppy

[DarloRich]

Yet again, you completely miss the point. No-one is saying that the atrocities were honourable.

What was relevant to the point being made was a sense of honour and deference towards their royal family. Please stop insulting me by claiming I must be ignorant of atrocities which I have spent a great deal of time looking into.

Kneejerk reactions and assumptions that we must be stupid are not helping this thread.

I am sure you have. I also know you don't like to be challenged

The point remains that is is difficult to support a concept of Japanese honour (towards Royalty or otherwise) when they seemed happy to kill unarmed hospital patients and nurses and test the biological weapons on prisoners of war.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I am sure you have. I also know you don't like to be challenged

The point remains that is is difficult to support a concept of Japanese honour (towards Royalty or otherwise) when they seemed happy to kill unarmed hospital patients and nurses and test the biological weapons on prisoners of war.

Saying that it is difficult to understand does not mean it did not exist. Call it deference or call it honour, the point remains the same.

I don't understand why you're so unwilling to accept the point.

 

[DarloRich]

Saying that it is difficult to understand does not mean it did not exist. Call it deference or call it honour, the point remains the same.

I don't understand why you're so unwilling to accept the point.

I am unwilling to accept the point because it is utterly facetious when they were happy to work prisoners to death in appealing conditions or enslave Korean women to act as their forcible concubines.

In my eyes they forfeit all right to be considered honorable (or deferential) when compared with their obvious crimes. Why wont you accept that point?

Your argument that Yes they killed millions of civilians but they were very respectful of the emperor doesn't really wash. Sorry. That honour or deference didn't stop the barbarism and nor does it excuse such savagery no matter how much you seek to act as an apologist.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I am unwilling to accept the point because it is utterly facetious when they were happy to work prisoners to death in appealing conditions or enslave Korean women to act as their forcible concubines.

In my eyes they forfeit all right to be considered honorable (or deferential) when compared with their obvious crimes. Why wont you accept that point?

Your argument that Yes they killed millions of civilians but they were very respectful of the emperor doesn't really wash. Sorry. That honour or deference didn't stop the barbarism and nor does it excuse such savagery no matter how much you seek to act as an apologist.

It's not facetious. The Nazi party was built on deference, and yet committed terrible atrocities; it's not like it isn't part of human nature. Confusing "having a sense of honour" with "being honourable in the sense you or I would use" is just plain wrong.

It doesn't matter what word you want to use, even though they would have had an internalised sense of honour which was alien to that which you or I hold today (a very hierarchical one).

And frankly, calling me an apologist for Japanese atrocities is disgusting. I have seen Unit 731; I have seen Auschwitz and I have seen the effects that fascism has on people. Do not insult me or members of my family by claiming I would defend any of that.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not facetious. The Nazi party was built on deference, and yet committed terrible atrocities; it's not like it isn't part of human nature. Confusing "having a sense of honour" with "being honourable in the sense you or I would use" is just plain wrong.

It doesn't matter what word you want to use, even though they would have had an internalised sense of honour which was alien to that which you or I hold today (a very hierarchical one).

And frankly, calling me an apologist for Japanese atrocities is disgusting. I have seen Unit 731; I have seen Auschwitz and I have seen the effects that fascism has on people. Do not insult me or members of my family by claiming I would defend any of that.

You are the one suggesting they have an sense of honour or deference (perhaps towards their monarch)

I understand the point and accept the Japanese present themselves as a rigidly honourable people ( and perhaps today they really are) but consider that to be so inconsequential when considered against their crimes during and before the second world war as to be almost unworthy of consideration.

It does not excuse their crimes or mean they should be considered differently from other nations. There actions certainly can not be compared to the actions of any Western allied nation

 

[TheKnightWho]

You are the one suggesting they have an sense of honour or deference (perhaps towards their monarch)

I understand the point and accept the Japanese present themselves as a rigidly honourable people ( and perhaps today they really are) but consider that to be so inconsequential when considered against their crimes during and before the second world war as to be almost unworthy of consideration.

It does not excuse their crimes or mean they should be considered differently from other nations. There actions certainly can not be compared to the actions of any Western allied nation

Saying that someone has a sense of honour is not the same as saying I agree with that sense of honour. It's descriptive, not normative.

The point about deference was that the bomb was unnecessary due to the perceived threat by the Japanese people against their revered royal family. Whether or not that sense of honour cancelled out the atrocities against humanity committed by the Japanese (it didn't) is irrelevant. The point is that it existed.

 

[DarloRich]

Saying that someone has a sense of honour is not the same as saying I agree with that sense of honour. It's descriptive, not normative.

A philosophical question then? Who decides on honour? Does saying you don't agree with someones sense of honour invalidate it as a concept?

Anyway that is off topic. Let us agree that our viewpoints are different and move on to something else - truce?

 

[TheKnightWho]

A philosophical question then? Who decides on honour? Does saying you don't agree with someones sense of honour invalidate it as a concept?

Anyway that is off topic. Let us agree that our viewpoints are different and move on to something else - truce?

Sure - I don't think we actually disagree on much when it actually comes down to it.

And it's an interesting point on whether you have to agree with a concept to recognise it; I think it can be done by recognising the framework in which the concept works without making any claims as to the validity or truth-values contained within that framework, whilst recognising that they must indeed have a truth-value (in some sense). Without that difference, we can't have such a thing as meta-ethics, which would be a pretty radical shake-up in philosophy.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's not entirely accurate - there were war crimes treaties predating WW2 (and WW1). For example, the Geneva protocol restricting the use of chemical weapons was mostly adhered to.

Whilst that may be true, WW2 involved civilians to a much greater extent than WW1, and so our concept of war crimes also changed as a result.

 

[D6975]

I have never seen anyone wearing a white poppy, so I wasn't even aware of their existence. It seems a strange colour to choose though, the white poppy is the source of opium after all.

 

[341o2]

There is also the cornflower adopted as a symbol of animal casualties in war, in particular tens of thousands of horses and mules were shipped from GB to the continent for transportation in the early stages of WW1.

 

[AlterEgo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37780257

This year's Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal is calling on members of the public to recognise younger veterans and serving soldiers.

The charity says people commonly associate Remembrance and the poppy with older, World War Two veterans.

The "rethink Remembrance" campaign will launch with a video installation in London, featuring four videos of young veterans' experiences.

It comes as some charities have said younger veterans are being forgotten.

The Royal British Legion said the aim of the campaign was to challenge common perceptions.

Its survey of 1,000 adults found most only associate the poppy, Remembrance and the charity's work with the two World Wars and elderly veterans.

Only just over a third of those surveyed identified Remembrance with thinking about those who are currently serving.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

For me, it is a red poppy

Always is and always will be

 

[Lankyline]

And now we have the idiots at FIFA trying to ban the poppy being worn by England and Scotland because it contravenes their rules !! Thank god they have been told to take a hike by the relevant FA's and the govt.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

I don't wear any of them. I'll donate to the poppy appeal, observe the two minutes silence and think of those that lost their lives but won't be guilt ridden or pressured into wearing one just because society says I must.

Sorry if that offends anyone but that's how I feel.

That's how I see it, too...

 

[richw]

I've got this from the poppy seller, I always seem to lose a traditional poppy, the seller promoted this to me as his favourite alternative. It depicts each of the 3 services.

 

[Greenback]

That's how I see it, too...

Me too.

 

[Busaholic]

Am I the only person who thinks that FIFA is wrong but that the FA are also wrong in ignoring the ruling? I was brought up to believe that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[AlterEgo]

And now we have the idiots at FIFA trying to ban the poppy being worn by England and Scotland because it contravenes their rules !! Thank god they have been told to take a hike by the relevant FA's and the govt.

At least they're consistent. Ireland are in trouble for their Easter Rising shirt.

 

[richw]

At least they're consistent. Ireland are in trouble for their Easter Rising shirt.

Only because the English and Scottish flagged it up as an argument to allow us to use the poppy.

 

[Lankyline]

5 years ago FIFA allowed the England team to wear the poppy on an armband, which just makes them a bunch of hypocrites !

 

[TheKnightWho]

5 years ago FIFA allowed the England team to wear the poppy on an armband, which just makes them a bunch of hypocrites !

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.