From: ustai@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american,soc.culture.asean,soc.culture.korean,soc.rights.human,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Have no need to fear ... was Re: Freedom of Speech
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:23:40 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Oct7.233904.4754@leland.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
> In article <KYTAN.92Oct6110734@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com>
> kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:
[serious munching begins here]
> rights.  I have consistently voiced support for the Bill of Rights and
[...] 
> Again, I support the eradication of the Chinese language by means that

	Yet you called for wholesale destruction of China.  Not that I am
defending China or anything, just wanted to point out what seems like an
inconsistency here.  Just curious, but does the Bill of Rights support
wholesale destruction of cultures, etc etc?  Also, if it doesn't, and since you
did, does it mean that just because the Bill of Rights does not mention
something, you must destroy it?  I am asking because somehow I keep remember
your "Japan take a part, US take a part, share share..." (badly paraphrased, I
agree, but I don't archive junk) and how you keep saying it's consistent with
the bill of rights.

> for 1 particular Asian language:  the Chinese-cu language.  At no point
> have any Asian-Americans been denied the right to speak the Chinese-cu
> language; _no_ suppression has occurred.  Yet, few Nth-generation

	Hey, the last time you mentioned forcing (by law, I believe) people to
learn non chinese-cu languages once China has been taken by the allied forces,
in order to destroy chinese culture.  Hmm....  isn't that suppression?

> I am absolutely befuddled as to why Mr. Tan is incapable of understanding
> this proposition.  It does not advocate suppression or anything that
> is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights but does advocate the eradication
> of the Chinese-cu language.

	Well, his misunderstanding is only normal since we do have impressions
of your "nuke 'em, nuke 'em" (again, badly paraphrased) with regard to China
forcibly taking Taiwan.  Anyway, just curious, what's it to you anyway?  I
mean, here you are condemning all chinese-cu, and both China and Taiwan is just
a pit of chinese-cu's....  I mean, if I were you, I would support both of them
duking it out.  And surreptiously give some assistance to the losing side so
that they can continue to fight.  You are really inconsistent.  Ahhh, the
mysteries of mankind....  Anyway, a lot of the Taiwanese I have spoken to while
I was in Taiwan seem to support uniting with China, peaceably of course.

>>I am not attempting
>>to censor your views nor am I claiming that you are depriving me of my rights
> 
> Funny.  The previous article by Mr. Tan says just the opposite.  Here
> is Mr. Tan's statement:
> 
>    In article <KYTAN.92Sep29122228@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com>
>    >kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) wrote:
>    You seem to want to shove your concept of "rightness" down
>    other peoples throats, thus depriving others of this "right."
> 
> Again, Mr. Tan's original statement indicates that he has little idea about
> the difference between speech/writing and the physical act of depriving a
> person of her rights.

	I realise I am nitpicking, but he did not claim you are depriving him
of his rights in the first part, and in the second part, he says you seem to be
depriving others of their rights.  Of course he could be speaking in the
third-person... but what the heck, I feel nitpicky tonight...  Mr Tan, do tell
us what you mean.

>>(you haven't, YET.) What I AM saying is that your written drivel will LEAD
>>to the deprivation of the rights of the Chinese-cu.
> 
> I just "love" this last sentence.  First, Chinese-cu people are apt to
> make comments like this; Mr. Tan's comments are typical of comments made
> by Chinese-cu people.  It's _very_ important to remember this when we
> assess the relative merit, or lack thereof, of Chinese-cu culture.

	Ahhh, overgeneralization on your part, Dwighty old boy.  I am sure most
of the comments you get are not so rational.  Haven't you been reminiscing on
the net about all those "love" mail that you are getting??  Also, how many
people have responded to your mail without flames...?  Not typical.  Tsk tsk
tsk.  You really should finish up your general education requirements like I
suggested last time.

> Essentially, what Mr. Tan is saying is the following.  I'll present two
> examples.

	Tsk tsk tsk, putting words into others mouth, careful about sticking
your own foot into your mouth, not a very comfortable feeling...  advice from
one who has done it before....
> 
> First, in the '60s, Martin Luther King preached against and condemned
> racism; his actions constituted speech.  Suppose that some hotheads then
> interpreted Mr. King's speech and subsequently killed some racist
> Americans.  By Mr. Tan's reasoning, Mr. King is now responsible for the
> actions of the hotheads.

	Only one little problem I have with this analogy.  At no time did Mr
King called for violence.  In fact, he made damn sure that the protesting
marchers had no weapons (he actually asked his followers to check all
"participants" before the great march).  However, you are calling for death of
people (this is from your June postings.  If you have since changed your
position, please post and advise us.)  I do believe that your much vaunted US
laws do have something about being an instigator in a murder.  Could someone
out there check up on this?

> I strongly disagree.  The hotheads are responsible for their actions,
> and no one else should be held accountable.

	Well, I agree the hotheads are responsible for their actions, but the
instigator does bear *SOME* responsibility.  Cause and effect Dwighty old boy. 
Without the cause, there will not be any effects.  What is your major anyway?  
Just curious.  Ever think of taking up law??

> Second, in the 90s, a rock band distributed musical lyrics that called
> for the use of violence.  Some teenagers listened to the lyrics and
> subsequently committed violence.  The parents of the teenagers sued the
> rock band and held it accountable for the teenager's actions.  By Mr.
> Tan's reasoning, the rock band is now responsible for the action's
> of the teenagers.

	That's what's great about US culture, the one that all nations should
emulate.  I mean, what other cultures are there in which a person who listens
to a song will do whatever it says.  Damn, I better start my own rock group and
sing songs about giving me cash, lotsa cash... :) :)  BTW, I believe it wasn't
violence but suicide.  Do correct me if I am wrong.

> I strongly disagree.  The teenagers are responsible for their actions,
> and no one else should be held accountable.

	Well, if it's suicide, it's pretty much your own decision by
definition, otherwise it will be murder.
> 
> Mr. Tan, like many Chinese-cu people, has a uniquely non-Western view
> of civics, rights, and accountability of people's actions.  The central
> theme among Chinese-cu people is, "I believe in freedom of speech
> as long as I am not offended by what you say."  This belief manifests
> itself in many ways--e-mail harrassment, accusations of "you are suppressing
> my rights by your very speech" (!), personal attacks, etc.

	Ah well, you shouldn't let death threats stop you from spreading the
truth to the whole wide world.  Besides, the chances of them meeting you is
very very slim, unless you meet a weirdo.  However, the chinese culture does
seem to have a record of having less of these weirdos than USA, so you probably
shouldn't be worried at all.

>>However, if I were to bring up my children here [in the USA], I would make
>>sure that they are efficiently bilingual [in the Chinese-cu language].
>>
> 
> In many Chinese-cu families, when the children--especially the eldest
> child--object to conforming to the Chinese-cu way, like for example
> learning the Chinese-cu language, the Chinese-cu parents often respond
> that they will "make sure" that learning the Chinese-cu language will
> take place.  "Make sure" translates to a gamut of negative reinforcement
> ranging from verbal abuse to outright physical beatings.

	Statistics, statistics.  Which study have shown that the eldest child
object to conforming to the Chinese-cu way?  Does it mean the second child
onwards do not object to learning the Chinese-cu way?  Well, at least that
shows that the parents learn from their mistakes, and could properly brainwash
their second child onwards, no matter how much it hurts them.
	Oh yeah, do place a limit on your generalizations, please.  Some of it
is funny, but too much, *ugh*, it's like eating too much sweets, one gets
sick....  Especially when you say *MANY*.  Let's see, there's 1.2 billion
chinese-ge-ci-cu living in China.  And some chinese-cu living outside China,
but not in USA (and Canada too, presumably, tho the current influx of Hong
Kongians...) and then there's the enlightened ABC's.  I would say anything less
than 1 percent of something is quite little....  
> 
> I wonder how Mr. Tan will "make sure" that his daughter is bilingual
> if she absolutely refuses to learn the Chinese-cu language.  I wonder....

	Probably kill her and hope for a baby boy the second time round.  But
then again, why bother with such methods when artificial methods can give a 90%
rate of getting the child with the sex you want, first time round.  [Mr Tan,
this is said with a sarcastic tinge, and *ONLY* in reply to our Dwighty boy
here.  Sorry if you feel insulted]
	Oh yeah, sorry for not quoting your whole posting, Dwighty but in
interest of bandwidth, I just had to do it.  For those people who wants to read
this original posting, please don't hesitate...  In fact, for people with an
archive of his postings, I recommend that you take it to a philosophy teacher
at your place of higher learning, and asked him/her what does s/he think of it. 
Especially if s/he teaches logic.  I really want to find out if it's us who are
inconsistent or our Dwighty boy here.
	Again, you posted lotsa generalities, while trying to attack a
particular person.  Not good, both of them.  And when will you start giving
numbers and sources for your information?  And (this is said petulantly), why
don't you ever reply to my postings about you???  There were also some
questions that were raised here last time but which you never answered.  Why? 
WHY??  Why ask why! :)  Ciao.

-Tai
ps:  Again, my idle curiousity wonders how many people actually took time to
read this.  Do mail me and let me know.  Cheerio.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american