What is worthy of our attention however, is the fact that after the incident took place, more than one voice emerged. Some said we should boycott Japanese products, take to the streets in protest and even resort to force to resolve the issue. At the same time, others argued that this would not help and that we should stop acting and talking like "angry youth" (憤青 fènqīng).

An intense debate between the two opposing viewpoints ensued, while the latter viewed the former as "angry youth," the former accused the other group of being "traitors" (漢奸 hànjiān) or "unpatriotic" (不愛國 bù àiguó).

In the past, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that the government has begun to give more and more weight to public opinion when framing foreign policy, even going so far as to give serious consideration to opinions expressed online. Perhaps, the Ministry's words have hightened the passions of these "angry youth," while at the same time providing a new basis for the suspicions of the other group.

If we look back, this is not the first time that domestic opinion has been split on a issue related to foreign affairs. In 2008, when the largest shareholder of Carrefour was accused of donating a lot of money to the Dalai Lama, opposing views emerged. Some people questioned the need to boycott foreign goods and to take to the streets in protest.

In regard to this recent incident, the arguments of those opposed to "angry youth," represent a continuation of the attitude expressed by some at the time of the Carrefour protests.

For example, Han Han's (韓寒), labelling of those who supported the protests as engaging in "group dancing" (集體舞 jítǐ wǔ), though indeed open to question, but it's unfair to paint the people who make these arguments as unpatriotic.

A sovereignty dispute between two countries has quietly evolved to a domestic dispute and the controversy surrounding the arrest of the captain of a Chinese fishing vessel seems to have developed into a touch stone for testing the authenticity of true patriots.

Those who support protests and boycotts tend to refer to themselves as patriots and readily force others to declate where they stand on the issue. They seem to view all the people who don't support their view as being unpatriotic.

The terms of these debates have a lot to do with the kind of education that Chinese people have received over a long period of time, which stresses the need to remain united against foreign enemies.

There is nothing wrong with this principle itself, but this kind of education often carries with it some negative effects. For example, every time there is a difference of opinion, the standard response is to supress the dissenting views by resorting to extreme and insulting measures.

It's impossible to judge whether Han Han and his supporters are really unpatriotic or not by simply looking at one sentence he uttered. From the view of a patriot, Han Han's "group dancing" phrase probably looks negative but can the people who label Han Han's words as unpatriotic mount a convincing logical argument against his views?

Some commentators believe that during an ongoing dispute with a foreign country, we should not focus on domestic matters but first unite to fight against the foreign power. This is not wrong.

However, isn't this simply requesting everyone to remain in agreement no matter how unreasonable the arguments, it also goes further in not tolerating others considering the matter for themselves at a deeper level. Isn't this kind of behaviour itself unreasonable and not very constructive.

Grandiose expressions appear as if they'll remain great, glorious and correct forever. But is it really patriotic for somebody to draw an easy conclusion without taking the complicated domestic and international situations into account? Is it really patriotic when someone relies on something as simply a given to form a conclusion?

By simply labeling yourself a partiot, should you be able to occupy the high moral ground and simply brush aside anyone with a different point of view?

The September 24 issue of the overseas edition of the People's Daily quoted Wu Jianming, a former Chinese ambassador to France, responding to arguments that we should boycott Japanese products.

Mr. Wu noted that thanks to globalization, 95 percent of Sony products are assembled in China, and went on to ask whether it wouldn't be a bit silly to boycott these goods?

Wu Jianming went on to say that we shouldn't be swayed by phrases that appear passionate or very patriotic but in reality might lead the country in the wrong direction, that would hurt the country.

We identify with Wu Jianming's approach. If we take his attitude and apply it to the Diaoyu Islands incident. A dispute about sovereignity between two countries should be resolved according to both international law and also the principles that govern international relations.

How the issue will be addressed will also be influenced by China's international standing and thus we should weigh all the factors before responding.

As citizens of China, we will of course firmly and resolutely stand by our country to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity. But the issue of the Diaoyu Island Incident itself should not be used as a touchstone to test whether someone is a patriot or not.