|
On December 11 2008 07:47 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +Secondly it's been suggested that America simply "back out of the War" right after Pearl Harbor, which both sets a terrible precedent AND rewards violence/killing, obviously a terrible long-term decision. nice strawmen marching there. i guess you only have a-move and alt f4 working.
Actually its responding to what somebody said; I assume you believed it was so ridiculous an idea that nobody could possibly have argued it, and so thought I made it up.
Here's where it came from:
On December 11 2008 07:19 PliX wrote:
First of all, people don't go to wars. Governments do, because somehow they think going to war is good? Ok this is another type of argument.
If the United States really really wanted to save american lives. They would pull out of the war and would have never gotten into it. The few thousands people who were getting killed in Pearl Harbor is way less after they finished the war.
Well my history books, stated that the Japanese government telegraphed to the united states (before the A-bombs were dropped) that they surrendered unconditionally.
Book:
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
|
As for 1945, the Japanese were still at war. You can't simply go home and expect it to be over, and even if you did you leave the same people in charge as before, ready to continue or start more wars.
Quite simple, Economic embargo, nothing get's in nothing get's out.
As for the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor", I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this nor does it even make intuitive sense: Pearl Harbor wouldn't necessarily bring the United States into the war against Germany.
But yet it did, just like the American's needed the Tonkin-incident to enter Vietnam
and like the Louisiana was destroyed so the U.S. could enter WWI.
That Roosevelt knew about the attacks look in Congressional Hearing 1946, Pearl Harbor Hearing part 1 page 180.
|
On December 11 2008 07:59 PliX wrote:Show nested quote +
As for 1945, the Japanese were still at war. You can't simply go home and expect it to be over, and even if you did you leave the same people in charge as before, ready to continue or start more wars.
Quite simple, Economic embargo, nothing get's in nothing get's out. Show nested quote +
As for the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor", I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this nor does it even make intuitive sense: Pearl Harbor wouldn't necessarily bring the United States into the war against Germany.
But yet it did, just like the American's needed the Tonkin-incident to enter Vietnam and like the Louisiana was destroyed so the U.S. could enter WWI. That Roosevelt knew about the attacks look in Congressional Hearing 1946, Pearl Harbor Hearing part 1 page 180.
You do realize that the Japanese claim that it was an economic embargo that led to their attack on Pearl Harbor? If you actually applied an economic embargo you leave the people who started everything in power, not brought to justice and able to repeat exactly what they did before, likely as they are a very honor-focused culture. And that's even if they decide to accept an embargo and not keep fighting.
For those reasons I don't see an embargo as a satisfactory or realistic scenario.
If you would like to continue with the Roosevelt thing, could you quote the relevant parts of the Congressional Hearing?
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and do you find generalizing the opposing position from one ridiculous guy credible? i mean, the time of the pull-out could be anywhere between pearl harbor and n years after the war in actuality ended, provided that america was satisfied with a less dramatic ending. keep in mind that the bombs would not have worked immediately had the emperor been overwhelmed by hardcore militarists. the outcome of that internal struggle, so critical to the supposed effectiveness of the bomb, was a toss up. as for change in government and social reforms, with sufficient measures it would still happen. ironically, the japanese have learned far more from the bomb than americans seem to have.
bombing for shock value is just a crude argument. where is the shock value per life lost analysis done by the u.s.? given the magnitude of the chosen option, i guess they must have done extensive work on how best to induce the japanese into surrendering. be creative, just because you have a truck does not mean you have to crack walnuts with it.
the fire bombings somehow make the atomic bombs more tolerable for some, but they are part of the same problem. the decision to make for a quicker end, in service of geopolitical objectives, and without any clear and immediate threat to your own civilians. a supposed land invasion is a similar choice between quick and advantageous ending, and unfamiliar territory of not fighting for victory. except the choice there was done with the sacrifice of your own soldiers. in any case, presenting the possibility of an full out invasion does not exclude a more gradual approach.
How do you decide what constitutes a person, though? What if a country attacks you, and acts cruelly (ie to prisoners)? Doesn't that country constitute an entity that should be brought to justice?
this is just terrible. problem of collective identity is precisely the reverse, that a situation clearly framed in the collective terms breaks down once you go into the actual people. of course, part of the reason why wars happen is because nobody bothers with asking the question. if it is asked, then war would seem like a ridiculously inefficient response.
|
"At the same time as Hersey’s article, the United States Army Air Force published a survey of the effects of strategic bombing on Japan. The Air Force argued that conventional B-29 attacks had all but brought Japan to its knees, and concluded,
' ... it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 (well before the date of the invasion) Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.’
Not to be outdone, the United States Navy produced its own assessment, stating that its submarine campaign had also brought Japan to its knees, that the Home Islands were on the verge of starvation, and that this alone would have produced surrender, thereby obviating the need for an atomic bomb, or an invasion.
And then the State Department added its assessment. Joseph Grew - America’s last ambassador to Japan before the war started - claimed that Japanese diplomats had been trying to open surrender negotiations with the United States via the then still neutral Soviet Union. These were overtures that the Truman administration knew about, thanks to decrypts of Japanese diplomatic codes, but which they nevertheless chose to ignore. Grew added that if the United States had modified the demand for unconditional surrender, made on 26 July at Potsdam, if it had simply guaranteed the continuation of the imperial system in Japan, the Japanese would almost certainly have capitulated within days"
later:
Also thanks to the work of Japanese historians, we now know much more about Japanese plans in the summer of 1945. Japan had no intention of surrendering. It had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen’s militia. When the Americans landed, the Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had, to impose on them casualties that might break their will. If this did not do it, then the remnants of the army and the militias would fight on as guerrillas, protected by the mountains and by the civilian population.
I just found that quote in this BBC article
|
I am not going to quote the entire hearing. You can read it yourself.
linky
And yes you are right about the economic embargo. The U.S. restricted oil export to Japan,I just read that. But ontopic again, all of this doesn't justify an abomb.
And my personal opinion, killing a person doesn't save another...
|
One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts.
Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy.
First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm
In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
second fallacy committed here is "False Dilemma"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htm
In this argument there are only 2 choices, nuke or invade, where not invading japan is not consider an option.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm
This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B
A = reduce death count
B= nuking Japan
A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan
This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
|
United States42696 Posts
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote:One argument i see people making here is: if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved. This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htmIn this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities. second fallacy committed here is "False Dilemma" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htmIn this argument there are only 2 choices, nuke or invade, where not invading japan is not consider an option. Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htmThis argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = nuking Japan B= reduce death count A causes B then becomes nuking of Japan is caused by the reduction of death count. This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because B is not fact, B is merely an educated guess. There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
invasion is still not a necessary follow from that. granting all favorable empirical conditions, the decision process was still horribly inadequate at best, criminally irresponsible on fair review. but then again, wartime procedures did not cover those kind of things back in the day.
|
On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote:
Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
Your premise:
1) Japan had to surrender (true)
2) Japan intended to contest invasion (true)
3) the way japan intended to contest invasion is with lethal force (true)
4)lethal force applied to soldiers causes death (true)
Your conclusion: invading Japan saved lives.
A sound argument includes two parts
1. The argument is valid
2. All of its premises are true
Here all your premises are true, but your argument is not valid, because the conclusion is not based on the premises.
|
i want a new mouse for christmas
|
On December 11 2008 08:59 Qwertify wrote:
i want a new mouse for christmas
I want this thread to be closed for christmas
|
rei, good work
this is where clear water separates from shit/piss
science is powerful
|
Don't close it, i want to see how biatches savage their argument that I picked apart.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote:One argument i see people making here is: if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved. This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htmIn this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities. second fallacy committed here is "False Dilemma" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htmIn this argument there are only 2 choices, nuke or invade, where not invading japan is not consider an option. Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htmThis argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count is cause by nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess. There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
|
On December 11 2008 09:08 food wrote:
rei, good work
this is where clear water separates from shit/piss
science is powerful
I am a science and math teacher ^^
|
On December 11 2008 08:44 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote:
Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now? Your premise: 1) Japan had to surrender (true) 2) Japan intended to contest invasion (true) 3) the way japan intended to contest invasion is with lethal force (true) 4)lethal force applied to soldiers causes death (true) Your conclusion: invading Japan saved lives. A sound argument includes two parts 1. The argument is valid 2. All of its premises are true Here all your premises are true, but your argument is not valid, because the conclusion is not based on the premises.
I think you might have noticed first that his conclusion doesn't even make sense, "invading Japan saved lives?" Really? I thought it wasn't going to save lives, so we nuked instead.
But if you alter the conclusion to "NOT invading Japan saved lives", then it IS valid, since avoiding lethal force is SURELY going to save lives, if I'm not mistaken in what "lethal" means. If we were going to invade and just have a big fist-fight, I'm sure it might have turned out with less deaths, but who's to say?
On December 11 2008 09:09 rei wrote:Don't close it, i want to see how biatches savage their argument that I picked apart. + Show Spoiler +On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote:One argument i see people making here is: if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved. This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htmIn this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities. second fallacy committed here is "False Dilemma" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htmIn this argument there are only 2 choices, nuke or invade, where not invading japan is not consider an option. Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htmThis argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count is cause by nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess. There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
Thanks for quoting yourself here, it made it easier for me to gather up all your text, and you showed off what an arrogant bastard you are. "Hey look at my post from 3 posts ago a second time, I'm fucking brilliant and pwned everyone"
On the first fallacy, yeah you got us, we can't really have super awesome statistics when shit didn't even happen, it's just educated guesses, but they're called "educated" for a reason.
Second fallacy, nuke or invade are really the only good choices. I mean, say I have a sandwich and I'm kind of hungry. My two choices seem to be, eat, or not eat. "OH, YOU SILLY GOOSE," you say, "YOU COULD ALSO THROW THE SANDWICH AGAINST THE WALL, OR USE IT AS A PILLOW, OR EVEN GIVE IT AWAY!"
Well, let's just say we don't want to sit around twiddling our thumbs while we're in a war, and our plausible actions narrow significantly. If you think there's more than two options here, well why not fire a few around, see what people think.
Third fallacy isn't even worth getting in to, since nothing you even said makes sense, first you have "Reduce death count causes nuking Japan," then you morph it into "Reduction of death count is cause by nuking of Japan." Well is it A causes B, or A is caused by B? You can't even get your own thoughts straight, I'm not going to help you.
|
NrG.ZaM in debates one fallacy is enough render an argument useless. If you submited to the first one you don't need to read the rest.
your argument on the second fallacy is based on your example of being hungry, and your two choices are eat or not to eat, and you are comparing it to nuke or not to nuke.
Here you have committed two fallacies
1) irrelevant Conclusion( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi )
eat or not eat has nothing to do with the argument in justifying nukeing of japan
2) Converse Fallacy of Accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident )
You are arguing from a special case(eat or not eat) to a general rule (every case has only 2 choice)
and finally you said "nuke or invade are really the only good choices" without any premise nor evidence.
And thank you for pointing out my mistakes in wording of the third fallacy, i have fixed it. But the important thing is the logic stays unchallenged (yet).
Fact: you are dismissing my 3rd argument on my lack of attention on words, in the same time attempt to re-word Kwark's conclusion so that it is more logical to his premise.
hypocrisy
if you want to really drop the rock on the argument after it fell down the well, you can argue that the argument of justifying nuking of japan by the amount of lives it saved is the very essence of hypocrisy.
-if no nuke was drop and no invasion took place no more life would have been lost, war ends with a peace treaty both side must honor. (derive only from logic of which decision saves most lives, this is not my opinion)
base on the argument's method of deciding, they should have chosen this option which saves the most lives. The fact that the argument supports nuking while in the same time justify it with the amount of lives it saved, yet not even consider the option ( literally not even remotely imaginable as a possible option) that saves the most lives. That my friends is the very essence of hypocrisy.
PS. if you can actually argue to the logic instead of argue to the person then you can earn some respect. making insults while arguing with someone will only make you look weak in logic. In case you are wondering, they also have a fallacy for that, it's call "Ad hominem" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )
One down, next, who else wants to defend the argument of justifying the nuking of japan because it saved lives?
and please attack my logic but not the person that's making the logic
PPS. My opinion on this matter is
Why do we need to justify for something we did? We are arrogant enough to not care what the rest of the world thinks about us, if you don't like it go fuck yourselves. We nuke japan simply because we can, isn't that good enough reason? We are the United fucking States mother fuckers, we doesn't need you biatches to agree with who we nuke, go fuck yourselves if you don't like it why don't you do something about it ehhhh? oh wait, you can't because our guns are bigger than yours! morons. fucking fucktards if Iraq doesn't have oil we would have nuked them too, and if north korea can't nuke back we would have nuked them to stone ages long fucking ass time ago. Oh and fucking Russia go fuck yourselves WE WON the cold world, in your fucking face biatch! And fuck every country in Europe fucking insignificant all talk no walk biatches. We would have said fuck you to China too if not for the fact that they hold over 10% of our national debt.
if you sMEll LLLLLLLLLLLL
what my sarcasm
is cooking -_^
|
Not to stir up any more argument, but you know it is interesting that for such a "barbaric" and "brutal" and "evil" action that those "dirty" Americans are guilty of (damn those guys are always causing problems in the world), people representing the rest of the world seem to condemn America much more than Japan ever has. Japan seems to hold little to no harsh feelings towards Americans, in fact they actually generally love America and have much more uncomfortable relations with the Chinese. I can only imagine what horrible things China must have done to Japan, if they're more upset at them than a country that did something so unquestionably wrong and horrible, far worse than anything else in recent history.
Anyway, if you didn't catch a bit of my sarcasm in that, my point is that no, the droppings of the atomic bombs were not a good thing. No one is arguing or will ever argue against that. However, many do feel that it was justified and is not something that should be looked down upon as a brutal, heartless, or careless decision. That does not make them ignorant or heartless. Not even Japan views it that way, they understand that it was a time of war and bad things happen, both sides are guilty of that. So why is it that Europeans and others feel so strongly about it? Are they somehow more in-tune with what's right and wrong in the world? Most likely not, they just happened to be the group that wasn't involved, making it very easy to sit back and make judgments about things.
It's very easy to criticize and condemn something when you're not a part of it, but that doesn't make your opinion somehow more correct. Of course it's going to be mostly Americans trying to justify the bombings, Americans were the ones that were being attacked and were forced to make that decision, not Europeans. From a European point of view it wouldn't make any sense to drop those bombs, because Europeans weren't going to lose anything no matter what happened between the US and Japan. It's very easy for them to say that it was inhumane or wrong, because they had nothing to lose from the situation either way. They weren't forced to have to make such a difficult decision, but the US was. So, of course there will be disagreeing view points, and that makes sense, because different people were in different situations. But to say that one side is just morally corrupt or inhumane because of that, well that's just not very smart.
I'm not trying to justify the droppings of those two bombs, because in a time of war you can't always apply normal logic, otherwise we probably wouldn't have been in a lot of these conflicts in the first place. All I'm saying is that there's no need to argue this thing so heavily, because there will always be disagreements, and more importantly, it is not an issue between America and Japan. Those two countries have learned to move past what happened, and so should the rest of the world.
|
On December 11 2008 09:57 rei wrote:
NrG.ZaM in debates one fallacy is enough render an argument useless. If you submited to the first one you don't need to read the rest.
Main Entry:
sar·casm
Pronunciation:
\ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date:
1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
your argument on the second fallacy is based on your example of being hungry, and your two choices are eat or not to eat, and you are comparing it to nuke or not to nuke. Here you have committed two fallacies 1) irrelevant Conclusion( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ) eat or not eat has nothing to do with the argument in justifying nukeing of japan 2) Converse Fallacy of Accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident ) You are arguing from a special case(eat or not eat) to a general rule (every case has only 2 choice) and finally you said "nuke or invade are really the only good choices" without any premise nor evidence. And thank you for pointing out my mistakes in wording of the third fallacy, i have fixed it. But the important thing is the logic stays unchallenged (yet). Fact: you are dismissing my 3rd argument on my lack of attention on words, in the same time attempt to re-word Kwark's conclusion so that it is more logical to his premise.
The difference here, is that from kwark's statement, the conclusion was obvious, yours really isn't. Let's just take a quick look at what you said, "reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan." Is this to say that we wanted more death, since lower death count caused the nukes, or are you trying to say that in order to reduce the death count, we nuked, or what? It isn't hypocritical to only fix what is fixable.
I'm not going to pretend to be an absolute authority, but nuking or invading are (I think, haven't quite read 100% of the thread thoroughly) the only things really argued here, so as far as I know or care, they're the only options.
if you want to really drop the rock on the argument after it fell down the well, you can argue that the argument of justifying nuking of japan by the amount of lives it saved is the very essence of hypocrisy.
-if no nuke was drop and no invasion took place no more life would have been lost, war ends with a peace treaty both side must honor. (derive only from logic of which decision saves most lives, this is not my opinion)
base on the argument's method of deciding, they should have chosen this option which saves the most lives. The fact that the argument supports nuking while in the same time justify it with the amount of lives it saved, yet not even consider the option ( literally not even remotely imaginable as a possible option) that saves the most lives. That my friends is the very essence of hypocrisy.
So you're 100% certain that without any type of attack, there would be a peace treaty? If not, then your argument isn't any better off than what you're arguing against, since it isn't provable that an invasion would cause more deaths than the nukes did, and you disregard that with the lack of evidence.
PS: Read entire statements before responding, you're REALLY picking and choosing what you respond to, going so far as to ignore a complete paragraph. It's fine to point out fallacies in other arguments, but all your posts have been is pointing out fallacies, adding nothing to either side, and not using or adding any evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
