EPTWell the focus is on civilian killing so why not talk about it now since everyone is so concerned with it. People just don't understand how brutal the Japanese were at the time. In Nanking they gouged the eyes of babies and put them in boiling hot water, cut the stomachs of the woman to take their fetuses out, forced men to rape their mothers, bayonetted teenagers, did experiments on live people and so much more shit i can't even recall and everyone here feels that one huge ass bomb is worse then what they did?. This is what war does to people, you don't expect it to be one giant fucking party do you? civilians will obviously die, i dont know about you but being blown up by a nuke is not worse then being forced to fuck my own mom and then die. This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 42
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
Well the focus is on civilian killing so why not talk about it now since everyone is so concerned with it. People just don't understand how brutal the Japanese were at the time. In Nanking they gouged the eyes of babies and put them in boiling hot water, cut the stomachs of the woman to take their fetuses out, forced men to rape their mothers, bayonetted teenagers, did experiments on live people and so much more shit i can't even recall and everyone here feels that one huge ass bomb is worse then what they did?. This is what war does to people, you don't expect it to be one giant fucking party do you? civilians will obviously die, i dont know about you but being blown up by a nuke is not worse then being forced to fuck my own mom and then die. This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 11 2008 06:48 cz wrote: What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war? Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next. w/e Id at least give some warning | ||
KwarK
United States43822 Posts
On December 11 2008 14:06 D10 wrote: Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next. w/e Id at least give some warning If they don't surrender you actually level Tokyo? | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
 | ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
On December 11 2008 14:06 D10 wrote: Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next. w/e Id at least give some warning ya well, korea should of gotten a warning, same with china, phillipines, vietnam etc etc etc | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 11 2008 14:10 Kwark wrote: If they don't surrender you actually level Tokyo? Yea, more in a movement to scare the guys for theyr own lifes but i think i wouldnt really do it and would try to incite the japanese military to surrender because im the best strategist ever, and im gonna think in someway to do that with a shitload of scared man better than with a GG button. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
On December 11 2008 15:08 D10 wrote: Yea, more in a movement to scare the guys for theyr own lifes but i think i wouldnt really do it and would try to incite the japanese military to surrender because im the best strategist ever, and im gonna think in someway to do that with a shitload of scared man better than with a GG button. how do you scare someone for their own life when they aren't afraid to die. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
I am not going to engage in discussion that does not use logic. If you have a logical discussion on different arguments then you call it a debate. The rules of debating is not to distinguish a debate from a discussion, these rules are to ensure the discussion to be logical. and according to these rules, An argument is sound if and only if 1) The argument is valid 2) All of its premises are true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_argument So after that being said, let's take the follow example to apply our newly learn skills in debating shall we? Find the fallacies in the following argument and decide rather or not this argument is sound: I am making an argument that all of you who think nuking japan saved lives are hypocrites. Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6) | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
On December 11 2008 15:06 the.dude wrote: rei, your third premise is not possible. your argument is destroyed. /wrist. How's the 3rd premise not possible? quote me and support your argument, be logical, teach me k? If i have to /wrist every time when I am wrong then I would have die at least 20000 times. I am wrong all the time, the different from /wrist is that I learn from my wrongs. I think I will stop posting on this thread because it is clear that people who don't understand the meaning of a sound argument resulted in personal attacks, or illogical statements. Those people who understand logic and can make a sound argument is not going to share because they don't want to put up with flames and illogical arguments. So let me recap what I posted so far: 1) Argument proved wrong: The argument of nuking japan is justify because it saved lives + 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.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. 2 I propose my own argument All of you who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saved are hypocrites. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2008 15:21 rei wrote: Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6) I'm not saying you can't make a sound argument to justify nuking of japan. (You can make a sound argument with some other reason) I am saying you are a hypocrite for trying to justify nuking of japan by the number of people it saved Yes, I know the truth hurts, When i found out that I was in fact living in the matrix, I said to Morphus,:"fuck you mother fucker, I should have told you to turn that red pill side ways and shine it up real nice, then stick it straight back up your candy ass!! Ignorance is bliss, I don't give a shit about right or wrong this is the fucking Matrix, it's not fucking real!" "if you smeLLLLLLLLLLL what the FUCK i'm cooking" PS. I will only respond once someone come up with a sound argument to justify nuking of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy please use wikipidia to help educate yourselves as you construct your argument. PPS. Some one asked me my standing on this issue since I had only been pointing out logical faults in others arguments. I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done to win the war effectively knowing it is not moral. I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives, PPPS. i win this thread, close please? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6641 Posts
And as for not bombing and not invading Japan, you really think that just letting them be would have been acceptable? You think they would have just accepted peace with the threat of an invasion, said sorry,and not began preparing for Pearl Harbor 2? | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
my vote is no it's not justified. you can't justify taking someone's life. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10870 Posts
On December 11 2008 13:39 BalliSLife wrote: Well the focus is on civilian killing so why not talk about it now since everyone is so concerned with it. People just don't understand how brutal the Japanese were at the time. In Nanking they gouged the eyes of babies and put them in boiling hot water, cut the stomachs of the woman to take their fetuses out, forced men to rape their mothers, bayonetted teenagers, did experiments on live people and so much more shit i can't even recall and everyone here feels that one huge ass bomb is worse then what they did?. This is what war does to people, you don't expect it to be one giant fucking party do you? civilians will obviously die, i dont know about you but being blown up by a nuke is not worse then being forced to fuck my own mom and then die. This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less. Because this does absoluetly NOT matter. | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
| ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On December 11 2008 13:39 BalliSLife wrote: This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less. No, you imbecile, people have been opposing this war since the start. What the fuck can we do about our President declaring war when he just decided to start putting people in detainment indefinitely for opposing us? HE SIDESTEPPED OUR CONSTITUTION BY DECLARING WAR. It's not like politics in America is something the people can control. Sure, we have influence, but when our president, the son of an oil tycoon, wants to invade a country that tried to kill his father, and the vice president of our country happens to have been on the chair of a private contracting security organization that will profit immeasurably from it, there's not much we can do to stop political shit from happening. From there, he just says "Iraq has WMDs", and how do we stop him? Huh? We can't vote on the issue. It happens independent of public decision. The only thing we're asked is "how do you feel about this?" and it shows up in a statistic. President Bush has the worst approval rating in the history of the USA, and something like 70% of Americans are opposed to the war. | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:14 jello_biafra wrote: I'll say it again, both a-bombs caused significantly less deaths than your average incendiary attack on Tokyo, if a full scale land invasion had taken place then there would almost certainly have been more firebomb attacks on Tokyo and other cities meaning that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone more lives would have been lost than were caused by the a-bomb. And as for not bombing and not invading Japan, you really think that just letting them be would have been acceptable? You think they would have just accepted peace with the threat of an invasion, said sorry,and not began preparing for Pearl Harbor 2? Yes this. Everyone who blames the US for using the a-bomb should be required to read this post every 5 minutes until they understand. | ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you. | ||
|
lxginverse
Monaco1506 Posts
it is not and never will be... nuff said | ||
| ||
