A'relevant' moral dillemma

[ErikViking]

Actually no. You stated the bombings were THE LOW POINT, and I took you at your word.

I adressed it exactly as one of several low points, not the low point:

The use of nuclear weapons against civilians is in my opinion one of several low-points in our history regarding the respect of human life.

Of course the holocaust was a classic example of barbaric and evil that was perpetuated in all or part by fear and hatred, and most certainly dehumanization. I have no quibble that those emotions can often lead to harmful behavior.

Fine, then you agree upon the basic drive behind those actions.
As for this:

I just dont think the American military, on the whole, was operating out of those. I think the Americans were more operating out of a sense of right and wrong. You dont go and free other people from an enemy if you FEAR the enemy. We did go in and save South Korea from the tortures the North Koreans are going through even today. Many have no food on a daily basis there.

This is maybe how we differ? I think most (if not all) wars requires both the fear, the hate and the dehumanization. As soon as you start to fail those requirements the cause of war will be lost. It is not however something American, German or Japaneese. I think half the world operated out of those emotions at the time. It is human, - by the worst definition. Also I would like it to change.

Do you hate the incinerating of children? I do, I hate the powers that forced us (Americans) into that choice.
To isolate it to that is disengenuous. Americans had to go into the south and kill FELLOW Americans to end slavery. That was a decent thing to do, even though it was terrible on the other hand that the enemy had to be ourselves. It is decent when we make an alcoholic dry out and go through withdrawls, even though we are basically torturing him, it is in the long run for his own good. same with the atomic bombings, it was better for Japan and America, and less loss of civilian life I consider a decent thing. The fact is, the choices commanded to us by an evil japanese regime were not that attractive. I consider it decent when a person makes the right choice in choosing the lesser of two evils.

Again our views or perception of what is decent) differ, although I understand what you mean. I am not going to accept killing of innocent humas as decent. I certainly agree that America was forced into a situation where many horrible descitions needed to be made. Non of them decent, but not deliberatly choosen either.

He is the head of one of the main homosexual lobbies. He was interviewed on talk radio. His entire arguement was riddled with such examples. When people dodge, obfuscate and out and out lie, then you know their agenda is simply hogwash. Yea, he is one of their top spokespersons.

Okay that is that then. I surley hope to rise from the standards of arguing like that!

...I hate slavery, injustice, TAXATION !!! I HATE THE FREAKING IRS. !!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHHAHAH

Before I actually understood what you made my blood freeze. But that was mainly because I thought IRS was "Irish". "Internal Revenue Service" is responsible to calculate everyones tax(?) - made more sense.


Thanks for the correction of language!
I think I can make a little conclusion for some paragraphs: I think we disagree over to what extent the nature of slaying civilians in a war is linked to the nature of humanity. (For example)
While I see those low points as indicators of how far (and fast) we all can distance ourselves from others emotionally - you try to see other logical reasons for the actions to sort of "excuse" humanity. You have higher belives than I have in the human nature.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There is only one reality. And in that reality, the a bomb was a demonstration of power so complete it had the effect of ending the war.

But amazingly, not until we showed we could do it again. Can you believe that, they didnt even surrender after the first one? when people discuss blame on it, they never mention that. Fact is, ONLY the surrender of the japs could have saved the thousands of lives that would have to be ended, one way or the other. ITS THEIR GUILT.

 

[manu1959]

But amazingly, not until we showed we could do it again. Can you believe that, they didnt even surrender after the first one? when people discuss blame on it, they never mention that. Fact is, ONLY the surrender of the japs could have saved the thousands of lives that would have to be ended, one way or the other. ITS THEIR GUILT.

agreed....further the japs started the war.....then we rebuild their country....fucking hell are we dumb

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I adressed it exactly as one of several low points, not the low point:.

we are getting into semantics here. However, I took it as ONE of the low points, meaning nothing gets lower. I consider the holocaust MUCH LOWER. As rampant torture on live humans, starvation and torture over a long period of time, MILLIONS KILLED, not just hundreds of thousands. Tell me, which way would you prefer to go, in a flash by a bomb, or in a death camp where you starve to death, but before you do, they do medical experiments on you to see how much pain you can endure before passing out?

Fine, then you agree upon the basic drive behind those actions.
As for this:

This is maybe how we differ? I think most (if not all) wars requires both the fear, the hate and the dehumanization. As soon as you start to fail those requirements the cause of war will be lost. It is not however something American, German or Japaneese. I think half the world operated out of those emotions at the time. It is human, - by the worst definition. Also I would like it to change..

Nope, most wars are started over a lust for power.

Again our views or perception of what is decent) differ, although I understand what you mean. I am not going to accept killing of innocent humas as decent. I certainly agree that America was forced into a situation where many horrible descitions needed to be made. Non of them decent, but not deliberatly choosen either.


Okay that is that then. I surley hope to rise from the standards of arguing like that!



Before I actually understood what you made my blood freeze. But that was mainly because I thought IRS was "Irish". "Internal Revenue Service" is responsible to calculate everyones tax(?) - made more sense.


Thanks for the correction of language!
I think I can make a little conclusion for some paragraphs: I think we disagree over to what extent the nature of slaying civilians in a war is linked to the nature of humanity. (For example)
While I see those low points as indicators of how far (and fast) we all can distance ourselves from others emotionally - you try to see other logical reasons for the actions to sort of "excuse" humanity. You have higher belives than I have in the human nature.

well, maybe the Irish too ! JUST JOKING !