A'relevant' moral dillemma

[rtwngAvngr]

Not quite as dense as the idiot that spells strengthened as strenthened. They no longer had a war machine, they were a defeated army, I wasn't asking you anyway ugly boy.

And then they were a MORE defeated army, bumpy sack possessor.

 

[Diuretic]

Your argument is that these bombs ended the war, I ask why not end all wars at the beginning with similar strikes, you say inappropriate, what kind of answer is that?

Appropriate :halo:

Serious response now. This was the only time atomic/nuclear weapons have been used. It was a signal. The age of the conventional war was possibly over (it wasn't as we say in the Korean War). It was a statement that said nuclear war is possible. Subsequent actions by the nuclear powers showed that they were not keen to use them - for obvious reasons. Conventional war is safer. So conventional war it has been.

Japan had effectively lost the war before the bombs were dropped, they weren't going anywhere, why would we have to invade?

Japan then was a highly militaristic society. I can only hypothesise about this point and although I enjoy alternative history it's just entertainment. So, with that in mind, let me say that I think the invasion of Japan would have been long and bloody. It would have cost many allied lives. Don't forget the allied troops who were POW in Japan. If there'd been an invasion they would have been slaughtered.

Remember, this is pure speculation. Two A-bombs made more than the Mayor of Hiroshima look up and say "WTF?"

The Allies (I have to exclude the Soviets from this definition for this example) knew they had the A-bomb. They knew the Axis forces didn't. They knew the Soviets didn't. They were going to stop the Japanese war and at once send out a message to everyone else. Now before you seize on that point let me reiterate, it ended the war with Japan. It saved Allied lives. It sent a signal to the world. Since 1945 we haven't had a world war.

 

[sitarro]

in consequence all mentally ill persons that do bombthreats get tortured and their family and children on top of it.


Next step suspects are tortured. Slippery slope. Thats is why democratic countries came to the conclusion its not worth legalizing torture.

The problem with the real world is that terrorists dont announce their plans and you d have to torture on suspiscion.

I would not legalize torture but use the Presidential power to pardon people that have tortured guilty parties to extract the information on bombs or WMD. So it would be a case to case scenario and the wouldbe torturers have to feel sure that the guy is guilty. If you torture an innocent, time for prison.

ps: Torturing children? Yuck. I 'd like to see the children torturer executed.

Being subjected to the children of others is some of the worst torture of all.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DROP TWO.............................YOU JUST FUCKING DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SMACKS OF OVERKILL IF YOU ASK ME?
Having just EMPHASISED that to you, I must admit that it did get the job done.It also allowed you to walk into Japan and dictate the new order.
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS HORRIFIC TO DROP ATOM BOMBS ON DEFENSLESS PEOPLE HORRIFIES ME AND CAUSES ME TO QUESTION YOUR ETHICAL/MORAL MINDSET, NEVER MIND YOUR FUCKING SANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE INFUCKINGSANE FOR IT NOT TO BOTHER YOU...........just a little bit?

I read the enola gay. The guy who dropped the bomb was a decent human being. He realized we didnt have any better options

What would you have done? Invaded? Letting tens of thousands or more, US SOLDIERS DIE? FOR WHAT? WOULDNT THAT BOTHER YOU ?

And on top of that, probably even more Japs would have been killed, and it would have included innocents, as much bombing would have had to occur.

Now, the people who should be bothered by it are the leaders of Japan at the time who refused to surrender. I mean, how bizarre. You had an unfair advantage at the beginning by destroying almost all our pacific fleet. Even with such an unbalanced start, we were able to beat you back from the countries/islands you took , one by one, YOU LOST em all, all the way till we had you back in Japan. Then, we also already had defeated Germany, so we wouldnt even have to be distracted over there anymore, we could concentrate EVERYTHING on Japan.
So, we start out with Japan getting a head start
We pass up Japan even while dealing with Hitler and musolini at the same time
We no longer have to deal with Hitler and Musso
We have you backed up to your own doorstep

AND YOU STILL DONT FUCKING GIVE UP????
THEN WE THROW IN AN ATOMIC BOMB, DESTROY ONE WHOLE CITY, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WITH THE MOST DEVASTATING BOMB IMAGINABLE, How could ANY of the japanese leaders in their right minds believe they could still defeat us? But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, they still wont surrender.
If they would have only surrendered, no more lives would have to have been lost. THEY were the ONLY ones who could have prevented it,

so, would I feel remorse? I doubt it, I would simply block out the thoughts that would make one feel guilty, knowing I would be doing so for very, very valid reasons. SOmetimes your choices in life arent all that great.

But again, why dont people attack the Japanese leadership at that time for not giving up after the frist bomb? THAT WAS FUCKING BIZARRE, CRUEL AND INSANE

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You do this not because it is any way right or justified, but because you have made the subjective choice to do this. I WOULD NEVER do this, but in the hypothetical sense, it is a process. It would be inherently immoral and unjustifiable to pass this task off.

.

I think it would be immoral not to torture him if you knew there was even a remote chance it would save the lives of many.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What do tell was a valid defense against the Atomic bomb?

SURRENDER

 

[LuvRPgrl]

my asking about the assumptions themselves, I'd note that the title of the original post was "A 'Relevant' Moral Dilemma." To the extent that its assumptions are questionable, the moral dilemma is irrelevant to the real world, so why bother talking about it?

Mariner.

To the extent its assumptions are questionable,....

YOU were the only one who questioned it. And no, dont wear a badge of honor for doing so, it is one time that not following the rules just messes everything up, kinda like a kid who wants to hoard all the crayons.

WIthout the assumption, the discussion IS MEANINGLESS, hence, a rational, sane, fair and decent person wont question the assumptions.

I do recall explaining that to my third grader a few weeks ago, and she got it, so Im ASSUMING its not too difficult a concept for you to understand? Or should we QUESTION THAT ASSUMPTION TOO?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

the "what if," after raising the real-world relevance issues. There's a danger in living in an ideal scenario world too, as the NeoCons, the planners of "Shock & Awe," and the happy "Mission Accomplished" banner-raisers have all learned, to their dismay. Similarly for the ideal theories of trickle-down economics, which make such good sound bites, and stink so badly in the real world. (And, to be fair, liberals have their own history of chasing pies in the sky, from the vogue for communism in the early part of the last century, to the outsized expectations for what cash could accomplish in wars on poverty both here and abroad, e.g. Africa.)

Mariner.

Your entire train of thought is difficult to follow. However, two points

Shock and Awe worked
Trickle down has been working great also. Best economy in ages going on right now, can you say TAX CUTS (oh yea, but if your a liberal you will CLAIM they are only for the rich), so , either the tax cuts ARENT only for the rich, OR, the trickle down theory is working.
You really ougt to take a basic course in economics.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Then why not stop Iraq with a bomb?If we had done that the during desert storm we could argue that we had saved thousands of lives.Why not stop Iran, Pakistan and Korea with a nuclear bomb? Afghanistan, Libya and Zimbabwe need a reminder too.Let us just pick the most deserving of a nuclear strike and save many lives in the process?Why not?We can always justify it to ourselves.

Iraq? because the people of Iraq are not the enemy and did not support Saddam.
Same thing with Iran
WHy bomb Pakistan at all, they are (kind of) our allies, what threat are they?
Korea? Because the present method is working.
Same with Afghanastan, we won it without losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, LIbya, we got them to capitulate without any bombs dropped whatsoever.
Zimbabwe, cuz dropping a nuke on africa would kill too many gurillas and lions and giraffes

Actual bottom line is NONE of those, even ALL of those put together, would not have cost as many lives as invading Japan would have.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not quite as dense as the idiot that spells strengthened as strenthened. They no longer had a war machine, they were a defeated army, I wasn't asking you anyway ugly boy.

And yet they still refused to surrender. INSANE, thats what we would have been up against in a land invasion

If we had left them alone, they would have started rebuilding their war machine,

Im not ugly, ask my wife, so you cant use that line on me.

As for the idiotic question of why not use nukes in Iraq, etc, etc, cuz it too would have saved lives, well, the numbers saved compared to the numbers saved by dropping bombs on japan are not comparable.

Saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives justifies killing as many Japs as we did.
Saving two thousand or so lives, would not. SIMPLE MATH, get it?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

(Getting practical over those questions is the same as thinking "no")

If you think "no" here, you probably think like I do. Humans are capable of the worst thinkable actions against other humans and our civilized manners is a quite thin layer over the beasts we are. I can live with it. Others die because of it..

R u used to arguing for both sides and then declaring victory?

Fear - hate - dehumanization - death. Easy as that.

AhHHHHHHHHHH, now I get it, that explains it all. Yea, and go tell that to the thousands of soldiers who didnt have to go into a land invasion, explain to them it would have been better to lose their lives in a land invasion, just tell them

"Fear,,,hate, dehumanization death" Yea, I think they will begin to understand too.

 

[sitarro]

R u used to arguing for both sides and then declaring victory?




AhHHHHHHHHHH, now I get it, that explains it all. Yea, and go tell that to the thousands of soldiers who didnt have to go into a land invasion, explain to them it would have been better to lose their lives in a land invasion, just tell them

"Fear,,,hate, dehumanization death" Yea, I think they will begin to understand too.

Not that you need any help LuvRgrl but....

Something I have noticed about many of the narrow minded "progressives" is their total lack of ability to put themselves in the time of history they want to criticize using present day standards. It is always very evident when the subject of slavery or even racism is brought up.

To criticize the actions of a President 40 years ago without fully understanding what was happening at the time is assinine. This is a problem we have in this country, so many feel they have the definitive answer to everything even though they are incredibly ignorant of the mind set of the people they demonize. Instead of talking to people who were actually there they will read a few choice books on the subject and actually think they understand. Our elderly are not treated with the respect that they have earned, we would do well to learn from them rather than a author who may not have a clue.

My father was in WW2, he told me what it was like from the perspective of a 19 year old who had never been out of Louisiana that found himself in a country across the ocean having to grow up extremely fast. He signed up at 17, lied about his age to go fight a threat to his country and family. He would fly 9 hour missions in his P-51 escorting B-17s and B-24s to Germany. There he was flying an extremely difficult aircraft by himself, no autopilot, just a stick between his legs(that is where the term "flying by the seat of your pants"has meaning) and a couple of coke bottles to piss in. Flying hundreds of miles in all types of weather in a civilian aircraft today is stressful enough, even with the navigational technology and reliability of todays aircraft. These kids were doing superhuman work by today's standards and all the while knowing that half of those bomber crews were not coming back each day. On top of the pressure of trying to actually keep those aircraft in the air for 9 hours at a time they had to deal with others trying to kill them and their friends, in other aircraft and anti-aircraft guns on the ground. Add the return trip across the Channel(very deadly for many) and trying to land a shot up plane that when perfect is extremely hard to do, and you might have a little understand what their days were like. And their's were the easy jobs. The guys on the ground, imagine what they dealt with daily.

After the millions of lives lost in that war I would imagine the idea of stopping it now with the dropping of a bomb that would force the "fight to the death" Japanese to surrender was, even though difficult, a no-brainer. I read an article the other day, that I can't find now, that stated that there were a lot of Japanese that believed the dropping of the bomb was an act that saved many lives. They understand that it was the only way to stop the rulers that were not going to give up.

As for torturing a shit that plants bombs to kill innocent people, no problem, get the branding iron and heat it up.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

hahha, I can ALWAYS use support from the likes of people like you sitman ! I learn A LOT from posters, almost always conservative posters.
What is truly amazing is how these liberals can judge (even though in other arguements they claim to judge people is wrong) someone from hundreds of years ago, for doing something hundreds of years ago, and yet defend some people who ARE ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT THOSE ACTS TODAY !

Lets see,,,,their POV: "Washington was an evil man because he owned slaves,,,yet the Taliban has a perfect right to treat women the way they do because thats their culture, who are we to judge their culture?" (spoken with indignation, in the way only a liberal can be judging someone while at the same exact moment be claiming conservatives are judgemental evil stalwarts)

Not that you need any help LuvRgrl but....

Something I have noticed about many of the narrow minded "progressives" is their total lack of ability to put themselves in the time of history they want to criticize using present day standards. It is always very evident when the subject of slavery or even racism is brought up.

To criticize the actions of a President 40 years ago without fully understanding what was happening at the time is assinine. This is a problem we have in this country, so many feel they have the definitive answer to everything even though they are incredibly ignorant of the mind set of the people they demonize. Instead of talking to people who were actually there they will read a few choice books on the subject and actually think they understand. Our elderly are not treated with the respect that they have earned, we would do well to learn from them rather than a author who may not have a clue.

My father was in WW2, he told me what it was like from the perspective of a 19 year old who had never been out of Louisiana that found himself in a country across the ocean having to grow up extremely fast. He signed up at 17, lied about his age to go fight a threat to his country and family. He would fly 9 hour missions in his P-51 escorting B-17s and B-24s to Germany. There he was flying an extremely difficult aircraft by himself, no autopilot, just a stick between his legs(that is where the term "flying by the seat of your pants"has meaning) and a couple of coke bottles to piss in. Flying hundreds of miles in all types of weather in a civilian aircraft today is stressful enough, even with the navigational technology and reliability of todays aircraft. These kids were doing superhuman work by today's standards and all the while knowing that half of those bomber crews were not coming back each day. On top of the pressure of trying to actually keep those aircraft in the air for 9 hours at a time they had to deal with others trying to kill them and their friends, in other aircraft and anti-aircraft guns on the ground. Add the return trip across the Channel(very deadly for many) and trying to land a shot up plane that when perfect is extremely hard to do, and you might have a little understand what their days were like. And their's were the easy jobs. The guys on the ground, imagine what they dealt with daily.

After the millions of lives lost in that war I would imagine the idea of stopping it now with the dropping of a bomb that would force the "fight to the death" Japanese to surrender was, even though difficult, a no-brainer. I read an article the other day, that I can't find now, that stated that there were a lot of Japanese that believed the dropping of the bomb was an act that saved many lives. They understand that it was the only way to stop the rulers that were not going to give up.

As for torturing a shit that plants bombs to kill innocent people, no problem, get the branding iron and heat it up.

shall we use the peace symbol as the branding iron design? hahahha
It is men like your father to whom we can say, "we can sleep at night, because they dont".

 

[ErikViking]

R u used to arguing for both sides and then declaring victory?

I don't think I am not arguing for "sides"? I say I think that the massive killing of humans like it occured in Japan (or Dresden or London) is a low point in humanity regarding the respect of human life. I see those actions not in the light of a certain president/country/religion but as acts that are carried out by typical humans.

It is the way we are and we will be doing it over and over again. The reason for this behaviour as I see it now lies within those word: Fear - hate - dehumanization. But I believe we can change.

AhHHHHHHHHHH, now I get it, that explains it all.

No, I guess it didn't... If I gave you the impression of being able to explain everything, I am sorry.

Yea, and go tell that to the thousands of soldiers who didnt have to go into a land invasion, explain to them it would have been better to lose their lives in a land invasion, just tell them

"Fear,,,hate, dehumanization death" Yea, I think they will begin to understand too.

Why do you feel you have to twist what I said? Ask this group of people if they rather go and kill like 100.000 unarmed civilians while looking them in their eyes rather than defeat the enemys army - no risc of dying - same effect as the nuclear weapons. Counting in net. casualties I think the nuklear strikes actually saved lives - but the rationalization behind it is still a low point in our common history and I can't call it a good thing.

Something I have noticed about many of the narrow minded "progressives" is their total lack of ability to put themselves in the time of history they want to criticize using present day standards. It is always very evident when the subject of slavery or even racism is brought up.

To criticize the actions of a President 40 years ago without fully understanding what was happening at the time is assinine. This is a problem we have in this country, so many feel they have the definitive answer to everything even though they are incredibly ignorant of the mind set of the people they demonize. Instead of talking to people who were actually there they will read a few choice books on the subject and actually think they understand. Our elderly are not treated with the respect that they have earned, we would do well to learn from them rather than a author who may not have a clue.

I don't know if you see me as an example of a narrow minded "progressive" or not. But I don't frame myself in history as you talk about here. I don't criticize actions made by someone 40 years ago. The brutal, evil and (I would like to say "inhuman" but alas very human it is) logic of war would produce similar results anyway. I don't demonize people. That leads to fear - hate and dehumanization and death.


What I do myself to improve on humaity is to try to be aware of my predjudice, I try to see people as humans even when they act in ways I don't understand. I also try not to hate what I fear.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't think I am not arguing for "sides"? I say I think that the massive killing of humans like it occured in Japan (or Dresden or London) is a low point in humanity regarding the respect of human life. I see those actions not in the light of a certain president/country/religion but as acts that are carried out by typical humans. .

I find it very strange that you can consider that a lower point in history than the holocaust.
And the bombings you refer to were done neither in fear, hate or dehumanizing. In fact, the decisions were wraught with anguish because of the acknowledgement of the humanity involved, we certainly were not in fear of either nation at that point (never were really) and HATE? I think you need to do some more reading about the details and actions of those who made the decisions and carried out the acts.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why do you feel you have to twist what I said? Ask this group of people if they rather go and kill like 100.000 unarmed civilians while looking them in their eyes rather than defeat the enemys army - no risc of dying - same effect as the nuclear weapons. Counting in net. casualties I think the nuklear strikes actually saved lives - but the rationalization behind it is still a low point in our common history and I can't call it a good thing..

I didnt twist what you said, but you certainly, in the typical liberal fashion, managed to go offtrack of the topic.
Oh, and you dont think the net saving of lives is a decent rationalization?

I don't know if you see me as an example of a narrow minded "progressive" or not. But I don't frame myself in history as you talk about here. I don't criticize actions made by someone 40 years ago. The brutal, evil and (I would like to say "inhuman" but alas very human it is) logic of war would produce similar results anyway. I don't demonize people. That leads to fear - hate and dehumanization and death.


What I do myself to improve on humaity is to try to be aware of my predjudice, I try to see people as humans even when they act in ways I don't understand. I also try not to hate what I fear.

I see you have mastered the propaganda techniques of the left. You CLAIM you dont criticize people, yet you call "the logic of war evil",,,who caused these wars? You cant have it both ways, you cant call war evil, without imposing a criticism on those who caused the wars.
And by the way, hate, fear, are both good emotions when used properly. I HATE anyone who wants to commit violence on any of my kids.
I fear many things that if I didnt fear them, my personal safety would be jeopordized.

 

[ErikViking]

I find it very strange that you can consider that a lower point in history than the holocaust.

Do you really think that if I don't like hundereds of thousands humans to get killed, I would like millions killed more? Holocaust is on my list too, don't worry.

And the bombings you refer to were done neither in fear, hate or dehumanizing. In fact, the decisions were wraught with anguish because of the acknowledgement of the humanity involved, we certainly were not in fear of either nation at that point (never were really) and HATE? I think you need to do some more reading about the details and actions of those who made the decisions and carried out the acts.

So... you don't think those actions wasn't result of fear hate or dehumanizing? That is nasty. Your turn to consider the holocaust.

I didnt twist what you said,

Again, did I say this?

Yea, and go tell that to the thousands of soldiers who didnt have to go into a land invasion, explain to them it would have been better to lose their lives in a land invasion, just tell them

"Fear,,,hate, dehumanization death" Yea, I think they will begin to understand too.

I think you twisted what I said.

but you certainly, in the typical liberal fashion, managed to go offtrack of the topic.

I did get off topic. There was talk about nuclerar weapons and I posted what I think about them. So typical for liberals to go off topic. Statistically if you look of all topics there are, liberals usually go off them. They are topic off goers the whole lot of them. Lucky me you keep us on topic though.

Oh, and you dont think the net saving of lives is a decent rationalization?

No, "decent" isn't the word I would use.

I see you have mastered the propaganda techniques of the left.

What is it that you want now? What is that?

You CLAIM you dont criticize people, yet you call "the logic of war evil",,,who caused these wars? You cant have it both ways, you cant call war evil, without imposing a criticism on those who caused the wars.

Oh but yes I can! I might have made the same... "human" rationalizations too. Fair to say I most certainly would have. This is something I hope we all can improve on. Now there is a chance too. I am also working for that to happen right now. If I can have one person move another from the "dehumanized zone" back to thinking of him as a human I have done more for humanity than that of those who invented the nuclear weapons. What do you do?

And by the way, hate, fear, are both good emotions when used properly. I HATE anyone who wants to commit violence on any of my kids.
I fear many things that if I didnt fear them, my personal safety would be jeopordized.

Fear is essential to survival. Hate isn't. Hate and fear leads to dehumanization and that leads to death. I fear you, but I don't hate you.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Do you really think that if I don't like hundereds of thousands humans to get killed, I would like millions killed more? Holocaust is on my list too, don't worry..

BUT you out and out stated the other events were THE LOW, I would say the holocaust was MUCH LOWER

So... you don't think those actions wasn't result of fear hate or dehumanizing? That is nasty. Your turn to consider the holocaust. .

You were saying the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were out of fear....I was repudiating that, and that only.

I did get off topic. There was talk about nuclerar weapons and I posted what I think about them. So typical for liberals to go off topic. Statistically if you look of all topics there are, liberals usually go off them. They are topic off goers the whole lot of them. Lucky me you keep us on topic though..

Just doin my job

No, "decent" isn't the word I would use..

So, you dont think savings thousands and thousands of lives is decent???

What is it that you want now? What is that?.

Your techniques at times reminds me of a lawyer attempting to make same sex legal, when asked why he wants to change the traditional laws of marriage, he said "we arent trying to change them, we are simply expanding them"

Oh but yes I can! I might have made the same... "human" rationalizations too. Fair to say I most certainly would have. This is something I hope we all can improve on. Now there is a chance too. I am also working for that to happen right now. If I can have one person move another from the "dehumanized zone" back to thinking of him as a human I have done more for humanity than that of those who invented the nuclear weapons. What do you do?.

Again, you get off topic. What you responded to did not have anything in it by me stating anything about moving a person to the more humanized side. What I MERELY STATED was that you like to call WAR EVIL, but wont judge those who started it. THats like a guy stabbing someone, and you call the knife evil, but wont judge the stabber. Its a common liberal logic, eerrrrr illogic. If you libs want to remain delusional like that, fine with me, delusions will continue to get you to lose elections.

Fear is essential to survival. Hate isn't. Hate and fear leads to dehumanization and that leads to death. I fear you, but I don't hate you.

I hate murderers. how does that lead to dehumanization? In fact, the liberals posistion of not wanting to execute murderers is dehumanizing because they make the killing of a human more and more like the killing of an animal.
ALL emotions have a positive use at times, in context. ALL.

 

[ErikViking]

BUT you out and out stated the other events were THE LOW, I would say the holocaust was MUCH LOWER

Okay fine rate them. But you knew I didn't think of the holocaust as something better than Hiroshima, didn't you?

You were saying the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were out of fear....I was repudiating that, and that only.

Yes, careless reading from my part, sorry. I still think you are wrong. I think the same basic mechanics lies behind those actions too. From a personal standpoint it would be interesting to know if the one I discuss this with (You) recognize the fear - hate - dehumanization at all. Probing common ground in the holocaust.

So, you dont think savings thousands and thousands of lives is decent???

No. Not in this context. I can't bring the word decent in to the context of incinerating children, you will have to live with that.

Your techniques at times reminds me of a lawyer attempting to make same sex legal, when asked why he wants to change the traditional laws of marriage, he said "we arent trying to change them, we are simply expanding them"

Okay I don't know anything about that. Is this lawyer successfull? (Am I?)

Again, you get off topic. What you responded to did not have anything in it by me stating anything about moving a person to the more humanized side.

No you didn't, I did say that. That is well within what we have discussed (you and I), since it is my sole purpose of posting. Doesn't that tell you something? I regret having to use Hiroshima as an example in the discussion with you, had the blitzen of London and the V2 rockets been mentioned I would have used that instead.

What I MERELY STATED was that you like to call WAR EVIL, but wont judge those who started it. THats like a guy stabbing someone, and you call the knife evil, but wont judge the stabber. Its a common liberal logic, eerrrrr illogic. If you libs want to remain delusional like that, fine with me, delusions will continue to get you to lose elections.

Is it the word "evil" you recent? If I say like this: I think war brings out the worst in humans. Forget evil. The staring of a war is usually foregone by intense propaganda of fear - hate and dehumanization. So if I think Hiroshima is a low-point what do you think I think about the desicions made in Germany (or Japan) leading up to the war? Honestly now.

I hate murderers.

Understandable, even if not very productive.

how does that lead to dehumanization?

If your hate and fear of murderers is so great that you deprive them of human attributes they become dehumanized. I guess there could be many different reasons for this to happen, sometimes we are decieved by propaganda (because of a completeley different reason), sometimes we shut other voices out by forming smaller groups with common hate as attractor, sometimes various religious formations can center around it and also personal experience can achieve this. Whatever the reason, nothing good can come out of it. Not that I can think of in any case.

ALL emotions have a positive use at times, in context. ALL.

I am not "above" any feelings. But I have trouble finding any practical use for feeling hate. I wouldn't mind if you proved me wrong, do you have an example?


One thing: I am Erik. When you constantly add properties from a political group on me that only makes it harder for both of us to understand each other.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Okay fine rate them. But you knew I didn't think of the holocaust as something better than Hiroshima, didn't you?.

Actually no. You stated the bombings were THE LOW POINT, and I took you at your word. You know some people deny the holocaust even happened.

Yes, careless reading from my part, sorry. I still think you are wrong. I think the same basic mechanics lies behind those actions too. From a personal standpoint it would be interesting to know if the one I discuss this with (You) recognize the fear - hate - dehumanization at all. Probing common ground in the holocaust..

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. 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.

No. Not in this context. I can't bring the word decent in to the context of incinerating children, you will have to live with that..

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.

Okay I don't know anything about that. Is this lawyer successfull? (Am I?).

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.

No you didn't, I did say that. That is well within what we have discussed (you and I), since it is my sole purpose of posting. Doesn't that tell you something? I regret having to use Hiroshima as an example in the discussion with you, had the blitzen of London and the V2 rockets been mentioned I would have used that instead. .

Well, I totally agree with you that we could use a lot of people to be more humanized. I probably part ways with you because Im a strong advocate of "tough love". We use it in AA all the time. Its very effective, much more so than the coddling and "oh we love you anyways" when one goes on another binge.

Is it the word "evil" you recent? If I say like this: I think war brings out the worst in humans. Forget evil. The staring of a war is usually foregone by intense propaganda of fear - hate and dehumanization. So if I think Hiroshima is a low-point what do you think I think about the desicions made in Germany (or Japan) leading up to the war? Honestly now..

resent.

No, I dont have a problem with EVIL, I use it all the time. But I only see it as existing mainly with the perpetuators of the war, Germany, Italy and Japan, for the most part. The atomic bombings were not evil per se. It was a decision forced upon us. Much like amputating a leg is not evil,, if it saves the persons life.

Understandable, even if not very productive..

I hate rapists. Its a perfectly fine emotion. If you dont learn to hate those things that are truly evil, then you will wind up hating those things that arent. Hate is a useful emotion when used properly. I dont think one should remain suspended in it on any particular issue for the most part. But it is a perfectly normal and universal human trait. I hate slavery, injustice, TAXATION !!! I HATE THE FREAKING IRS. !!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHHAHAH

If your hate and fear of murderers is so great that you deprive them of human attributes they become dehumanized. I guess there could be many different reasons for this to happen, sometimes we are decieved by propaganda (because of a completeley different reason), sometimes we shut other voices out by forming smaller groups with common hate as attractor, sometimes various religious formations can center around it and also personal experience can achieve this. Whatever the reason, nothing good can come out of it. Not that I can think of in any case..

I dont fear murderers. I dont go to the point of depriving them of all human qualities. Some get close, Hitler, Jeffery Dohmer, the green river killer. The hatred of slavery helped bring it to an end. And more NON RELIGIOUS formations have centered around it than religous ones. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini. Pol Pot, Edi amin, the list goes on.

I am not "above" any feelings. But I have trouble finding any practical use for feeling hate. I wouldn't mind if you proved me wrong, do you have an example? .

Yea, again, hatred of slavery. Hatred of violent bigotry. I used to date a black girl and we experienced racism alot. I absolutely hate that. I hate it when someone is cruel to a child. I hate pedophiles. I absolutely hate the guy in san diego who took an eight year old girl, raped her, then strangled her to death. I dont let it rule me, but when the topic comes up, I have hatred for the man.

One thing: I am Erik. When you constantly add properties from a political group on me that only makes it harder for both of us to understand each other.

Dont take it personal Erik. I know its not always accurate. I dont mind being labeled a conservative even though Im more libertarian. Those labels are useful at times, just like ALL emotions are, as long as they are used properly. As a generalization it often just saves a lot of time as long as we dont take them toooo literal and understand that nobody NOBODY fits into any category completely.