The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Markle]

The desperate need to try to avoid the reality of the events is truly pathetic. Trying so hard to ignore one's own conscience.

 

[Unkotare]

" “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
- Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay

The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact. Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.

Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.

Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.

 

[Silver Cat]

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did.
1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.

 

[Unkotare]

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating [sic] hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. ...

You need to go talk to a priest.

 

[Turtlesoup]

" “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
- Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay

The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact. Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.

Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.

I know that you are right about him.

 

[Silver Cat]

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating [sic] hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. ...

You need to go talk to a priest.

"Finis sanctificat media" was written in "Liber theologiae moralis".

"The end justifies the means".

 

[Picaro]

" “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
- Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay

The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact. Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.

Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.

Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.

You aren't one of them.

 

[Unkotare]

" “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
- Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay

The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact. Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.

Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.

Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.

You aren't one of them.

Read the thread.

 

[Silver Cat]

" “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
- Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay

The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact. Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.

Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.

Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.

You aren't one of them.

Read the thread.

Already done. But you really don't try to "discuss". You just demonstrate your nucleophobia and xenophilia, nothing more.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....

Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war, you would consider that morally virtuous?

If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....

Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.

The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...

" Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." "

He lied, likely. Do you have any real evidence of Japan readiness to surrender (not to 'peace on their terms')?

Our wartime military leaders must have "lied" if the facts of history threaten your comforting narrative? Are you really this weak-minded? That's how some frightened "savage" would respond to his insecurities.

Untrue, if they hadn't wanted to drop those bombs they simply wouldn't have done so. Nor would the country have spent enormous time trouble and resources in their development. Historical fact is not with you in this.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?

The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.

And far more civilians would have died a slower more painful death in the years that followed if we would have tried the embargo (We know they don't work given Fat Kim Koreas) or had to go to a land battle sending troops in.

Civilians die in war--it isnt fair but it is life. Weather it be by A bomb or two over a few day period or by multiple regular bombs over the years or by starvation like Fat Kims korea----the A-bombs are the most humane way to go to boot.

Blockade would have worked eventually. But how many innocent civilians on the Asian mainland would have been killed before Japanese society crumbled under the weight of a population starving to death in the millions? Even with a Japanese collaspe would the IJA surrender? The actions of the holdouts in the Pacific seem to indicate they would continue to wage war, or at least banditry to the best of their ability. That would mean US and Soviet forces would have to spend months or years tracking down and killing the IJA on the mainland.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.

No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. Every piece of legislation has a 3.1%-3.2% chance of passing, and public opinion has been proven to never affect that. The Government makes legislation which dictates what you can and can't do, that which rules you necessarily cannot be serving your interests. All of those people that were murdered by the US Government were completely innocent of any of the atrocities that the Japanese Government committed.

It's not begging the question to use a term consistently, my claim of it being murder is supported by the fact that force is being initiated in the act. If anyone else initiated force on and killed someone, depriving them of their life, they'd be murdering that person. To say that war is mass murder is to apply that term consistently instead of committing special pleading by claiming that other humans are not subject to the same standards just for being part of a specific organization or class. To put it in more simple terms, you're violating the consistency principle(One of the first principles of logic), which makes your argument illogical.

No, what you mean to say, MAYBE, is that the majority of people do not consider it murder, or that the Government does not consider it murder, or that the Government has not trained you to think of it as murder. Furthermore, people who have not taken up arms to harm another, or committed any act of aggression in any way, such as all of the people murdered in Japan by the American Government, cannot be considered enemies by any logical standard. See, THERE, where you're calling them enemies, THAT's begging the question. You know, just so you use the term properly in the future.

 

[Unkotare]

... if they hadn't wanted to drop those bombs they simply wouldn't have done so. Nor would the country have spent enormous time trouble and resources in their development. ...

More illogical conclusions. You are trying too hard to convince yourself of something. Why would that be?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

Life is not a disney movie. Sometimes there are just bad and worse choices as adults. Adults have to make the tough decisions-----and sorry yes civilians die in wars. Moral Right is that your people come before your enemies. In WW2, the US had the moral right .................Japan were the enemies and yet the US also saved millions of their people's lives by sacrificing the two military cities with Atomic bombs.

This isn't football fan logic---this is the painful truth of life and war.

And sorry babe, might does make right in war-----you a fight a war to win not to be kind to your enemies who are out to kill you.

Oh, this is funny.

No, life is not a Disney movie, that's WHY I'm scrutinizing actions on a deeper level than 'We're on the same geographical location, therefor we are all a hivemind'. The mentality you're using, where the Government you worship acts in your interests, despite not knowing at all what you're interests are, let alone the individual interests of every person in a single geographical location(Which can change from moment to moment), THAT'S Disney movie logic. Or, have you not noticed their frequent use of kings and kingdoms, where the rulers are depicted as benevolent and just at all times? Oh, and their frequent use of 'sides', where one side is the viewer's perspective and the other side of 'them', the very same logic that you and other statists use when observing 'America' vs anyone else.

Furthermore, if decisions weren't made in a blanket format across an entire geographical location, by the absolute furthest organization from any of these issues, who also in no way suffered from mistakes made with said decisions, it'd be pretty easy to avoid the 'Trolly Problem' that you're tacitly referencing. Of course, it has never occurred to you that rather than having the trolly run over any number of people, one could just stop the trolly and have it hurt nobody. In other words, if each individual person made these "tough decisions" for themselves, it would bypass your beloved 'Trolly Problem' entirely. There would have been no bombings, and no mass murder.

No, it is absolutely football logic. Referring to the 'team' as "We" when you're not actually involved is exactly what football logic is. The "painful truth" is that you're simply cheering from the sidelines as mass murder occurs, then attempting to justify it afterwards on a forum. The people cheering as innocent people were crushed under the tanks of the red Chinese Government? That was you. The people cheering as the Jews were murdered by the German Government? That was you. The people shouting for Jesus to be nailed to the cross? That was you. NOW, the people who cheered when thousands of innocent japanese citizens were murder with nukes by the American Government? That's you. There's no difference between them, just geographical location, it's all mindless Nationalist, collectivist mentality, where a Government murders people for completely arbitrary reasons, and you stand by to give them ass-pats like the NPCs you are.

Wrong, might doesn't make right. The Governments may be able to subjugate each other through force, but that does not make their actions correct. They simply teach to their little NPCs that it was totally right, that they're the good guys, then if they're mentally weak, they parrot it for the rest of their lives. You know, like you're doing.

 

[Silver Cat]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.

No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does.

The Japs are not cattle, they are humans. May be stupid, clearly - perverted and cruel, but humans. Don't make them a sort of Orcs or something...

They have free will, they can make their own decisions and be responsible for them.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You see, Ethic classification of an action could not be made without understanding of context. One thing when you f-ck a woman who agree to be f-cked (for example, you wife), and absolutely different when you rape woman who don't want to be f-cked. War is even more antient and universal social institution than marriage.
The Japs (the whole nation) said: "We want to kill you and agree to be killed" by their attack at Pearl Harbor. Everybody knows how to stop those "specific relations" - drop you weapon, raise your hands, fell on your knees.
They said: "We wanna kill you, and we ready to be killed", and they didn't say "Don't kill us, we surrender!"

Yes, it's understood by the context, all of that context that you choose not to consider by being a collectivist, boot-licking shill.

The scenario with the woman and the man, regarding consent is accurate. On the other hand, you disregard all of that when you move on to discussing war. Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that all of the soldiers who decided it was time to lick the Government's boots more DID in fact consent to murdering each other. It's still the Government and only the Government which makes this decision, and they in no way speak for all of the people in a single geographical location. This is why it amuses me that you mentioned consent; The Government has no consent to represent all of the people in a geographical location, or to steal their money(Taxes), or to kidnap them and throw them in cages for violating their arbitrary politician scribbles, or to murder them for violating those same politician scribbles.

Every NPC tries this, so I'll address it now; No, living in a specific place does not excuse everything an individual wants to do to them, that's like saying that it's legitimate to burn a person's house down if they don't move out of the house. Tacit consent absolutely is not consent at all.

Everybody die. Death is a medicine against sin, given by God.

By that logic, it'd be legitimate to kill everyone on the planet.

But from the atheistic point of view, ethical systems are products of evolution, too.
And therefore 'might is right' or 'survival of the fittest'.

No, ethics are a product of logic. Logic is objective, so Ethics are derived from logic, making Ethics objective as well.

The Japs may be stupid (in some ways), may be "evil", but they are not "cattle".

Actually, I refer to everyone who pays taxes as tax cattle, because it's what they are to the Government. So, this is just another thing that went right over your head.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.

No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does.

The Japs are not cattle, they are humans. May be stupid, clearly - perverted and cruel, but humans. Don't make them a sort of Orcs or something...

They have free will, they can make their own decisions and be responsible for them.

If you have been paying attention, and you of course haven't, you're the only one arguing that everyone in a certain geographical location is evil because of the acts of those who claim the right to rule them.

I refer to those who pay taxes as tax cattle, because that's all they are to a Government. This is just a critical failure on your fault to critically think about my usage of the term.

 

[gipper]

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did.
1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.

Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.

It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.

No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. Every piece of legislation has a 3.1%-3.2% chance of passing, and public opinion has been proven to never affect that. The Government makes legislation which dictates what you can and can't do, that which rules you necessarily cannot be serving your interests. All of those people that were murdered by the US Government were completely innocent of any of the atrocities that the Japanese Government committed.

It's not begging the question to use a term consistently, my claim of it being murder is supported by the fact that force is being initiated in the act. If anyone else initiated force on and killed someone, depriving them of their life, they'd be murdering that person. To say that war is mass murder is to apply that term consistently instead of committing special pleading by claiming that other humans are not subject to the same standards just for being part of a specific organization or class. To put it in more simple terms, you're violating the consistency principle(One of the first principles of logic), which makes your argument illogical.

No, what you mean to say, MAYBE, is that the majority of people do not consider it murder, or that the Government does not consider it murder, or that the Government has not trained you to think of it as murder. Furthermore, people who have not taken up arms to harm another, or committed any act of aggression in any way, such as all of the people murdered in Japan by the American Government, cannot be considered enemies by any logical standard. See, THERE, where you're calling them enemies, THAT's begging the question. You know, just so you use the term properly in the future.

No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does.
No, what's odd is your assertion that the government and the people are in fact separate entities. The real world holds Nations responsible and doesn't split imaginary hairs in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' Simple historical fact. The People are indeed responsible for their government. If the People don't want a government to rule over them they can create a government that doesn't or change an existing government as needed. People are only helpless tax cattle if they choose to be and they are most definitely responsible for their choices. Trying to blame everything on "the government" is simply a pathetic attempt to avoid being a responsible citizen. I resent the suggestion that I allow the government to "rule" me. Slander. I am "ruled" by nothing and no one other than my own choices and conscience.
All of those people that were murdered by the US Government were completely innocent of any of the atrocities that the Japanese Government committed.
The term "murder" is defined by law-not your opinion. Those people were guilty of being enemies of our nation and were killed legally by our nation. Not murder and not the government.
It's not begging the question to use a term consistently,
No, but using a term consistently in no way insures that you are using it correctly. It is altogether possible to be consistently wrong. As you seem determined to prove.
See, THERE, where you're calling them enemies, THAT's begging the question. You know, just so you use the term properly in the future.
Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. Your inability to understand simple fact is your own fault. The world is simply not waiting with baited breath for you to decide what the correct definition of words should be so they can adopt it. It is what it is.

 

[Englewood]

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did.
1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.

Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.

It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.

I guess America didn't bomb German civilians, so we didn't cause any mass murders of civilians including women and children.