 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means. Here's my view If the end was intended to be moral, but it is achieved by immoral actions (immoral in this usage means bad morals, not amoral) it comes out immoral anyway. If the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Just some minor picking while I try to think about that hole. (...) Dan's referenced site makes the case that it wasn't a "drop one, then decide to drop the other" plan. Both were dropped as part of the same plan, so you should take issue with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only way to show that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless your ends are (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or not is really (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) no argument there from me - one question though. what if, fearing the canadians, you abandon your land for 30 years? do you still own it, and everything that has been built on it since? it's possible to contend that whoever settled the (now (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Aren't you saying that it's not the case that you didn't know that what you hadn't said contradicted what he had said wasn't the case? Dave! (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Everything I have ever read about WWII Japanese suggests that there was pretty strong belief that they would likely have fought bitterly to the end had something overwhelming happened to make the entire populace recognize that further fighting (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
Typo alert! (...) This should say "we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as good and us as evil as JUST AS VALID as our own finding of the opposite" Too many negatives and I got confused, I guess. Sorry about that, peeps. (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well that's the crux of the hole in my argument. Unless it can be shown that it is NOT a subjective judgement (that is, that it's not just a morally relative judgement), we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as evil and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their subjective judgment of us? (...) By my book it only matters what the intentions are of those (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify with relative (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
<snip> But though it's changing the (...) <snip> I love trying to define words. I also can't stay out of this forum. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here's my take on the definition of terrorism... I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Palestinians & Israeli occupation (Again) (was Re: Hiroshima... )
|
|
(...) He tried that with me, it did not wash either. Further, I fail to see why Israel is not a friend of the USA? They look pretty loyal to me. Certainly not an enemy? I also fail to see what this has to do with Hiroshima? (...) No, but the killing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I don't view the terrorists as cowards. They may well have been deluded, but they were not cowards. The answer to Ross's Truman question is "no". Although, Truman did not drop the bomb personally, he is responsible for that action. It could be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By "harshest" do you mean more harsh criticism than against any other? I would agree that Israel needs harsh criticism of some of it's tactics. You've got a lot to do to convince me that the government Israel is worse than the government of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Let's not blur the issue here. What was cowardly about the Sept 11 terrorism was that it took no courage to hijack civilian aircraft during peacetime and steer helpless civilian passengers into buildings. That's hardly the same as the US (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Founding Fathers Anti-American?
|
|
(...) All, I read text linked below last night. When I did, I realised that it linked quite well with a number of themes we (as a group) have given time here. It is heavily laced with paranoia, but it is still an interesting perspective. Have a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Hmm. I see your point. Secure means this: "able to avoid being harmed by any risk, danger or threat" Simply, free means this "not limited or controlled". I think the UK being "gun free", gives me both. I suppose another freedom I have lost (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
