The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You said, and this is a quote:

Quote:
The world rethought their tactics after the arms race era... all caused by the first strike on Japan.

No it's not, it's a quotation.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I don't "hate" skepticism. I am digusted by propaganda masquerading as skepticism. I don't read posts by that hateful and deluded bitch JTT, and i'm not going to start just to play our stupid word games. I can produce evidence for everything i've said. You, like Igm, produce evidence-free, emotive statements.

As for formal education, you continue not to get it. Formal education doesn't mean that anyone is an unquestionable oracle just because they have a degree. It does mean that people get degrees because they have done the work, shown their work and have reliably produced evidence for what they write. You can see if that has been done as soon as you open a book. When your "education" come from sensationalist videos from youtube, like that horseshit you've twice linked about the Nanking massacre, you not only can't see if they've done the work, shown the work, shown their references, you will be too ignorant to spot the propaganda when it's puked up at you.

If anyone here hates skepticism, it's you. You want to watch youtube videos, swallow what you are told whole without the least skepticism, and be taken seriously when you start ranting about things of which you are almost entirely ignorant. Witness your confused and idiotic claim that Japan went to war because Britain was going to invade east Asia. You know nothing, you show it every time you open your mouth, and you hate it that it's so easy to show how little you know.

1 Reply

@miguelito21,

You wrote:

"First because differing explanations have been put forward quite shortly after the dropping of the bomb - that is, it is no recent development; second because these differing explanations were/are defended by quite qualified people (academics, journalists, military)."

What do you mean by shorty after the dropping of the bomb, if not in 1945? As for "official version," you have a lot of allegations in your post, but no evidence that the intent was not to end the war as quickly as possible. I think it highly likely that Truman wanted to impress the Russians. So what? Your sources don't show that that was the prime motivation for using the bomb.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

So what? The quotation is false for the reasons i gave.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Just a pet peeve, that's all.

Btw well done for spending so much time trying to show RL why he is so wrong. I don't think you'll achieve anything though, some people wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit them on the arse.

Your medium is wrong. Have you tried a puppet show? That might have some success.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I'm not arguing that you haven't made a valid point. I'm arguing that it wasn't to do with the point I was making and so it is irrelevant. I explained why in my next post. Your new post after my explanation of how your post was pointless is doubly pointless.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I don't read posts by that hateful and deluded bitch JTT, and i'm not goin

No but you prance around as the queen of ad hominem.

Quote:

people get degrees because they have done the work, shown their work and have reliably produced evidence for what they write.

If this is true then where did you get your degree of silliness from?

Quote:

you will be too ignorant to spot the propaganda when it's puked up at you.

Let's see if you might be talking about yourself.

Quote:

Witness your confused and idiotic claim that Japan went to war because Britain was going to invade east Asia. You know nothing, you show it every time you open your mouth, and you hate it that it's so easy to show how little you know.

What I shared with you was from an infancy point in my studies of the subject and I did not make a factual claim that Britain invaded east Asia but rather some Japanese thought that the British were invading Asia. there is a difference.

The big difference between me and you is that I tell people that I am uncertain and you tell people I am full of **** because I made factual claims that were not factual. Did you even read the last of what I said in my reply?
It doesn't seem that you accurately read the first part.

Do you realize how silly you seem each time we have these discussions?

Quote:

It seems to be a belief each time and the leaders always say it is a just war and god is on their side. If I am not mistake the Japanese "thought" that the British were invading Asia and the Japanese wanted Asia to be free. At least that is what I think they were telling their people. I heard that the government was liberal but was taken over by a dictator who ruled the army and then all hell broke loose. Some of what I shared may be incorrect because of the poor memory that I posses.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

The medium is wrong because it's not a sensationalistic, poorly produced, tendentious video on youtube with no factual basis--the only thing RL pays any attention to.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You've got a point there.

0 Replies

@igm,

It's relevant in a thread about the atomic attacks on Japan. If you want to discuss your paranoid fantasies about Islamists with suitcase bombs, perhaps you'd do better in a thread devoted to that subject.

Nevertheless, you hoped to tie all that bullshit in with the bombing of Japan. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Do you have any idea of how silly you look when you respond to criticism with half-baked, not very clever insults? Infancy is a good term--the problem is that you start a thread such as this and think it's reasonable for you to make wild and unsubstantiated claims, and that somehow people are being mean to you by pointing out that you're full of ****. Here's a wild idea--try studying a subject in detail before you start a thread about it.

As i've said more than once here, i find the very idea of this thread offensive. I hope you're insulted. I hope it pisses you off.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

As i've said more than once here, i find the very idea of this thread offensive. I hope you're insulted. I hope it pisses you off.

Do you find silly people's comments offensive or silly?

Quote:

Infancy is a good term--the problem is that you start a thread such as this and think it's reasonable for you to make wild and unsubstantiated claims, and that somehow people are being mean to you by pointing out that you're full of ****.

I started this thread for philosophical reasons pertaining morality but my reasons seemed to have shot right over your head.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Nothing "shot right over my head." There is no good philosophical reason to equate the holocaust in Europe to the atomic bombing of Japan. I made that clear in the first sentence of my first post which the first response to this bullshit thread. Since these things don't seem to sink in with you, maybe i should just repeat it. The Jews of Europe did not start a war, they did not invade other countries, they did not attempt to conquer their neighbors and enslave them. Japan did. Added clarification, as you seem slow on the uptake: The Germans killed Jews because they were attempting to exterminate them, and for no other reason than that they were Jews. We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (two militarily justified targets) in the hope of ending that war, ending the madness of the Japanese militarists. We weren't attempting to exterminate the Japanse.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, as I said earlier in the thread, there obviously are huge differences in the “holocaust” and the “nuclear bombing of Japan”…but the question as posed leaves room for a reasonable discussion of the morality of mass killings…no matter the differences.

In my opinion, the premise stated above, "reasonable discussion of the morality of mass killings…no matter the differences," may be false, if one does not believe that we are all equal humans, based on the beliefs we have. Meaning the Aztecs that were cutting out the hearts of sacrificial humans were not of the same human society that inhabited Europe, in my opinion. So, that lack of empathy to human sacrifices makes me not really care if the conquistadors would have nuked the Aztecs when they arrived. And, since there are no Aztecs performing human sacrifices today, I still do not see all humans of equal value. Perhaps, not being raised in a Catholic home I do not see that? However, I do not act out any negative feelings towards those of lesser humanity, since it would reflect on my humanity. So, those that allow themselves to embrace certain beliefs that are less humane, like genocide, I do not care if they got nuked. The Japanese were performing genocide in Manchuria, so I care less about them. The Jews in Europe were trying to mind their own business, so I do not care that the Allies firebombed Dresden. It is just a matter of applying a value to the variables and then solving the equation. Sorry for not being of a Catholic persuasian, or seeing things in a mathematical realm? But, your opinions are yours. No one, least I, want to change them. I just don't want to really belabor my view by spending more time discussing things with you. Blame my mother for my not being social.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Like I said it went right over your head. Killing Innocent, men, women, children and babies is immoral. Killing the Jews was immoral. You can find reasons that seem to justify actions but immorality is immorality

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Nothing went over my head. Do you really think that it's possible to wage war in the modern era without putting civilians at risk? You have never explained what it is that you think the United States ought to have done to end that war without using the bombs. Invading Japan would have cost far more lives, and far more lives of Japanese civilians. You live in some fantasy world with no connection to reality.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Like I said it went right over your head. Killing Innocent, men, women, children and babies is immoral. Killing the Jews was immoral. You can find reasons that seem to justify actions but immorality is immorality

Stealing a loaf of bread to make a sandwich for lunch, when one has the money to buy the loaf is immoral. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's child, and one does not have the money to buy the loaf, may be immoral in a court of law, but is not immoral according to Catholic thinking.

There is such a thing as "extenuating circumstances." Bombing the Japanese had "extenuating circumstances," the Holocaust did not, unless one believes that Hitler was cleaning up Europe for the good Aryans.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It was relevant to my post which was not posted to you but to someone else and you decided to butt in.

The rest of what you said in your post is incorrect and not what I've said in my previous posts nor can it be inferred from my previous posts.

Your insults as usual are unfounded and baseless. The points I've made in this thread have been appropriate for the OP and definitely do not have to be what you think is appropriate.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

This refutes your nonsense and you haven't addressed any of the points. Others are too easily impressed by your propaganda.

http://able2know.org/topic/220027-15#post-5411105

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

This refutes your nonsense and you haven't addressed any of the points.

I hope your not waiting for him to address this and show evidence of it being wrong.
Religions and ideologies can be hard to shake off at times.

I know Rev Ernest Poe is religious but just imagine him as an atheist setanta explaining his views about all of this. Laughing

0 Replies

The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know