Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

31

The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:59:09 PM »

They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.

No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.

32

The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:48:21 PM »

It depends on whether or not they were strategic targets or if they were doing it to extract revenge.

Both, the could have hit the targets in strategic strikes, but they carpet bombed them,

But Cyro, you ARE saying it was justified, aren't you?

Depends on your definition I guess; I do tend to twist terms. Okay; it's not morally justifiable.

Dude, the war was over, they had already agreed to surrender. All that was left to work out was the terms.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and on August 9 another was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945.

33

The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:33:58 PM »

What about British intervention in Poland at the start of WWII to prevent Hitler from expanding even further?

What about it? My problem is not necessarily warfare, although I think its unfortunate, did the poles want Briton's help? If so then that's fine with me.

My problem is with the deliberate murder of civilians. I hate fucking Nazi's, but A-bombing German cities to get revenge on them would not have been right either, it would have in fact made us worse monsters than the Nazi's were.
Besides, with Atomic bombs you are not just damaging the cities, there are long-term ramifications.

We had an alliance treaty with Poland and France.

The British air force was carpet bombing German cities throughout the war. Wouldn't that count? I'm not saying it's justifiable but if you're in a war that you cant just 'pull out' of then you have to do something.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been bombed, the war could have lasted years and killed 4x that number, not to mention the American presence is Europe by the fall of Germany was probably one of the most prominent reasons for Russia not attempting to annex the eastern European states.

Not everything is black and white.

34

The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?

« on: January 13, 2007, 01:19:05 PM »

What about British intervention in Poland at the start of WWII to prevent Hitler from expanding even further?

35

The Polling Pit / Re: Dude, I'm such a hardcore Libertarian I think we should ban circumcision

« on: December 23, 2006, 06:40:46 PM »

Not intending harm is like a manslaughter case. Not seeing someone running across the road, striking and killing them. That's different. It was an accident. You were just driving your car.

Parents know they are harming their children in a lot of cases. If they agree to immunizations, they are agreeing to let their doctor inflict a temporary pain on their children with the hope/expectation that the beneficial effects of the immunization will outweigh the harm inflicted. The same is probably true of circumcision. Parents are fully aware that something is being cut off when they agree to this procedure, but are adhering to a sort of "an act is right if the good outweighs the bad” philosophy. Their intentions are good. That doesn't make them any less responsible for poor judgement, but the extent of their guilt could only be determind by the victim, the child.

A law suit makes sense because it's seeking restitution. You could disown them as parents, but that doesn't really do anything for you, the poor soul with a mutilated cock and nothing to show for it.

I just think suing people who, under the presumption they were otherwise good parents, have spent vast sums of money to raise you and ensure your safety over one mistake is petty. If the circumcision is botched then it's the hospital and doctors fault, sue them, I have no problems with that. Poor judgment is one thing; a lawsuit is another. Guilt trip them to hell, aggravate them shitless, I don't care, but suing them, you might as well be disowning them? I can't imagine that there is a family alive that would survive that kind of crap.

Just consider the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars it took to raise you restitution and move on, or sue the hospital, or both.

Well get over it mother fucker. I'd sue anyone in my family in a heartbeat if I felt that I was physically and emotionally damaged by them.

I'll get over it, when you get over yourself.

36

The Polling Pit / Re: How do you feel about the "gay" community?

« on: December 02, 2006, 02:33:36 PM »

Honestly - I have nothing against Homosexuality; it would be difficult to given my sexual preferences. That said; the "Gay Community" don't have a very good PR thing going.

Holding festivals that makes your sexual preference (usually in a manner involving exceedingly small amounts of leather and spandex) extremely blatantly exposed in hopes of getting those who dislike the fact that you’re gay to accept you may not be the best idea possible.

"The idea is to make straight people comfortable with the idea of gay people, and you're making it look like liberal S n' M rainbow apocalypse is coming." - Matthew Davis (Gay Comedian)