Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police

[Jarhyn]

Ugly as they were Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best option for all groups involved.

They reduced Japanese military deaths.
They reduced Japanese civilian deaths.
They reduced Chinese military deaths.
They reduced Chinese civilian deaths.
They reduced US military deaths.

No group had it's casualties increased.

Ahem, your claims are as written are absolute nonsense. I suspect you mean they reduced the expected _____ deaths which is not the same as reducing the actual deaths. Expected or predicted deaths are guestimates by definition.

Japanese military deaths & civilian deaths: Anything that didn't bring about a quick surrender meant famine in the winter of 45. That would have killed far more than the bombs.

We had no way to stop the ongoing conflict in China. Thus those deaths would have continued.

You sound like the people who object to evolution because it's just a theory.

I'd say, in your evolution argument, it's more like people who accept evolution but object it being used to justify eugenics. You draw conclusions from the premise as to right action that the reality is merely agnostic to.

Your desire to justify the deaths is faulty. Death cannot be justified. It can merely be looked back on and mourned, so that the next time a decision must be made, it can be made with every hope to avoid more of it.

 

[Derec]

Another Antifa?
FBI investigating shots fired at ICE offices in San Antonio

 

[laughing dog]

Ugly as they were Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best option for all groups involved.

They reduced Japanese military deaths.
They reduced Japanese civilian deaths.
They reduced Chinese military deaths.
They reduced Chinese civilian deaths.
They reduced US military deaths.

No group had it's casualties increased.

Ahem, your claims are as written are absolute nonsense. I suspect you mean they reduced the expected _____ deaths which is not the same as reducing the actual deaths. Expected or predicted deaths are guestimates by definition.

Japanese military deaths & civilian deaths: Anything that didn't bring about a quick surrender meant famine in the winter of 45. That would have killed far more than the bombs.

We had no way to stop the ongoing conflict in China. Thus those deaths would have continued.

You sound like the people who object to evolution because it's just a theory.

Anyone who cannot distinguish between reality and expectations sounds delusional or incredibly moronic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Japanese military deaths & civilian deaths: Anything that didn't bring about a quick surrender meant famine in the winter of 45. That would have killed far more than the bombs.

We had no way to stop the ongoing conflict in China. Thus those deaths would have continued.

You sound like the people who object to evolution because it's just a theory.

I'd say, in your evolution argument, it's more like people who accept evolution but object it being used to justify eugenics. You draw conclusions from the premise as to right action that the reality is merely agnostic to.

Your desire to justify the deaths is faulty. Death cannot be justified. It can merely be looked back on and mourned, so that the next time a decision must be made, it can be made with every hope to avoid more of it.

How about addressing the issue? What other scenario produces a better outcome?

 

[Jarhyn]

Japanese military deaths & civilian deaths: Anything that didn't bring about a quick surrender meant famine in the winter of 45. That would have killed far more than the bombs.

We had no way to stop the ongoing conflict in China. Thus those deaths would have continued.

You sound like the people who object to evolution because it's just a theory.

I'd say, in your evolution argument, it's more like people who accept evolution but object it being used to justify eugenics. You draw conclusions from the premise as to right action that the reality is merely agnostic to.

Your desire to justify the deaths is faulty. Death cannot be justified. It can merely be looked back on and mourned, so that the next time a decision must be made, it can be made with every hope to avoid more of it.

How about addressing the issue? What other scenario produces a better outcome?

You. Are. Asking. The. Wrong. Question.

Mourning the deaths of previous a action produces a better outcome. Never viewing such deaths as "justified" produces a better outcome.

If there is a situation now that may require deaths, what we did in the past must be given no leverage (through any perception of acceptability) on the present.

The better outcome comes from not saying "it was acceptable then so let's do it again!". It comes from saying, every time, "what do I do to avoid casualties, because casualties suck through the infliction of guilt and responsibility".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about addressing the issue? What other scenario produces a better outcome?

You. Are. Asking. The. Wrong. Question.

Mourning the deaths of previous a action produces a better outcome. Never viewing such deaths as "justified" produces a better outcome.

If there is a situation now that may require deaths, what we did in the past must be given no leverage (through any perception of acceptability) on the present.

The better outcome comes from not saying "it was acceptable then so let's do it again!". It comes from saying, every time, "what do I do to avoid casualties, because casualties suck through the infliction of guilt and responsibility".

Saying I am asking the wrong question doesn't make it so.

 

[Jarhyn]

How about addressing the issue? What other scenario produces a better outcome?

You. Are. Asking. The. Wrong. Question.

Mourning the deaths of previous a action produces a better outcome. Never viewing such deaths as "justified" produces a better outcome.

If there is a situation now that may require deaths, what we did in the past must be given no leverage (through any perception of acceptability) on the present.

The better outcome comes from not saying "it was acceptable then so let's do it again!". It comes from saying, every time, "what do I do to avoid casualties, because casualties suck through the infliction of guilt and responsibility".

Saying I am asking the wrong question doesn't make it so.

I have repeatedly explained WHY you are asking the wrong question, which you have not spoken, engaged, or acknowledged other than. Right here, where you pull a NO U.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying I am asking the wrong question doesn't make it so.

I have repeatedly explained WHY you are asking the wrong question, which you have not spoken, engaged, or acknowledged other than. Right here, where you pull a NO U.

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

 

[laughing dog]

Saying I am asking the wrong question doesn't make it so.

I have repeatedly explained WHY you are asking the wrong question, which you have not spoken, engaged, or acknowledged other than. Right here, where you pull a NO U.

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

As I have pointed out, sometimes one has to do something that is unacceptable. But one does not make excuses and one does not blame the victims - one accepts responsibility.

 

[Jarhyn]

Saying I am asking the wrong question doesn't make it so.

I have repeatedly explained WHY you are asking the wrong question, which you have not spoken, engaged, or acknowledged other than. Right here, where you pull a NO U.

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

I'm saying that viewing it as "proper" or "improper" is as appropriate as asking whether 5 is "blue" or "green".

Defeating the Nazis was a necessary goal. Bringing peace to Europe was a necessary goal. But at every step of the way, decision s were made which must always and forever be questioned and considered. There is no answer as to whether the decisions were "acceptable" or not. They merely were, agnostic to considerations of "acceptablity".

Instead, they were merely tragic, and must always be, so that we look to the future with the goal of avoiding getting into those kinds of situations in the first place, and always consider freshly the particulars of decisions made.

If I dropped a bomb tomorrow and killed a child in addition to a hundred Nazis, I would still not see this as "acceptable". It is a tragedy, and I would ask myself not only if I had another choice (I probably didn't!) If I were to stop those Nazis, but I would still take responsibility for the fact that I did it. This responsibility would extend to taking what measures I could to prevent the marching of Nazis in the future. The only thing I would accept is that the cost of making decisions like that is guilt, responsibility, and forward thinking.

 

[bilby]

Saying I am asking the wrong question doesn't make it so.

I have repeatedly explained WHY you are asking the wrong question, which you have not spoken, engaged, or acknowledged other than. Right here, where you pull a NO U.

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

Either you know that that's a false dichotomy fallacy, or you don't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

As I have pointed out, sometimes one has to do something that is unacceptable. But one does not make excuses and one does not blame the victims - one accepts responsibility.

You're not answering the question.

You're saying Israel should stop defending itself, but you don't say we should have stopped trying to stop the Nazis. What's the difference?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

Either you know that that's a false dichotomy fallacy, or you don't.

Saying it's a false dichotomy doesn't make it so.

 

[bilby]

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

Either you know that that's a false dichotomy fallacy, or you don't.

Saying it's a false dichotomy doesn't make it so.

Of course not. The bleeding obvious fact that the phrase "the death of innocents" encompasses a VAST range of possible scenarios, with an equally vast range of moral values, some of which might be an acceptable price to pay for a given outcome, while others might not, makes it so.

I apologise for overestimating your intelligence by assuming that you could see that very obvious fact.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

As I have pointed out, sometimes one has to do something that is unacceptable. But one does not make excuses and one does not blame the victims - one accepts responsibility.

You're not answering the question.

Everyone participating in this discussion but you agrees I answered the question.

You're saying Israel should stop defending itself, but you don't say we should have stopped trying to stop the Nazis. What's the difference?

I never said Israel should stop defending itself. I have never said that. I am not responsible for your straw men.

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems you have forgotten the question I am asking:

How was it proper for us to bomb & invade Europe but it's wrong for Israel to defend itself?

Either the death of innocents in war is acceptable or it isn't. How can the two cases be different?

As I have pointed out, sometimes one has to do something that is unacceptable. But one does not make excuses and one does not blame the victims - one accepts responsibility.

You're not answering the question.

You're saying Israel should stop defending itself, but you don't say we should have stopped trying to stop the Nazis. What's the difference?

Ah, I see you prefer answering people who aren't me rather than considering my actual arguments and responses.

 

[laughing dog]

You're not answering the question.

You're saying Israel should stop defending itself, but you don't say we should have stopped trying to stop the Nazis. What's the difference?

Ah, I see you prefer answering people who aren't me rather than considering my actual arguments and responses.

Technically, it is a response, since none of his responses address the actual content of the posts.