Hiroshima Day

[Elvis]

When a simplification fits the facts of history, it's called an 'accurate summary.'

When it does not, it's called 'wishful, unrealistic thinking.'

Guess which direction you traveled when you posted what you did in the OP and then spout nonsense like 'when I post a quote it's because I'm assuming that position.'

Guess which direction you just confessed is more accurate.

Now guess which end you're reaching by debating the tactical effectiveness of whether or not it was worth using the atomic bomb on Japan over 60 years ago.

What the hell are you babbling about?

An oversimplification is an oversimplification.

Sometimes a fallacy can have true components but the context in which it is presented and the way it is carried out determines whether it is following logical rhetoric.

My POINT is that we're in this thread talking about something very fucking specific.

The discussion is about specific behaviors and actions. You can chalk it up to human-drama all you want and get all existential about it but that is not a fucking excuse.

It's a TRITE observation. We all know war is bad. We all know war is caused by humans. We all know humans are imperfect.

The point of the debate, ultimately, is to see if anything else could have been done; to see if anyone dissented who was relevant and if their opinions had any merit; to understand the motivations behind the actions that took place; etc.

And the ONLY thing you've been able to come up with is a big fucking abstraction. A big pile of bullshit.

Again: Tell me what my stance on the bombings were. You don't even know. Fucking moron.

[Correction]

Again: Tell me what my stance on the bombings were. You don't even know. Fucking moron.

All right fuckface, let's do this.

You failed to take a stance after about 10 posts, all you gave us were quotations and image galleries, so let's work with those since it seems your central theme for at least the first half of the thread was:

If I present a quote, I obviously stand by it.

First quote, excised of all the 'nuclear virginity' fluff:

There's an ongoing debate - and no, it is not a settled issue - over whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the Bomb.

The common conclusion is 'no they would not have surrendered.' The history of the pacific theater and watching Japanese soldiers fight tooth and nail to the very last man is evidence of this, along with your lovely quote of Admiral Togo:

"Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."

This quote utterly fails to support your initial stance that the bombs were not necessary. So you turn to other quotes, at which point it begs the question: "What good does it do now to reflect on the necessity of an event which has passed?" It's dead fucking easy to say something that's already happened was unnecessary. For the sake of historical discovery it's good to know that you have the truth about the world's history, but once the knowledge is accumulated the only virtue of further debate is the contents of that knowledge. Historians feed upon themselves while producing very little that helps current generations. I can't help but think the quote should be 'People are doomed to repeat history's mistakes regardless of what history they already know.' That's where I'm coming from.

Your response to an admittedly bleak outlook of humanity, as far as I can gather, was 'the knowledge gained by debate justifies it continuing forever.' If I got that wrong it's probably because your posts got kind of incoherent after countless edits as you tried to respond to criticism by editing rather than hitting 'submit reply' and especially so after you started ranting By The Power Of Latin.

What I'm trying to say is there is more practical knowledge in accepting that mankind is a beastly thing and that preparing for the inevitable worst scenario is a more useful expenditure of time than blogging about how emotional you get when you think about the suffering caused by the bombings. Intellectualizing that emotion does nothing to stave off future barbarism. Praying that reason and compassion will block machine-fueled savagery never saved any lives.

In short, when the world's on fire I'm looking to be the guy who owns the fireproof shit than the guy who wonders how necessary the fire was.

[Elvis]

In short, when the world's on fire I'm looking to be the guy who owns the fireproof shit than the guy who wonders how necessary the fire was.

DUDE U JUST BLEW MY MIND

Wow, you fail so hard. Sea atm, but I'll get back to your post. Funny how people can't READ GOODZ!

[Correction]

Nice curt reply after telling me to 'try harder'

My point - douchebag - was that I didn't make the topic to increase post count on an internet forum.

That the subject matter is of great importance (and obviously affects people personally), bolsters that point.

Any troll can create a thread that generates a response. Just look at Kuai. What makes you special?

[Elvis]

If you preface every post you make towards me by calling me a moron or fuckface, I'll do the same to you.

It's a given, like all that bullshit abstraction that you continue to spew. Once, I'm done w/ Sea I'll give a full reply.

[Correction]

If you preface every post you make towards me by calling me a moron or fuckface, I'll do the same to you.

It's a given, like all that bullshit abstraction that you continue to spew. Once, I'm done w/ Sea I'll give a full reply.

AHAHAHAHAHAH

The idea that you can't debate something because it's already taken place is not only INSANE but fascist.

Again: Tell me what my stance on the bombings were. You don't even know. Fucking moron.

[Elvis]

This is starting to turn into lame KI-drama, good job!

/awaits next quote

2 more Justices left!

[Correction]

The quotes, the shittiness of the thread's inception and the responsibility for the name calling getting slung around, belong to you. Get off your high horse.

[Elvis]

The thread is fine.

It's your utter lack of knowledge on the subject-matter. The bullshit abstract responses - WAR IS BAD? - you have given for five pages now and your shitty debating skills and lack of proper rhetoric that are screwing up the debate.

Clearly, because there were some on-topic and illuminating posts being made amidst the inanely stupid arguments I've had to get into with you and Creeps on shit that's a GIVEN (again, WAR IS BAD?).

[Kuya]

Thread better get back to "discussion" and not flaming if it wants to stay unlocked.

[Beckwin]

fuck it man, just lock this shit. rare as hell for me to say something like that, but goddam this is just correction and elvis attacking eachother for alternatingly the exact same 2 crappy argument styles: nit-picking and generalized bitching, with a good mix of posturing thrown in.

thread sucks now.

[Elvis]

Go for it. Except for that exchange between him and I, I'd say there was some interesting discussion.

Just subtract the people who said :
-it happened a long time ago, who cares
-war is bad, people are imperfect, hence people will do bad things during war so no point in talking about it
-etc etc


I have a reply but wtf is the point now.

[Beckwin]

discussion stops being interesting when you copy/paste explanations of fallacious arguments.