Subarashii Sekai Superbly Seductive
The Wolf-Boy & The Girl in The Red Hood Sweetly Feral
Rory Mercury Cosplay Godly & Gothic
One Piece: Burning Blood Trailers Fiery Hot
Ero-Manga Sensei Anime Announced
Oh The Lulz, and i'm gonna have to regulate.
Are you justifying mass extermination as a quick solution?
really? do i have to say anymore?
Sankaku Complex Forums » General
-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Vicious said:
Oh The Lulz, and i'm gonna have to regulate.Are you justifying mass extermination as a quick solution?
really? do i have to say anymore?Nobody actually came out and said that we support a weapon that targets civilians. I merely stated that the United States had justification and provided fair warning to Japan. Though truth be told, the war would have gone on a hell of a lot longer had the United States actually had to invade Japan. Japan wouldn't have surrendered until US forces had literally pushed to the door step of Hirohito...and even then, they still may have gone on fighting.
Though, since you are so strongly against the deployment of such a tactic, what would have been your solution to the war? Would you have ordered America troops on to Japanese soil? Would you have forced the death of countless more young men on both sides as the countries settled into an eventual stalemate or US victory years later? And let us not forget the civilian casualties that would have surely gotten in the way as US troops attacked the cities. You think you can invade a country without innocent citizens dieing? Plenty French, German, Italian, Russian, ect. civilians died as troops moved from territory to territory. And lets not forget this, remember Okinawa in which hundreds of Japanese, men, women, and children all committed suicide rather than surrender to American forces? I guarantee you that Japanese civilians would have armed themselves just to fight American soldiers resulting in even more civilian casualties.
And speaking of mass extermination; this was the same war in which the holocaust happened. And later, the reign of Stalin in which millions of people were systematically annihilated. What do we call that? Even bigger mass extermination?
Also note, I may or may not be playing the devils advocate. That is for you to decide.
Posted 5 years ago # -
You dont support it, but in your opinion it worked, therefore it is justified. interesting.
Yes, i am under the impression that when you declare war on people. you usually send your troops at them. thats generally how it works.
Would i force the death of countless....Yes. if i declare war i usually expect to deploy armies At. and armies usually consist of people, humans, in mortal peril.
"And let us not forget the civilian casualties that would have surely gotten in the way"
Well obviously to protect your citizens from our armies, logically i had to nuke your most populous cities. we did it for you japan, obviously.hmm i see your allies systematic mass extermination and raise you Instant mass extermination.
Justified. yee haw.
Lulz. i am the master of irony. the view of a devils advocate does not change your own position, it's merely a tactic of reverse psychology to disassemble the opponents logic.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Vicious said:
You dont support it, but in your opinion it worked, therefore it is justified. interesting.Yes, i am under the impression that when you declare war on people. you usually send your troops at them. thats generally how it works.
Would i force the death of countless....Yes. if i declare war i usually expect to deploy armies At. and armies usually consist of people, humans, in mortal peril.
"And let us not forget the civilian casualties that would have surely gotten in the way"
Well obviously to protect your citizens from our armies, logically i had to nuke your most populous cities. we did it for you japan, obviously.hmm i see your allies systematic mass extermination and raise you Instant mass extermination.
Justified. yee haw.
So in other words, you can't actually come up with a valid analytical response, so you decided to bullshit a worthless post that didn't actually state anything of importance. Bravo to you sir. Shame too, I thought you were someone who could actually carry out a good argument. :'(
At least make an attempt to tell us what you would have done over a nuke since it is clearly the worst type of sin. War isn't a good thing in general, but if you can't at least come up with a probable solution then you can't just condemn the method that was being used. Somebody was going to die, the question was how.
Or give up and face reality. You pick.
Posted 5 years ago # -
What happened is we used the bombs on Japan because we had this new technology we were itching to use. If we used the bombs on Germany, there was a chance that they would reverse-engineer the bombs due to having more advanced science at the time.
So basically America was the equivalent of an internet tough guy who's a pussy IRL.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I LOL'd at USA the rabbit. I get that usa is a rabbit and the U.S. but he looks like a wimp. I wonder if he's going to be like Honey from Ouran Host Club.
Vicious said:
STUFFAre you trolling?
Posted 5 years ago # -
i'm sorry i actually find this humorous.
my professional analysis of send troops at them, is quite unrealistic.i'm disappointed in myself as well.
it was such a well stated argument of: What would you have done.
it's such a tough task for me to intelligently analyze past event."what you would have done over a nuke since it is clearly the worst type of sin."
again i'm sorry for laughing. My B.S posts are quite shameful *harakiri*
obviosuly using a nuke is not the worst thing you can do.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... You can use two. XD.
*End the Lulz, End it Nao*Posted 5 years ago # -
Tachikomatic Days said:
I'm not sure if that's ad hominem or if you're completely off the pyramid.
Posted 5 years ago # -
refill said:
Are you trolling?Nope, but i do mean what i say.
to reduce the irony and hostile nature of arguments.
i must increase the lulz
nothing makes you realize and admit you retarded your points are
than a smile on my face and yours :)because noone wins if everyone is angry and ignorant. nobody.
Posted 5 years ago # -
SaruDa said:
What happened is we used the bombs on Japan because we had this new technology we were itching to use. If we used the bombs on Germany, there was a chance that they would reverse-engineer the bombs due to having more advanced science at the time.So basically America was the equivalent of an internet tough guy who's a pussy IRL.
You bring up a valid point... except you pervert it in to a bastardization of history. Yes the US had a new weapon that they wanted to test. Yes the US was worried that the Germans would reverse engineer a bomb that failed to go off because it was experimental, but No these are not the reasons the US decided to employ atomic weaponry. As was stated repeatedly further back in the forum the reson the Nuclear weapons were chosen is because they were viewed as a way to end a war that was only going to lead down a path of similar consequence, except people would be dieing of gunshots, infected gunshot wounds, traditional explosives and even the occasional stab to the gut with a bayonet, as opposed to a rather quick vaporization, yes I am aware that it caused cancer and I have seen radiation burn videos and it's horrible but that means a fraction of the people of died in the bombing died slowly/painfully as opposed to the majority of highly plausible and slow/painful deaths caused by conventional warfare. It is indeed a sad reality that the bombs had to be used but you need to wake up out of your innocent 12 year old dream world and realize that's what reality is sometimes-- Horrible.
And in response to you Vicious, Yes-- I am justifying the 'extermination' of people as the quick solution, because in this case the quick solution is the more humane and less casualty inducing route. The world sucks sometimes, get used to it.
Posted 5 years ago # -
indekkusutaku said:
And in response to you Vicious, Yes-- I am justifying the 'extermination' of people as the quick solution, because in this case the quick solution is the more humane and less casualty inducing route. The world sucks sometimes, get used to it.
See how easy was that to admit?
+5 points to anyone who spots the irony.hint: My justified war is right, your justied war is right.
first to nuke wins :D
Fun fact about the cold cold emo sucky real world: Historical accuracy usually favors the people who aren't dead/lose. funny how that works out. :PAlso i support your views Indekkusutaku, if and only if you support the use of nuclear weapons as a quick and humane solution to all wars :)
Posted 5 years ago # -
Vicious said:
See how easy was that to admit?
+5 points to anyone who spots the irony.hint: My justified war is right, your justied war is right.
first to nuke wins :D
Fun fact about the cold cold emo sucky real world: Historical accuracy usually favors the people who aren't dead/lose. funny how that works out. :PAlso i support your views Indekkusutaku, if and only if you support the use of nuclear weapons as a quick and humane solution to all wars :)
Well actually I'd prefer no war be started at all, but you see I grew up a couple of years back and realized that's not how the world works and I..., ohh get ready this is gonna be good, matter-a-fact I think I'll bold it, ...Grew the Fuck Up and is a nuke always the best option? Absolutely not it's a terribly devastating weapon with terribly devastating after-effects, was it this best option in the case of a country that had basically said: We will fight you until every last one of us are dead along with millions of you, 'you' being the defending country I might add, Yes, yes it was. If you would pay closer attention to what I type you would see I always include "in this case" or a similar qualifying clause.
Posted 5 years ago # -
SaruDa said:
I'm not sure if that's ad hominem or if you're completely off the pyramid.
Isn't that pyramid upside down? Usually the top is the least important, while the bottom the most. The idea that I think of is that if you take off the top nothing changes, but if you remove the bottom, everything collapses.
@indekkusutaku
Holy wall of text. I would have also accepted Germany surrendered in May 1945, which usually means the country's already losing before that. The first testing of the Nuke was in July 1945.Posted 5 years ago # -
Interesting, Sorta like The Military are trying to reach out to Videogamers, You see them more in Call of duty or Halo games
Posted 5 years ago # -
refill said:
The pyramid represents how effective the methods are in attacking the point of an argument. Not how important the method is in terms of top-down significance.
Posted 5 years ago # -
refill said:
@indekkusutaku
Holy wall of text. I would have also accepted Germany surrendered in May 1945, which usually means the country's already losing before that. The first testing of the Nuke was in July 1945.lol, yes it was but trust me it was more painful for me to type I'm a horrifically slow typist. I Brought up my argument instead of Germany had already surrendered to better frame a counter argument more suited to the comment.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Yucchi said:
The pyramid represents how effective the methods are in attacking the point of an argument. Not how important the method is in terms of top-down significance.
I want to say well duh, but I don't think that will really help. Usually you would want to have an inverted pyramid in that case. The idea being that refuting the central argument does the most work (taking more space), while name calling barely does anything. It's not really important, it's just weird and seems counter-intuitive.
Posted 5 years ago # -
refill said:
I had to answer it this time, since someone else brought up the same thing. I don't remember who, but I saw it sometime ago. I usually see it the same way as Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, except for the obvious changes.
As for the manga, I wonder if this is a way to help justify their bases in Okinawa and Japan's continued reliance on their foreign-made constitution.
Posted 5 years ago # -
indekkusutaku said:
i don't think you understand the dynamics. A nuke is never the best option.
you can say that because we are the super power, we are the ones who have it or had it.
it was an easy option certainly, but it is not the cold hard truth, the only way we could win, or whatever justifications you try to provide.
we are and have always been capable of waging war before nuke and we still after without using nukes.infact everyone always have been.
The irony i was trying to help you realize, it that we have already gone through the process of realizing that a nuke is not an option at all.
we realized that when other people began to acquire nukes.Turns out mass extermination is never a good idea
Nuclear deterrent, Mutually Assured Destruction.
The Entire Cold War.when you have enemies with nukes, it's not justified, when you have nukes it's also not justified. not because its right or wrong. because you're never in the right if you're the one killing everyone.
it's not cold, emo, harsh reality. No one goes to war: I go in there i kill everyone i win.
theres no war strategy like that. nobody calls that a war.Posted 5 years ago # -
That's really cute. I might actually buy a hard copy(if its ever available) just for the loli and shota. However, this doesn't make me a fan of America's Foreign Policy. :P
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.