07 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoPlease. You are familiar with Christian concepts of a "just war" and the allowable uses of force in war, aren't you?
[b] The US government in 1945 was composed of people who accepted Christian ethical principles (at least in theory) and who tended to justify Hiroshima based on the same.
it was a wartime measure, the only justifications for the bombing were military, not religious.[/b]
07 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou must be talking to a mirror (except for the "great debater" part).
You're a great debater, let down only by your own juvenility. You personalize everything and yet berate others for personalizing things. You hijack threads and yet berate others for doing what you decree to be the same thing. You dish out trite personal insults - ad infinitum - but have aglass chin when it is reciprocated. I understand your need to be the despis m and humour. Failure to recognize this is a type of juvenility that goes way way beyond mine.
07 Jun 09
Here's an interesting comment from Paul Tibbets, pilot of the plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb:
Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the [barnyard epithet deleted]: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderDropping the a-bombs on Japan served more as a statement than of necessity. Purdy tragic all in all. Probably killed a lot of folks that didn't want war in the first place. A demonstration of the weapon would have been sufficient. We showed the world we were willing to drop them on civilians for effect.
Here's an interesting comment from Paul Tibbets, pilot of the plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb:
Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the ...[text shortened]... for being there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan[/b]
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I know firsthand that there are a lot of Christians that do not belong to the fringe that give a very soft pass to Tiller's killer.
Of course there is no direct answer. Obviously, if the mainstream of each religion renounces it fringe, then no religion can directly be held culpable under that standard.
The question, though, is one of degree.
1) Are there more Christians that condone murder of abortionist doctors or more Muslims who condone the murder of civilians for political purpose ...[text shortened]... bad about the fringe element of my religion because your religion has a fringe element too."
It sounds a bit like this: "Well, I'm not saying that you should shoot anyone, but God is not going to sit idly by and let you mock him." Within the appropriate context this statement might seem harmless enough, but in practice the first clause is downplayed and the latter is emphasized.
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI don't think you read my post very carefully. I didn't state that a fetus is a person, I said "after birth there is definitely a person". I can't think of any situations in which a baby would not be considered a person under the law, unless it were stillborn or possibly brain dead at birth (can anyone confirm the legal status of a brain dead fetus?). Maybe there's confusion because of the way in which I used the word "baby" to differentiate between the born (baby) and the unborn (fetus, zygote, etc...). If that's the case, then fair enough, I'll be more specific next time.
you have made an unwarranted assumption that is not based on fact, but only on belief.
until and unless a child is delivered alive and lives on its own outside of the mother's body, there is only an assumption by you that a person exists beforehand.
your use of the word "definitely" does not make it so.
your use of the phrase "needs to be recognize ...[text shortened]... ny probative weight regarding the 14th amendment or the concept of substantive due process.
However, consider this: before conception there is no person, but every person is a product of conception. At some point in between, logic dictates that there is a switch from non-person to person. The only assumption here is the one made by you, that "until and unless a child is delivered alive and lives on its own outside of the mother's body" there is no person. The transition between zygote and person may be gentle or sharp, depending on the definition of "person" chosen, but logically the transition must exist if we are to recognize people as "persons" being something fundamentally different than a large collection of self-replicating DNA.
With regards to probative weight, due process and the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, I have to plead ignorance of the law. A cursory glance reveals that the 14th amendment is very similar to the 5th amendment in that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....", with the 14th amendment being more specific "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Text_in_the_United_States_Constitution). In the case of abortion, it seems the only question should be whether or not a fetus meets the definition of "person" at some point in its gestation, not that if it were recognized as a person then should either the 5th or 14th amendments be applied in protecting its life, but I understand that Roe vs. Wade dealt with the mother's right to privacy under the "liberty" umbrella instead. It was probably a wise decision on the court's part to sidestep the issue of whether a fetus can be a person under the law, but it's interesting to note that although the court didn't recognize a fetus as a person, it still saw fit to restrict the mother's abortion right due to conflict with the state's interest in that "it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_vs._wade#Supreme_Court_decision) If the court didn't implicitly think of a viable fetus as having some right to life, why would the state protect it at the cost of the mother's liberty? This is only speculation of course, but interesting nonetheless.
(For the record, (a) I agree that a woman has the right to choose, and that this choice should be unfettered without compelling counter-interests; (b) I do not believe that a person exists at conception, but I do believe that it does become a "person", if not in a legal sense than in a definitive sense, at some point before birth (otherwise it's difficult to answer the question "what meaningful difference is there between a baby about to be born and the same baby right after it's born?" ); (c) I do believe that defining the word "person" is an extremely difficult task in general, one compounded by the difficulties involved in demarcating the transitions between non-life and life at both ends of the spectrum - birth and death; and (d) I do think that the decision in Roe vs. Wade to impose restrictions based on the viability of the fetus was a reasonable compromise.)
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by joe beysera demonstration would have been sufficient for what?A surrender?Why would Japan surrender from a "demonstration" when they would not surrender when it was actually used on them? That logic makes no sense.Also,your claim that it was done more for a statement than out of necessity is false.Thats that revisionist history crap.Truman wanted to end the war, period.There was plan (A) and plan (B). Plan (A) was a mass amphibious assault on Japan which would of cost an astronomical amount of american lives in the process. He chose plan(B),which cost no americans their lives and ended the war much quicker.
Dropping the a-bombs on Japan served more as a statement than of necessity. Purdy tragic all in all. Probably killed a lot of folks that didn't want war in the first place. A demonstration of the weapon would have been sufficient. We showed the world we were willing to drop them on civilians for effect.
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoI asked you with what authority do you think they represent "Islam"? Not whether they are influential - why would I? - when their alleged "influence" is on such a sharp decline.
Well it looks like they're pretty influential in some places.
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFThats not relevant, I couldn't care less about how they represent Islam.
I asked you with what authority do you think they represent "Islam"? Not whether they are influential - why would I? - when their alleged "influence" is on such a sharp decline.
The fact is that they DO carry out attacks in the name of Islam and they did successfully brainwash a handful of people to join their club of fanatics.
Unlike the US army, which isn't a terrorist organisation, nor is it carrying out attacks in the name of any religion.