Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 52 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >  Last ›
   5101. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4222498)
Does someone have the right to shoot you in the head to prevent a 50% chance of permanent paralysis? They're skiing down a narrow trail, and you're blocking it. There's a tree to the right and the left. They're going at a speed where hitting the tree risks serious injury, a 50% chance of paralysis. The skier is a trained, world-class biathlete. There's enough time to shoot you and proceed down the trail unharmed, but not enough time to avoid the choice of shooting you or hitting the tree. Killing you guarantees an open path to safety.

Can the skier shoot and kill you?


Heh.

Like I said - the 'war on women' resonates.

You don't have to look too far to find instances where the health or life is endangered by a pregnancy during any portion of it.

The response is to create this fantastical situation where an expert skier happens to be packing heat, happens to be skiing a narrow slope, and happens to face a choice between shooting you to survive.

Yup - can't imagine why the gender gap is 10 points and getting larger...
   5102. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4222501)
So your retort to a situation that actually happens is to posit a situation that could never happen?

OK. How about this.

There's a famine. I don't have enough to eat, and might die (of famine or disease). Can I murder my neighbor and his wife and kids to get their food, or medicine?

This has happened repeatedly in human history.
   5103. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4222504)
There's a famine. I don't have enough to eat, and might die (of famine or disease). Can I murder my neighbor and his wife and kids to get their food, or medicine?

This has happened repeatedly in human history.


The answer is yes. If there is a famine and people do not have enough to eat then society has broken down. At that point it is about survival and staying alive and caring for your family trump all other concerns.

That of course doesn't mean there won't be consequences for your actions. You start murdering your neighbors for resources and pretty soon people are going to start trying to kill you to either take your resources or to protect themselves and their resources. It is a delicate game we play.

Diplomacy!
   5104. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4222509)
Does someone have the right to shoot you in the head to prevent a 50% chance of permanent paralysis?

So your retort to a situation that actually happens is to posit a situation that could never happen?


I can one up that, let's say Space Aliens come and suspend a million or so 10 ton boulders about 100 miles up, all over the earth- and the aliens say, we are going to drop these rocks (kinetic energy weapons really), and wipe out all animal life bigger than a mite, unless you publicly execute "X" (X just being some random slob somewhere)

Is it moral to kill X?

   5105. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4222510)
The answer is yes. If there is a famine and people do not have enough to eat then society has broken down. At that point it is about survival and staying alive and caring for your family trump all other concerns.

And I would disagree. If you kill your innocent neighbor, you have committed murder, and if found out, should be tried, convicted and punished.

You can't ever morally murder an innocent person. Even if it means you will die.
   5106. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4222514)
The answer is yes. If there is a famine and people do not have enough to eat then society has broken down. At that point it is about survival and staying alive and caring for your family trump all other concerns.


Either that, or the answer is no, because you can't know when your lack of food will kill you until the last stages of starvation, as the circumstances of the famine may change, and at that point you are going to be too weak to off your well fed neighbors.
   5107. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4222515)
I can one up that, let's say Space Aliens come and suspend a million or so 10 ton boulders about 100 miles up, all over the earth- and the aliens say, we are going to drop these rocks (kinetic energy weapons really), and wipe out all animal life bigger than a mite, unless you publicly execute "X" (X just being some random slob somewhere)

Is it moral to kill X?


No.
   5108. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4222517)
There's a famine. I don't have enough to eat, and might die (of famine or disease). Can I murder my neighbor and his wife and kids to get their food, or medicine?

This has happened repeatedly in human history.

The answer is yes. If there is a famine and people do not have enough to eat then society has broken down. At that point it is about survival and staying alive and caring for your family trump all other concerns.


McCoy, I find your response to be very disturbing...

   5109. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4222519)
Is it moral to kill X?


It may not be moral, but it's certainly advisable.
   5110. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4222523)
I can one up that, let's say Space Aliens come and suspend a million or so 10 ton boulders about 100 miles up, all over the earth- and the aliens say, we are going to drop these rocks (kinetic energy weapons really), and wipe out all animal life bigger than a mite, unless you publicly execute "X" (X just being some random slob somewhere)

Is it moral to kill X?


Simple, you swap out X with a gorilla that looks enough like X to fool the near-sighted aliens... then hope Zap Brannigan keeps his damn mouth shut.

Or - sorry - let's get back to reality... you could just have SBB's expert marksman downhill skier blast them all with his trusty never-miss rifle to protect the planet.
   5111. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4222525)
If you kill your innocent neighbor, you have committed murder, and if found out, should be tried, convicted and punished.


And where praytell is this fantastical world where people are starving to death in their homes but yet has a functioning criminal justice system? I'd say the skiing scenario is more plausible.
   5112. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4222526)
It may not be moral, but it's certainly advisable.

Why would trust these wack-job aliens to keep their word?
   5113. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4222527)
And I would disagree. If you kill your innocent neighbor, you have committed murder, and if found out, should be tried, convicted and punished.

You can't ever morally murder an innocent person. Even if it means you will die.


Like I said before, I disagree. Morality is a societal construct and if society has broken down it no longer applies. At that point there is no such things as innocence, murder, good, or evil. Is a lion murdering a gazelle? Is the gazelle innocent? Should the lion die to protect the innocent gazelle?
   5114. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4222530)
you could just have SBB's expert marksman downhill skier blast them all with his trusty never-miss rifle to protect the planet.


Actually, is has to be some sort of disintegrator ray gun, as a simple bullet would just leave a dead body in your path and cause you to crash anyway.
   5115. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4222531)
And where praytell is this fantastical world where people are starving to death in their homes but yet has a functioning criminal justice system? I'd say the skiing scenario is more plausible.

Ever heard of the entire world prior to the 19th century?

Famines were commonplace every where through most of history. Often, there just wasn't enough food b/c of bad weather.

It didn't mean society ceased to function. The elites and authorities had enough food. It was the peasants that starved.

   5116. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4222534)
Like I said before, I disagree. Morality is a societal construct and if society has broken down it no longer applies. At that point there is no such things as innocence, murder, good, or evil. Is a lion murdering a gazelle? Is the gazelle innocent? Should the lion die to protect the innocent gazelle?

Well that's a fundamental disagreement. I don't believe morality is a societal construct, and I don't believe humans are mere animals.

So, if morality is strictly societal, are all possible moralities equal? Is the Nazi (kill/enslave non-Aryans) or Soviet (kill/enslave bourgeoise and other "enemies of the people"), or Mongol (pillage, rape and kill across the whole world) morality equal to yours?
   5117. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4222536)
To the extent that it was a "gotcha" question, the "gotcha" wasn't and isn't directed at anyone here, only at Ryan.


But, since Ryan isn't posting here, what is the point of posing the question here? All someone here can do is give you what a logically consistent answer for Ryan would be. And when that was done, you were still like, well, I would like to hear Ryan answer it.

What's the point of whining that Joe didn't answer it, or asking Snapper to answer it, when all you're really concerned with is what Ryan's answer would be, and neither Joe nor Snapper can help with that?
   5118. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4222538)
Is it moral to kill X?



It may not be moral, but it's certainly advisable.


I vote no, but secretly hope I'm in the minority - just to respond to the honest theoretical question.

   5119. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4222539)
Well, Snapper is saying that a mother can't defend herself directly from the harm caused by the fetus. She can receive medical care that might or might not save her that might kill the fetus but she definitely cannot kill the fetus to guarantee her safety.

I didn't read it that way, but if so, I disagree.

The woman has the right to do whatever a person could do under the same threat of harm/reasonableness of force in response calculus that would obtain in a bar fight or other locus of civilian life. She has no enhanced rights because the threat posed results from pregnancy.

Post-viability, of course. Pre-viability, she's free to terminate her pregnancy whether or not it poses a threat.
   5120. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4222540)
Why would trust these wack-job aliens to keep their word?


Couldn't hurt to try.
   5121. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4222545)
It didn't mean society ceased to function. The elites and authorities had enough food. It was the peasants that starved.

So by your thinking the peasants who starved should have just said oh well and sat in their shvt and died of starvation while the nobility lived happily on with their gout. You've already stated that you believe killing people in war is okay which would mean that the starving masses are allowed to rise up and kill their neighbors for more resources so I'm not sure how 100 peasants are allowed to rise up and kill their landlords and that is okay but 1 peasant rising up and killing some well-off sheriff cannot be done.

not only that but you are okay with German peasants killing French peasants for resources or even just plain old pride.
   5122. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4222550)
So by your thinking the peasants who starved should have just said oh well and sat in their shvt and died of starvation while the nobility lived happily on with their gout. You've already stated that you believe killing people in war is okay which would mean that the starving masses are allowed to rise up and kill their neighbors for more resources so I'm not sure how 100 peasants are allowed to rise up and kill their landlords and that is okay but 1 peasant rising up and killing some well-off sheriff cannot be done.

I'm talking a peasant killing his equally poor neighbor.

You're right that an uprising might be justified, I'm talking pure murder/theft.
   5123. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4222553)
Ever heard of the entire world prior to the 19th century?

Famines were commonplace every where through most of history. Often, there just wasn't enough food b/c of bad weather.

It didn't mean society ceased to function. The elites and authorities had enough food. It was the peasants that starved.


Absolutely... in your famine scenario - I wouldn't be the guy stealing from my neighbor, dooming him and saving me - I'd be the guy raising an army to steal from the elites and authorities. I'm well aware of the potential irony in saying this - but in such situations, I'd choose to die taking on the powerful even if I have only a faint hope in succeeding rather than the better bet of sacrificing my neighbor for my own life. I'd defend the irony (vis a vis my pro-choice stance) by saying that I wouldn't be conscripting any of my fellow peasants into my mob - I'd only be encouraging them to join me.
   5124. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4222554)
It didn't mean society ceased to function. The elites and authorities had enough food. It was the peasants that starved.


I was about to respond, but McCoy stated it perfectly. That, and I don't consider the medieval "King's justice" to be a functioning criminal justice system in any real sense.
   5125. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4222556)
Absolutely... in your famine scenario - I wouldn't be the guy stealing from my neighbor, dooming him and saving me - I'd be the guy raising an army to steal from the elites and authorities. I'm well aware of the potential irony in saying this - but in such situations, I'd choose to die taking on the powerful even if I have only a faint hope in succeeding rather than the better bet of sacrificing my neighbor for my own life. I'd defend the irony (vis a vis my pro-choice stance) by saying that I wouldn't be conscripting any of my fellow peasants into my mob - I'd only be encouraging them to join me.

Of course, most people aren't that brave. They'd rather attack the guy who isn't heavily armed and trained for battle.
   5126. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4222558)
Like I said - the 'war on women' resonates.

I think you're underestimating the capacity of women to reason through hypotheticals.
   5127. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4222560)
I can one up that, let's say Space Aliens come and suspend a million or so 10 ton boulders about 100 miles up, all over the earth- and the aliens say, we are going to drop these rocks (kinetic energy weapons really), and wipe out all animal life bigger than a mite, unless you publicly execute "X" (X just being some random slob somewhere)

Is it moral to kill X?


No.
   5128. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4222567)
I'm talking a peasant killing his equally poor neighbor.

You're right that an uprising might be justified, I'm talking pure murder/theft.


And if your equally poor neighbor happens to be a protestant or a loyalist or a rebel you apparently have the right to kill him and take his resources and have it not called murder or theft under your logic. But if the two of you just happen to be starving to death, oh well, die.
   5129. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4222573)
Of course, most people aren't that brave. They'd rather attack the guy who isn't heavily armed and trained for battle.


I don't think it's bravery, I think it's necessity washed through my own moral filter. Let's face it - stealing from my fellow peasant isn't going to buy me complete security anyway. Chances are, he doesn't have a whole lot more than nothing anyway - so I don't buy myself much more than another day, whereby I'll have to go through the whole thing again.

That said, I suspect the chances are excellent I wouldn't have survived long enough to enter the famine phase anyway - I'd have probably begun agitating against the elites and authorities at the first sign of problems, before the situation got acute, and they'd have either done away with me already or maybe, but unlikely, I'd have done away with them.
   5130. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4222574)
And if your equally poor neighbor happens to be a protestant or a loyalist or a rebel you apparently have the right to kill him and take his resources and have it not called murder or theft under your logic. But if the two of you just happen to be starving to death, oh well, die.

Of course, I never said any of that.

I said you might be justified in revolting against the gov't if they were somehow causing the famine, e.g. witholding food for political reasons, and had a reasonable chance of success. No individual has the right to murder another individual.
   5131. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4222576)
Like I said - the 'war on women' resonates.


I think you're underestimating the capacity of women to reason through hypotheticals.


I would say that you're overestimating your own ability to formulate reasonable and comparable hypotheticals, and women have the capacity to recognize that.
   5132. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4222577)
I don't think it's bravery, I think it's necessity washed through my own moral filter. Let's face it - stealing from my fellow peasant isn't going to buy me complete security anyway. Chances are, he doesn't have a whole lot more than nothing anyway - so I don't buy myself much more than another day, whereby I'll have to go through the whole thing again.

Not necessarily. If it was just a bad crop (not a complete failure), you and your peasant farmer neighbor might each have half as much food stored up as usual. If you could take all his food, you might be fine. You still can't kill him.
   5133. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4222578)
I vote no, but secretly hope I'm in the minority - just to respond to the honest theoretical question.


The hypothetical is designed to tease out moral philosophy. A utilitarian would argue it is moral in the sort of mathematical way you'd expect. A Kantian would argue it violates the categorical imperative because you are treating the person as a means instead of an end in itself. There are plenty more but those are the two that come to mind immediately.

This is why it's pointless to fight hypotheticals because you undermine their value in clarifying your position. The skier hypothetical by SugarBear was quite good and it's unfortunate people didn't follow it to it's natural conclusion -- some of us don't value the right to life of the unborn as much as we value the right to life of the born, and that's how the two situations are distinguished. In some ways it turns into a math problem. 1/2 of the right to not be paralyzed > right to life of unborn, but 1/2 the right to not be paralyzed < right to life of a born human.

Of course, that isn't the only way to look at the problem -- but it's a valid one. There are other valid ways of looking at it that would view seeing the situation as a math problem as an affront.

I mean, it's pretty obvious that's a key place where people's thoughts on the matter diverge and maybe in that respect the hypothetical wasn't all that instructive.
   5134. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4222581)
Is a lion murdering a gazelle? Is the gazelle innocent? Should the lion die to protect the innocent gazelle?

A lion doesn't have the capacity to formulate the state of mind to be called a murderer.
   5135. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4222582)
Is it moral to kill X?


No. But I don't know that everything begins and ends with morality. It is hard to ignore the practicality of killing on person when billions of people and most life on earth hangs in the balance. I admit I would find it hard to kill the one person, but in the real* world the life expectancy of that person would be very short.

I do find it amusing folks who claim it is immoral who are pro-death penalty though. if there is any chance of innocence then eventually allowing capital punishment results in the immoral death of a person. Even if there is only one immoral** capital punishment killing per thousand just** such killings the calculus is still better for killing one guy and saving the world than allowing capital punishment.

Perhaps you believe capital punishment is infallible (I would remind you people are involved) or that it is OK because each capital death is only a small percent likely to be immoral, I have no idea.

* And yes I know this is not the real world. In the real world the aliens would steal our women.

** For the record I think capital punishment is unambiguously wrong and immoral.
   5136. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4222583)
Yup - can't imagine why the gender gap is 10 points and getting larger...

In poll after poll, the gap between men and women on abortion is no more than 5 points. Either women lie in the polls or abortion is only one part of the gender gap.
   5137. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4222585)
No individual has the right to murder another individual.


Of course not. But you're begging the question by using the word murder.

And if your equally poor neighbor happens to be a protestant or a loyalist or a rebel you apparently have the right to kill him and take his resources and have it not called murder or theft under your logic. But if the two of you just happen to be starving to death, oh well, die.

Of course, I never said any of that.


You did, by implication. You said killing in wars is OK. Since you brought us into the world of the pre-industrial revolution, it's fair to point out that in that period of human history, many, many wars were fought over religion.
   5138. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4222586)
I would say that you're overestimating your own ability to formulate reasonable and comparable hypotheticals

It's perfectly reasonable and perfectly comparable -- not to mention vividly illustrative.

You want to call it not comparable because you want to avert your gaze from the actual question posed. (And I guess by muddling the question, you also want everyone else to.)
   5139. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4222587)
Of course, I never said any of that.

I said you might be justified in revolting against the gov't if they were somehow causing the famine, e.g. witholding food for political reasons, and had a reasonable chance of success. No individual has the right to murder another individual.


You said you may kill your fellow man in a war. So if you're starving and your neighbor happens to be someone your government doesn't mind killing then you can at the instructions of your leaders kill your neighbor and take his stuff.

I mean that is what war is. It is the fight to either take or protect stuff and you are okay with killing people to do it.
   5140. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4222588)
Man this debate has gone off the rails. We're talking about alien invasions and medieval peasant revolts.

Stupid abortion ruins everything. Can we talk about electoral math or something?
   5141. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4222590)
You did, by implication. You said killing in wars is OK. Since you brought us into the world of the pre-industrial revolution, it's fair to point out that in that period of human history, many, many wars were fought over religion.

Right, but an individual doesn't have the right to wage war. The legitimate government does. If the nation's leaders launch an immoral war, that's on their souls, not the souls of the individual soldiers.
   5142. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4222592)
You said you may kill your fellow man in a war. So if you're starving and your neighbor happens to be someone your government doesn't mind killing then you can at the instructions of your leaders kill your neighbor and take his stuff.

I mean that is what war is. It is the fight to either take or protect stuff and you are okay with killing people to do it.


You can't as an individual. You can kill enemy combatants as a soldier. You can't just murder enemy civilians as a soldier; that's still immoral.
   5143. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4222595)
Stupid abortion ruins everything. Can we talk about electoral math or something?


How about this?

A 68-year-old bank employee fired for 'stealing' TEN CENTS from a laundromat when he was a TEENAGER

A man was fired from his job at a Wells Fargo bank because of a teenage stunt he pulled nearly a half-century ago.

Richard Eggers was fired because, when he was 19-years-old, he used a cardboard nickel to try and fleece a laundromat of ten cents.

Now, the 68-year-old is looking for a new job and is ready to take Wells Fargo to court over his dismissal.

The reason why the bank had grounds to fire Mr Eggers is because the sheriff caught him back in 1963 when he was trying to use the fake coin to get a free load of laundry and charged the teen with fraud.

.
.
.
When it comes back to Mr Eggers, the company spokesman said that they have to comply with federal regulations, which were put into place in an effort to protect customers from possible fraud or identity theft.

'We don't have discretion to grant exceptions in situations like this,' Angela Kaipust told ABC.

'Once we find out someone has a criminal history of dishonesty or breach of trust we can no longer employ them.'


   5144. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4222596)
The legitimate government does. If the nation's leaders launch an immoral war, that's on their souls, not the souls of the individual soldiers.

That's just weird.
   5145. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4222598)
You can't as an individual. You can kill enemy combatants as a soldier. You can't just murder enemy civilians as a soldier; that's still immoral.


But you can kill government officials in an uprising. What if it's an uprising of one?
   5146. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4222599)

You can't as an individual. You can kill enemy combatants as a soldier. You can't just murder enemy civilians as a soldier; that's still immoral.


And when your leaders declare everyone to be combatants?

this whole thing is weird because by your logic the Germans were allowed to kill or try to kill, well, everyone because their leaders told them to do it but if some individual German stood up and said no to this insanely evil and immoral government and fought back you would call them a murderer and they should be punished.

I know it is Godwinning the thread but by your beliefs the holocaust wasn't immoral for the Germans running the camps because their higher ups authorized it.
   5147. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4222600)
What if it's an uprising of one?


Send in the drones?
   5148. BDC Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4222601)
alien invasions and medieval peasant revolts

Hey, if watching the Simpsons has taught me anything, it's the value of peasant technology in repelling alien invasions. Kang and Kodos will be no match for my scythe-and-pitchfork legions.
   5149. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4222603)
The legitimate government does. If the nation's leaders launch an immoral war, that's on their souls, not the souls of the individual soldiers.


So, if the legitimate government happens to be Mary I and Mary says burn all the protestants, then it's OK to burn your Protestant neighbor. But only if Mary says it's OK?
   5150. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4222604)
And when your leaders declare everyone to be combatants?

this whole thing is weird because by your logic the Germans were allowed to kill or try to kill, well, everyone because their leaders told them to do it but if some individual German stood up and said no to this insanely evil and immoral government and fought back you would call them a murderer and they should be punished.

I know it is Godwinning the thread but by your beliefs holocaust wasn't immoral for the Germans running the camps because their higher ups authorized it.


You can't kill innocent civilians, even if ordered to do so. The Germans who perpetrated the Holocaust were acting immorally. I don't know where you got any other impression from what I wrote.
   5151. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4222605)
But you can kill government officials in an uprising.

Only if you end up winning otherwise it is immoral.
   5152. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4222606)
So, if the legitimate government happens to be Mary I and Mary says burn all the protestants, then it's OK to burn your Protestant neighbor. But only if Mary says it's OK?

No. I never said that.
   5153. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4222608)
You can't kill innocent civilians, even if ordered to do so. The Germans who perpetrated the Holocaust were acting immorally. I don't know where you got any other impression from what I wrote.

You said if your legitimate government orders an immoral war then the soldiers are off the hook. The Nazis ordered an immoral war against the Jews, the Poles, the Gypsies, Homosexuals, the Russians, so on and so on. They were all enemy combatants to the legitimate government of Germany and the soldiers were ordered to kill them all. In the eyes of the legitimate government of Germany they were not innocent civilians.
   5154. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4222609)
You can kill enemy combatants as a soldier. You can't just murder enemy civilians as a soldier; that's still immoral.


Again, you're begging the question. Killing may be justified. Murder, by definition, never is.
   5155. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4222610)
But you can kill government officials in an uprising. What if it's an uprising of one?

An uprising has to conform to the same just war criteria as a nation going to war, i.e.

1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated

An uprising of one fails number 3
   5156. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4222613)
Stupid abortion ruins everything. Can we talk about electoral math or something?


The GOP surrendering on PA is a huge blow for them. If Wisconsin really is in play that helps, but the map seems to keep narrowing and that has to be scary and is also why the Romney campaign has gone from Economy all the time to heating up the old culture wars.

I think the likability gap between Romney and Obama was more managable when the line of attack was - nice guy, but over his head and the economy sucks give me a try. Now that it is much more - look at the horrible things he is doing, welfare and so on - I think Obama's likability comes more into play.

It is one thing to think that nice guy who gives great speeches is wrong on the economy (especially since Uncle Ferd is out of work), it is another to think that same nice guy is stealing your Medicare and giving it to shiftless minorities.

This line of attack is hard though, not just because Obama is likable, not just because Romney is not very likable, but also in general Democrats are more trusted on Welfare and many things outside of the economy than the GOP is. I suspect the Romney campaign is correct in that this is their best shot, but I don't think it one very likely to succeed.

Funny quote that also speaks to why the Romney campaign is going with the attack they are:
“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

   5157. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4222616)
To the extent that it was a "gotcha" question, the "gotcha" wasn't and isn't directed at anyone here, only at Ryan.

But, since Ryan isn't posting here, what is the point of posing the question here? All someone here can do is give you what a logically consistent answer for Ryan would be. And when that was done, you were still like, well, I would like to hear Ryan answer it.

What's the point of whining that Joe didn't answer it, or asking Snapper to answer it, when all you're really concerned with is what Ryan's answer would be, and neither Joe nor Snapper can help with that?


Actually all three of you have now answered my question by advising Ryan to be true to his oft-stated beliefs, which is commendable. No whining from me about that.

Of course the answers such that you've given would doom Ryan's candidacy within 24 hours**, but for that to happen would require the question being posed to him by the right person in the right set of circumstances. So far that's yet to happen, but you never know what might be around the corner.

**Being that the short version of your ghostwritten answer is "Yes, you, Ms. interviewer, should be forced by law to bear that rapist's child. But that's only my opinion, and since Governor Romney disagrees with me, there's nothing for you to worry about."

Yes, that sort of answer will play real well with independent women.
   5158. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4222619)
You said if your legitimate government orders an immoral war then the soldiers are off the hook. The Nazis ordered an immoral war against the Jews, the Poles, the Gypsies, Homosexuals, the Russians, so on and so on. They were all enemy combatants to the legitimate government of Germany and the soldiers were ordered to kill them all. In the eyes of the legitimate government of Germany they were not innocent civilians.

No.

If the war is immoral (country X invades country Y simply to steal resources) the soldiers are not acting immorally in fighting the war (i.e. killing the enemy soldiers). They do act immorally if they intentionally kill innocent civilians. That's also true if the war is just.

In WW2, an American GI who killed an innocent German civilian, or a POW, is just as guilty as an SS trooper who killed an innocent Jew or Russian POW. Both, are equally innocent if they kill enemy combatants in combat.
   5159. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4222620)
In WW2, an American GI who killed an innocent German civilian, or a POW, is just as guilty as an SS trooper who killed an innocent Jew or Russian POW. Both, are equally innocent if they kill enemy combatants in combat.


Funny, but I don't remember the trial of mass murderer Paul Tibbits
   5160. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4222623)
In poll after poll, the gap between men and women on abortion is no more than 5 points. Either women lie in the polls or abortion is only one part of the gender gap.


What's the margin of error for polling the voices in your head?

I'm assuming that's where your numbers come from since - despite saying "poll after poll" - you didn't provide any links.
   5161. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4222624)
The GOP surrendering on PA is a huge blow for them. If Wisconsin really is in play that helps, but the map seems to keep narrowing and that has to be scary and is also why the Romney campaign has gone from Economy all the time to heating up the old culture wars.

The Romney campaign has shifted to "the old culture wars"? That's an interesting analysis. To the extent the culture wars have become an issue, it's due to Todd Akin, not the Romney/Ryan camp.
   5162. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4222625)
Starting in at least the 19th century there has been no such thing as an "innocent civilian". Civilians either help or hinder your war effort depending on what side they are on.


Was the American Revolution a moral war?
   5163. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4222626)
Funny, but I don't remember the trial of mass murderer Paul Tibbits

Strategic Bombing at that point was considered a legitimate form of warfare. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that was the opinion at the time.
   5164. Döner Kebap Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4222627)
Hey, you know what I want to talk about?

This crazy republican nonsense about our rights coming from God and not government. This makes no sense. In the state of nature there are no rights. Only power. Rights don't exist absent a government to defend them. Try asserting your basic human rights handed down from God when your slave master is beating you for not working hard enough. Or when the local warlord takes the crops you've harvested to feed his army and leaves you and your family to starvation.

Without government we have no rights. We are at the mercy of the powerful.
   5165. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4222628)
Romney has almost zero chance to win the election without Ohio, and right now his polling there is pretty underwhelming. He has zero chance period to win without Floirda, and right now that's looking a bit better but no sure thing.

Obama can lose Ohio and Florida and still win by holding the midwest, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada, all of which he won easily in 2008 and in which he currently leads. He also leads in Virginia, which gives him room to lose a closer state like Iowa as well.

It is indeed a daunting task for Romney. Not impossible though. Having a bit of a foothold in the great lakes with Wisky helps a bit.
   5166. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4222629)


This crazy republican nonsense about our rights coming from God and not government.


This really floored me as well.
   5167. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4222630)
The Romney campaign has shifted to "the old culture wars"?


What do you call the welfare attack ads that pretty much every one (including the Romney surrogates) admit is false? The culture wars is more than abortion.
   5168. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4222631)
The argument seems to be that the government gets to decide who to fight but you get to decide who is an "innocent civilian". It doesn't work thay.
   5169. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4222633)
Having a bit of a foothold in the great lakes with Wisky helps a bit.


I am not convinced Wisconsin really is in play, we shall see though if it is a short term bump or a long term "new normal". If it is short term then the map just keeps getting tighter.
   5170. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4222634)
They do act immorally if they intentionally kill innocent civilians. That's also true if the war is just.


But the Jews weren't innocent civilians as far as the German government was concerned. Otherwise they wouldn't be in the camps. They were the agents of a sinister global movement that had taken control of Britain, the U.S., and the Soviet Union with the calculated purpose of forcing a war on Germany and destroying the German people.

Now, you can say that the soldiers should have realized that was bollocks and ignored the official government position. I would agree with you. But then I don't see why they aren't responsible for realizing that the war itself was immoral and ignored the government justifications for that as well.
   5171. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4222636)
Strategic Bombing at that point was considered a legitimate form of warfare. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that was the opinion at the time.

Exactly. A legitimate government decided that killing "innocent civilians" was okay therefore it wasn't murder. Yet when the baddies do it it is murder.
   5172. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4222637)
At some point upthread Harvey was recommending that we liberals get to know some real GOP people. Robin mentioned that I know quite a few of them from the pool room I go to, which is true. Here's the content of one of the many chain e-mails I get every day from one of these really real Republicans, who aside from these e-mails is actually a pretty sweet guy.

And no, this isn't JoeyB in disguise, though it's hard to tell much difference:

2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule -- Charlotte , N.C.
4:00 PM - Opening Flag Burning Ceremony - sponsored by CNN
4:05 PM - Singing of "God Damn America " led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4:10 PM - Pledge of Allegiance to Obama.
4:15 PM - Ceremonial 'I hate America ' led by Michelle Obama.
4:30 PM - Tips on "How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you travel the world" - Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM -Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar "How to have a successful career without having a job."
5:00 PM - "Great Vacations I've Taken on the Taxpayer's Dime Travel Log" - Michelle Obama.
5:30 PM - Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite
5:45 PM - Tribute to All 57 States - Nancy Pelosi
6:00 PM - Sen. Harry Reid - 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat's appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the country, improve employment and to boost the economy.
8:30 PM - Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
9:00 PM - "Bias in Media - How we can make it work for you" Tutorial - sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times
9:15 PM - Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO - Michael Moore
9:45 PM - Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle
10:00 PM - Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers.
10:30 PM - Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan
11:00 PM - Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies
11:15 PM - Free Gov. Blagovich rally
11:30 PM - Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM - Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish Obama Presiding
12:00 AM - Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris "He sends a thrill up my leg" Matthews
12:01 AM - Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior
12:05 AM - Celestial Choirs Sing
3:00 AM - Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech
   5173. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4222638)
Here's one poll that includes a gender breakdown.

From the link:

MEN AND WOMEN ON ABORTION
Abortion should be...

Generally available

Men:40%
Women:37%

Available, but with stricter limits than now

Men:40%
Women:37%

Not permitted

Men:20%
Women:24%


Margin of error was +/- 4% I believe.
   5174. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4222639)
The Dresden firebombing was pretty much as inexcusable as the holocaust, on a smaller scale.
   5175. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4222640)
Strategic Bombing at that point was considered a legitimate form of warfare. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that was the opinion at the time.


And burning protestants (and Catholics, depending on which child of Henry VII was in power) was considered legitimate in 16th century England.
   5176. The Good Face Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4222642)
It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far left as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even conservative. It's an outgrowth of the childish notion that they are the center of the universe, the ground around which all else must move.

Part of the "our ideology never fails, but is constantly failed by institutions beyond its control" theme.


You'd think people who keep advocating the same policies and political models that failed from the 40s and 60s would see the irony, but nope. The failures of liberalism can only be fixed by doing more of what failed the first time.



3278. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4214095)
Unlike the failures of conservativism. They totally never repeat themselves, those innovative SOBs.

Of course they do, because that's what people do. It's the embarrassing lack of self-awareness of some of the lefties here that merits my mockery.


I'm not sure what those quotes are supposed to demonstrate. My entire point is that ALL parties involved are guilty of the same behaviors. To the extent I am a member of those parties (i.e., a person), I include myself as well. I suffer from the same cognitive biases and limitations as every other human; I'm just aware of, and honest about it. Its what lets me stay so humble.
   5177. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4222643)
What's the margin of error for polling the voices in your head?

I'm assuming that's where your numbers come from since - despite saying "poll after poll" - you didn't provide any links.

Ah, the old "citation, please" shtick. Here you go:

http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/men-and-women-hold-similar-views-legality-abortion

Breaking down those numbers further, Gallup finds that pro-life view as seen across the board — with 60 percent of women and 61 percent of men saying they want all or almost all abortions illegal. Women actually take a stronger pro-life view than men with 24 percent of American women wanting all abortions made illegal and 36 percent wanting almost all illegal, compared with 19 percent of men who want to ban all abortions and 42 percent of men who want to prohibit almost all.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/23/gallup-poll-americans-want-all-or-most-abortions-illegal/


Gallup's abortion polling since the mid-1970s finds few remarkable distinctions between men's and women's views on the legality of abortion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127559/education-trumps-gender-predicting-support-abortion.aspx
   5178. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4222644)
Starting in at least the 19th century there has been no such thing as an "innocent civilian". Civilians either help or hinder your war effort depending on what side they are on.

That's not what the Geneva Conventions say.

Was the American Revolution a moral war?

Well, looking at the criteria in [5155], it looks good on items #2,3 and 4. On #1 it's a closer call. Depends on how seriously you take the rights of citizens to be represented by their government. I'd say it was just, but I'm big on rights.
   5179. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4222646)
Funny, but I don't remember the trial of mass murderer Paul Tibbits

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were self-evidently and indisputably immoral acts.

Strategic Bombing at that point was considered a legitimate form of warfare.

But that negates every (correct) thing you've said about just war. You can't morally murder civilians even to save soldiers; that's a utilitarian (and, worse, nationalistic utilitiarian) form of analysis that you've rejected until now. If Hiroshima was ok, executing the one guy to save aliens from blowing up the planet is not only ok, but mandatory.

You can't murder innocent civilians, full stop. They are human beings and, hence, can't be morally used as means to other ends.
   5180. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4222647)
The Dresden firebombing was pretty much as inexcusable as the holocaust.


Exactly. The people of Dresden posed as much of a threat to the US as the Ukrainian Jews did to Germany.
   5181. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4222648)

Strategic Bombing at that point was considered a legitimate form of warfare. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that was the opinion at the time.


Was it?

There are plenty of allied generals that have stated that they expected to be brought up on war crimes had the allies lost. It wasn't until the Rotterdam blitz that the British even considered industrial targets legitimate and (I may have this inverted) I do recall there was difference of opinion between the Americans and Brits regarding 'area bombing'. I believe that Churchill also sought to distance himself from the bombing of (either, don't recall which one exactly) Dresden or Hamburg.

I think the allies struggled with the idea... of course, they ultimately moved forward with it - but I don't think it was open and shut.
   5182. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4222649)
Andy,

I found a couple of those actually amusing. The opening flag burning and tribute to 57 states I thought were the two best bits. I have a low sense of humor though.

A little bit of that does go a long way though.
   5183. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4222650)
That's not what the Geneva Conventions say.

The Geneva Convention was formed by God or is a legitimate government?

When were the rules concerning civilians added? It looks like in 1949.
   5184. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 30, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4222651)
This crazy republican nonsense about our rights coming from God and not government.
This really floored me as well.

If you two believe Americans get their rights "from government," you need a remedial civics lesson, pronto.
   5185. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4222653)

I think the allies struggled with the idea... of course, they ultimately moved forward with it - but I don't think it was open and shut.


There was a lot of contemporary angst about Dresden at the time from people living in allied Europe. Dresden was a popular spot on the "grand tour."
   5186. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4222654)
The Dresden firebombing was pretty much as inexcusable as the holocaust, on a smaller scale.

I agree.
   5187. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4222655)
If you two believe Americans get their rights "from government," you need a remedial civics lesson, pronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
   5188. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4222657)
If you two believe Americans get their rights "from government," you need a remedial civics lesson, pronto.


I'm trying to figure out where the right to govern comes from if not from the consent of the governed. If the governed have no rights absent the government, then how is it that they have the right to consent to be governed? I sense a potential bootstrapping problem.
   5189. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4222658)
If you two believe Americans get their rights "from government," you need a remedial civics lesson, pronto.


Where do rights come from? (I guess I need that lesson)

Edit: Clearly I am not alone. Slow, but not alone.
   5190. steagles Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4222659)
ffs, have you people learned absolutely nothing from the ending to "the dark knight"? this morality #### is a complete ####### lard.
3:00 AM - Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech
is this assuming that obama gets raptured?
   5191. steagles Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4222660)
The Dresden firebombing was pretty much as inexcusable as the holocaust, on a smaller scale.
how about the firebombing of tokyo, which actually killed more japanese than the nuclear attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki, combined.
   5192. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4222661)
5190 - It would have been funnier if that was when his speech ended (rather than began). But that's just me.
   5193. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4222663)

But that negates every (correct) thing you've said about just war. You can't morally murder civilians even to save soldiers; that's a utilitarian (and, worse, nationalistic utilitiarian) form of analysis that you've rejected until now. If Hiroshima was ok, executing the one guy to save aliens from blowing up the planet is not only ok, but mandatory.

You can't murder innocent civilians, full stop. They are human beings and, hence, can't be morally used as means to other ends.


I'm saying targeting industry and workers was considered OK at the time. I'm not saying I agree with it.

But you can take actions that will kill civilians, in order to save soldier. e.g. if the enemy doesn't evacuate the civilians from a city you are attacking, you can still attack the city, and use artillery, aircraft bombing, etc. to help your troops, even though you know some civilians will die.

It's a very gray area to figure out how accurate your weapons have to be to make it moral to use against targets in the midst of civilians.
   5194. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4222664)
how about the firebombing of tokyo, which actually killed more japanese than the nuclear attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki, combined.

Sure. It was all awful.
   5195. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4222665)
5186. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4222654)
The Dresden firebombing was pretty much as inexcusable as the holocaust, on a smaller scale.

I agree.


But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were Okey-Dokey? All three had only one purpose, terrorize the enemy government with as many grisly deaths as possible. Well, maybe also send a message to the Soviets.
   5196. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4222666)

Ah, the old "citation, please" shtick. Here you go:

http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/men-and-women-hold-similar-views-legality-abortion


OK - I see 17% in favor of the most restrictive (no exceptions) idea of abortion, both for men and women. I see 58% of women selecting "legal all" and "legal most".

Like I said - I'm well aware there are plenty of anti-choice women. I've never disputed that.

What I said was that 'war on women' resonates. It's not a matter of women lying in one poll or another -- it's the fact that none of the polls you cited gauge intensity of feeling.

Polls from the same organizations show gaps nearing 10 points (gallup shows women +8, others show +10).

My point was that the way the anti-choice case has been prevented has fed that gap - it's become a litmus test issue for a lot of women (Mike Huckabee and like would say "Oh but just single women!" - but guess what, that number is becoming a larger and larger number of the demographic as a whole).
   5197. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4222667)
Where do rights come from? (I guess I need that lesson)

The very nature of things and the reality of humanness.

They certainly aren't bestowed by government, since humans have the right to disband their government.
   5198. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4222670)
how about the firebombing of tokyo, which actually killed more japanese than the nuclear attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki, combined.


That actually had a military component to it. It was grisly, gruesome, possibly immoral, but still different from the others. They were actually trying to wipe out industry. Firebombing just happened to be the most effective weapon. Hiroshima had no other purpose but to kill civilians.
   5199. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4222671)
But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were Okey-Dokey? All three had only one purpose, terrorize the enemy government with as many grisly deaths as possible. Well, maybe also send a message to the Soviets.

I didn't say that.

The Pacific War was very complicated because of the refusal of Japanese to surrender (both military and civilians, see Okinawa), their rampant violation of all rules of war (both is regards to Allied POWs and civilian populations), and the plans of the Japanese gov't to resist to the last man, woman and child, including enrolling civilians as combatants.

The A-Bombs weren't good, but I'm not sure there was a better option. Would a continued blockade have been better? A mass invasion?
   5200. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4222672)
It's a very gray area to figure out how accurate your weapons have to be to make it moral to use against targets in the midst of civilians.

How accurate does an atom bomb need to be?

So it was the Japanese's fault for not knowing ahead of time to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about Tokyo? Were they supposed to evacuate all of their cities to protect their innocent civilians?
Page 52 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(3 - 3:12am, Oct 24)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(368 - 2:12am, Oct 24)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3402 - 1:51am, Oct 24)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(867 - 12:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Poster Nutbag

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(13 - 11:36pm, Oct 23)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGold Glove Awards finalists revealed | MLB.com
(53 - 11:07pm, Oct 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(904 - 10:56pm, Oct 23)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogSalvador Perez, Hunter Strickland Exchange Words In World Series (GIF) | MLB | NESN.com
(27 - 10:44pm, Oct 23)
Last: toratoratora

Page rendered in 0.9333 seconds
52 querie(s) executed