Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Was it justified?

yomama12
Posts: 340
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?
"Psycotic. Thats a three syllable word that explains ideas too big for little minds" -Alexander Luthor

"I choose not to take sides. No matter which I choose, someone's gonna be pissy with me." -Me.

"If I had wanted to be sober, I wouldn't have gotten drunk." -Unity

"Some people say I'm not smart. Those people get my fist." -Farkas
fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:42:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM, yomama12 wrote:
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?

no
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
yomama12
Posts: 340
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:09:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:42:35 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM, yomama12 wrote:
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?

no
You have to provide a reason for it too
"Psycotic. Thats a three syllable word that explains ideas too big for little minds" -Alexander Luthor

"I choose not to take sides. No matter which I choose, someone's gonna be pissy with me." -Me.

"If I had wanted to be sober, I wouldn't have gotten drunk." -Unity

"Some people say I'm not smart. Those people get my fist." -Farkas
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 4:46:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It was justified in terms of what people did then. Invading another country and taking their land and wealth with better technology was accepted practice, as it had always been. The British did it better than anyone else and gloried in it.

Can you judge what happened in the past by current standards of behaviour? I suppose you can (especially if you're seeking compensation...).
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:54:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM, yomama12 wrote:
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?

its a oxymoron question ^^ No. if u look at every community on earth they r all pilgrims if u go back in the past... so the ppl that bragging all day about their nation this and that they r bunch of idiots. earth is your land
Never fart near dog
fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 8:54:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:09:07 PM, yomama12 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:42:35 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM, yomama12 wrote:
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?

no
You have to provide a reason for it too

Lets think about it in the Native American's situation.

They just cleaned their hunt, and were doing their stuff, when Piligrims suddenly came, and conquered their land. If you were the Native American's point of view, would you like it? No! So, this is not jusifiied, because they didn't think of the Native American's perspective. Ergo, I think it is not justified.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
yomama12
Posts: 340
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:48:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
With three votes and Two going to the winner, the answer is...No!

Winning argument: fire_wings:

Lets think about it in the Native American's situation.

They just cleaned their hunt, and were doing their stuff, when Piligrims suddenly came, and conquered their land. If you were the Native American's point of view, would you like it? No! So, this is not jusifiied, because they didn't think of the Native American's perspective. Ergo, I think it is not justified.

Next Topic: Was it Justified to nuke Hiroshima at the end of WWII?
"Psycotic. Thats a three syllable word that explains ideas too big for little minds" -Alexander Luthor

"I choose not to take sides. No matter which I choose, someone's gonna be pissy with me." -Me.

"If I had wanted to be sober, I wouldn't have gotten drunk." -Unity

"Some people say I'm not smart. Those people get my fist." -Farkas
The_Great_Amalgam
Posts: 1,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 2:00:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 1:48:54 PM, yomama12 wrote:
With three votes and Two going to the winner, the answer is...No!

Winning argument: fire_wings:

Lets think about it in the Native American's situation.

They just cleaned their hunt, and were doing their stuff, when Piligrims suddenly came, and conquered their land. If you were the Native American's point of view, would you like it? No! So, this is not jusifiied, because they didn't think of the Native American's perspective. Ergo, I think it is not justified.

Next Topic: Was it Justified to nuke Hiroshima at the end of WWII?

Yes. If we hadn't, more lives would be lost for no reason. We know because of the Pacific War Outcomes. Dropping the Nukes caused the least death and ended the war faster.
yomama12
Posts: 340
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 2:03:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:00:14 PM, The_Great_Amalgam wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:48:54 PM, yomama12 wrote:
With three votes and Two going to the winner, the answer is...No!

Winning argument: fire_wings:

Lets think about it in the Native American's situation.

They just cleaned their hunt, and were doing their stuff, when Piligrims suddenly came, and conquered their land. If you were the Native American's point of view, would you like it? No! So, this is not jusifiied, because they didn't think of the Native American's perspective. Ergo, I think it is not justified.

Next Topic: Was it Justified to nuke Hiroshima at the end of WWII?

Yes. If we hadn't, more lives would be lost for no reason. We know because of the Pacific War Outcomes. Dropping the Nukes caused the least death and ended the war faster.

But did it have to be 100,000 CIVILIANS that died? Why not have just dropped it on a Japanese armed forces base? Why a city that only had civilians in it?
"Psycotic. Thats a three syllable word that explains ideas too big for little minds" -Alexander Luthor

"I choose not to take sides. No matter which I choose, someone's gonna be pissy with me." -Me.

"If I had wanted to be sober, I wouldn't have gotten drunk." -Unity

"Some people say I'm not smart. Those people get my fist." -Farkas
The_Great_Amalgam
Posts: 1,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 2:06:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:03:19 PM, yomama12 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:00:14 PM, The_Great_Amalgam wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:48:54 PM, yomama12 wrote:
With three votes and Two going to the winner, the answer is...No!

Winning argument: fire_wings:

Lets think about it in the Native American's situation.

They just cleaned their hunt, and were doing their stuff, when Piligrims suddenly came, and conquered their land. If you were the Native American's point of view, would you like it? No! So, this is not jusifiied, because they didn't think of the Native American's perspective. Ergo, I think it is not justified.

Next Topic: Was it Justified to nuke Hiroshima at the end of WWII?

Yes. If we hadn't, more lives would be lost for no reason. We know because of the Pacific War Outcomes. Dropping the Nukes caused the least death and ended the war faster.

But did it have to be 100,000 CIVILIANS that died? Why not have just dropped it on a Japanese armed forces base? Why a city that only had civilians in it?

The Japanese wasn't going to give up. They would die for the Emperor and even more. If we look at it with utilitarianism, to keep the pleasure of not only the United States, but for the Japanese. If we dropped it on a military base, it would do nothing.
yomama12
Posts: 340
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 6:41:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Gonna give it another week because no one really voted accept for one person.
"Psycotic. Thats a three syllable word that explains ideas too big for little minds" -Alexander Luthor

"I choose not to take sides. No matter which I choose, someone's gonna be pissy with me." -Me.

"If I had wanted to be sober, I wouldn't have gotten drunk." -Unity

"Some people say I'm not smart. Those people get my fist." -Farkas
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 8:38:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:03:19 PM, yomama12 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:00:14 PM, The_Great_Amalgam wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:48:54 PM, yomama12 wrote:
With three votes and Two going to the winner, the answer is...No!

Winning argument: fire_wings:

Lets think about it in the Native American's situation.

They just cleaned their hunt, and were doing their stuff, when Piligrims suddenly came, and conquered their land. If you were the Native American's point of view, would you like it? No! So, this is not jusifiied, because they didn't think of the Native American's perspective. Ergo, I think it is not justified.

Next Topic: Was it Justified to nuke Hiroshima at the end of WWII?

Yes. If we hadn't, more lives would be lost for no reason. We know because of the Pacific War Outcomes. Dropping the Nukes caused the least death and ended the war faster.

But did it have to be 100,000 CIVILIANS that died? Why not have just dropped it on a Japanese armed forces base? Why a city that only had civilians in it?

Because the point of it was to make an enormous impact. No number of military casualties could match the shock of 100,000 civilians killed in a single instant, plus the fact that it was more than showing that they had an overwhelmingly powerful weapon, it was showing that they had an overwhelmingly powerful weapon that they had no qualms about just dropping on Tokyo if they were pushed far enough.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 5:10:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM, yomama12 wrote:
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?

Justified can be a very misguiding word to use.

I would say that the net positive of pilgrims taking over Native land is much better than the net negative. The Natives were largely primitives and lacked many modern day developments such as currencies, industry, and quality clothing. The pilgrims built a nation soon enough in their stead that has now amounted to great technological advancement and an 18 trillion dollar economy.

Was it justified? Sure. Like the Europeans, the natives themselves migrated to the continents that they settled on through the Bering Strait, and thus it wasn't their "homeland", per se. Also, the natives had declared war on each other and murdered their own quite often, and thus weren't new to the idea of warfare.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:59:52 PM, yomama12 wrote:
I post a topic, and you guys will decide if it was justified or not. The majority vote will win, and one person from that side's argument they used will be posted to say why. I will post one topic per week.

First topic:

Was it justified for the Pilgrims to take the Native American's land?

Some eugenics programs and such actions against Natives were questionable. Though the Americans did bring Civilization to them while the Natives couldn't cope with times. And nowadays, most Native Americans culturally assimilate into American society.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:50:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
it was showing that they had an overwhelmingly powerful weapon that they had no qualms about just dropping on Tokyo if they were pushed far enough.

Or possibly on Moscow?

On the 10th of June 1942 the Nazis killed all the men (173) and many women in the Czech village of Lidice. This slaughter of civilians is rightly considered a war crime of the worst sort, but the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a thousand times more civilians than died in Lidice.

We can't turn the clock back and un-drop the A-bombs that fell on Japan to see how history would have gone. The oft-told excuse that it saved more lives than it took away does not seem to have entered into the calculations of the men who made the decision to drop the bombs. It seems to have been invented as 'spin' after the fact.
That story manages to present one of the most efficient and indiscriminate mass murders of civilians in history as a humanitarian act.

Why was there no non-fatal demonstration of the power of A-bomb? Why was it used on civilan targets not a military base? Why were two used,the second mere days after the first hardly giving time for the Japanese to assess and react?

By that stage of the war the Japanese were aready beaten. They air force and navy had been reduced to insignificance. An invasion wasn't even neccessary - a blockade would have sufficed. The Japanese had made peace-seeking moves prior to the A-Bomb attacks which were not accepted by the allies who insisted on nothing less than unconditional surrender.

Many things point to the non-necessity of the Hiroshima bomb, and even more so the follow-up bombing of Nagasaki. Its 'necessity' solely depends on the dubious claim that it saved GIs lives, an argument not put forward at the time or endorsed by US military leaders, many of whom saw no necessity for the use of A-Bomb at all.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:34:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:50:00 PM, keithprosser wrote:
it was showing that they had an overwhelmingly powerful weapon that they had no qualms about just dropping on Tokyo if they were pushed far enough.

Or possibly on Moscow?

On the 10th of June 1942 the Nazis killed all the men (173) and many women in the Czech village of Lidice. This slaughter of civilians is rightly considered a war crime of the worst sort, but the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a thousand times more civilians than died in Lidice.

We can't turn the clock back and un-drop the A-bombs that fell on Japan to see how history would have gone. The oft-told excuse that it saved more lives than it took away does not seem to have entered into the calculations of the men who made the decision to drop the bombs. It seems to have been invented as 'spin' after the fact.
That story manages to present one of the most efficient and indiscriminate mass murders of civilians in history as a humanitarian act.

Why was there no non-fatal demonstration of the power of A-bomb? Why was it used on civilan targets not a military base? Why were two used,the second mere days after the first hardly giving time for the Japanese to assess and react?

Let's consider the situation: Japan is a small country and we are in the age of the radio, it does not take long for the government to find out that such an event has happened. Further more, Japan had already lost the war but refused to give up. The generals in power were too think headed to give up, it would take some preasure to convince them otherwise. The Emporer managed to do so after the dropping of the second bomb. This is called showing strength towards the enemy to signal him the willingness of how far they will go.

By that stage of the war the Japanese were aready beaten. They air force and navy had been reduced to insignificance. An invasion wasn't even neccessary - a blockade would have sufficed. The Japanese had made peace-seeking moves prior to the A-Bomb attacks which were not accepted by the allies who insisted on nothing less than unconditional surrender.

Consider the costs of this war. Consider the US had just gone through a great economic depression and now had to waste most of it's resources to fight an unwanted war. What
are the costs of deploying multiple naval vessels on the other side of the pacific ocean? People wanted the war to end and to be able to return to their peace activities. Do you want to let a regime live that has massacred millions of people and is willing to sacrifice its own entire population. A regime that has betrayed you by attacking unexpected.

Many things point to the non-necessity of the Hiroshima bomb, and even more so the follow-up bombing of Nagasaki. Its 'necessity' solely depends on the dubious claim that it saved GIs lives, an argument not put forward at the time or endorsed by US military leaders, many of whom saw no necessity for the use of A-Bomb at all.

An invasion would have not only cost many American soldiers lives, but also would have lead to the death of a substantial portian of the Japanese People.

Another point that people often forget is that the US had been decimating 90% of Japanese cities to dust and ash with the use of conventional bombing. The only difference in effect to the A-bomb is the decades of radioactivity that follow for the region.

In the end I would have to agree that it isn't justified to use an A-bomb just to scare Japan into submisson, taking into account all the radioactivity that will be left for generations to come. I vote No
keithprosser
Posts: 2,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:16:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Further more, Japan had already lost the war but refused to give up.
Recent historical research casts doubt on that. They were ready to give up, but not on the terms of 'unconditional surrender' demanded by the allies. If the allies showed some flexibility the war might have been ended.

e.g. http://archive.boston.com...
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 12:40:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:50:00 PM, keithprosser wrote:
it was showing that they had an overwhelmingly powerful weapon that they had no qualms about just dropping on Tokyo if they were pushed far enough.

Or possibly on Moscow?

On the 10th of June 1942 the Nazis killed all the men (173) and many women in the Czech village of Lidice. This slaughter of civilians is rightly considered a war crime of the worst sort, but the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a thousand times more civilians than died in Lidice.

And the conventional bombing of Japan killed even more, and the bombing of Germany killed even more than that. They were unfortunate but necessary to secure peace and as was the Hiroshima bomb.
We can't turn the clock back and un-drop the A-bombs that fell on Japan to see how history would have gone. The oft-told excuse that it saved more lives than it took away does not seem to have entered into the calculations of the men who made the decision to drop the bombs. It seems to have been invented as 'spin' after the fact.

Whether that is why they did it or not, it doesn't make it any less true. The plan for a ground invasion of Japan, which was made by people with no knowledge of the bomb and therefore no reason to exaggerate, estimated that a ground invasion would cost the lives of between 1.7 and 4 million Americans, plus 5 to 10 million Japanese soldiers. This is not even factoring in the number of soviet casualties from the simultaneous Soviet invasion or the fact that it would have lead to the division of Japan, just like in Korea and Vietnam.

That story manages to present one of the most efficient and indiscriminate mass murders of civilians in history as a humanitarian act.

Why was there no non-fatal demonstration of the power of A-bomb? Why was it used on civilan targets not a military base?

Because saying "This is what we can do to you." is nothing compared to saying "This is what we have done to you, and will do again unless you do what we say." As with anything the theoretical knowledge of what the bomb can do is much less shocking than the absolute practical knowledge of what it is capable of, and also it wasn't just letting them know they had it, as I said earlier it was about letting them know they were willing to use it.

Why were two used,the second mere days after the first hardly giving time for the Japanese to assess and react?

That is a good point, the Nagasaki bomb is much harder to defend as it is highly unlikely it made any significant difference and seems like it was just done to test the second bomb out. But I still feel the Hiroshima bomb was necessary to secure a quick end to the war.

By that stage of the war the Japanese were aready beaten. They air force and navy had been reduced to insignificance. An invasion wasn't even neccessary - a blockade would have sufficed. The Japanese had made peace-seeking moves prior to the A-Bomb attacks which were not accepted by the allies who insisted on nothing less than unconditional surrender.

All Japanese attempts to make peace had been confused and contradictory as a result of the fact there was no real consensus amongst amongst their top generals as what would be acceptable terms, plus the most favourable terms they offered still allowed the Emperor to stay in power and for them to maintain the entirety of what remained of their military, this is equivalent to if the Nazi's had offered peace of the grounds that they could maintain their army, and Hitler could stay in power and for obvious reasons were unacceptable terms.

Many things point to the non-necessity of the Hiroshima bomb, and even more so the follow-up bombing of Nagasaki. Its 'necessity' solely depends on the dubious claim that it saved GIs lives, an argument not put forward at the time or endorsed by US military leaders, many of whom saw no necessity for the use of A-Bomb at all.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:00:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Yes. All land is held in conquest.

The objective fact is that the "Natives" there when the Europeans came in were not themselves the first generation of Natives there. They had conquered it from the Prior Native Americans.

All nations and people are conquerors of the prior people. Even the people occupying the homeland of humanity were likely the descendants of people who long since left, returning as conquerors of the natives. Meaning even they aren't direct natives of the land.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:06:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
As for number two.

Yes.

A few hundred thousand lives vs. over a million lives? No question there.

Even more, it's a few hundred thousand lives of the antagonist nation, vs over a million soldiers the US is responsible for.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:12:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
A Few hundred thousand citizens of the antagonist nation

Vs.

Several Million Soldiers that the US is responsible for, in addition to even more millions of citizens of the Antagonist nation.

The US is responsible for making sure it's soldiers return to their families. It's completely unacceptable for the US to allow millions of it's soldiers to die. Besides, the Japanese got the better end of the situation. They lost a few hundred thousand. They could have lost millions and suffered the complete and total destruction of their infrastructure.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 12:45:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Although the means were novel, devastating air attacks on Japanese cities were nothing new. The most destructive air attacks on Japan were not the two a-bombs but were the old-fashioned high explosives and incendiary attacks on Tokyo in March 1945.

There is no logical reason to single out H and N - they were only amongst the last cities to be hit in a B-29 bombing campaign against Japan that began in late '44 and had already devasted many Japanese cities. It is arguable that it was not the a-bomb attacks that persuaded the Japanese to surrender, or certainly not only the a-bomb attacks because the Japanese had lost cities to air-strikes before.

Was H+N justified? It was no more justified or unjustified that the other firebombings of cities such as Hiratsuka and Kuwana (or Dresden and Coventry) that had preceded it, many of which caused more deaths than the H+N bombs did. When you set out to kill civilians en mass, it doesn't really matter if you use TNT and phosphorus or uranium - they both work quite well.