Beecher Networks - Web Development, Hosting & Domains
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: The Root of all Evil - Channel 4

  1. #21
    First Team finlma's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    1,136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    ye have kinda missed my point lighting a match does nt proove that there is oxygen , you belive this to be true because you have been told fire cant light with out oxygen so when you see fire you think there must be oxygen .
    why because you have been told this since a young age , in the same way adults firmly belive there is a god because they have been told it since an early age .

    what if years ago some one just came up with a theory that was just accepted
    You're embarrassing yourself. That is a useless argument. The existence of oxygen is 100% true and can be proven. The existence of some sort of God has never been proven.

  2. #22
    Seasoned Pro
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by finlma
    You're embarrassing yourself. That is a useless argument. The existence of oxygen is 100% true and can be proven. The existence of some sort of God has never been proven.
    im not saying there is no oxygen for god sake im just using it to illustrate a point that you just accept that there is oxygen because you were told that .

    how many experiments have you carried out to proove that oxygen exists , i know ive never done any , ive turned wine into vodka allright but never proven oxygen exists i just accept it with out ever really questioning why .

    thats my point ,question everything dont just accept things because some one tells you its true ,surely looking back over history there has been many proven scientific facts that are now laughable . measuring the shape of someones head to determine if they are a murderer or not !


    what if it just an elaborate hoax and all the scientist are just laughing at us .


    i will point out even though ye have said time and time again that it can be proven none of ye have shown me one single way that it can be proven that there is oxygen , all im hearing is there are tests and it has been proven by some one else .



    another one that keeps me awake at night is if when you look at an object thats blue , but in your mind you actually see green , but because when you were a kid some one pointed to a blue object and said this is blue ( you see green ) you will go through your life thinkin green is blue
    Last edited by anto1208; 18/01/2006 at 2:18 PM.

  3. #23
    Seasoned Pro Lionel Ritchie's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    4,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    194
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    285
    Thanked in
    168 Posts
    Anto give it up will ya

    Christ Almighty
    " I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"

  4. #24
    Coach John83's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,624
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,950
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,148
    Thanked in
    711 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    im not saying there is no oxygen for god sake im just using it to illustrate a point that you just accept that there is oxygen because you were told that .

    how many experiments have you carried out to proove that oxygen exists , i know ive never done any , ive turned wine into vodka allright but never proven oxygen exists i just accept it with out ever really questioning why .

    ...

    what if it just an elaborate hoax and all the scientist are just laughing at us

    i will point out even though ye have said time and time again that it can be proven none of ye have shown me one single way that it can be proven that there is oxygen , all im hearing is there are tests and it has been proven by some one else .
    Might I suggest you put a plastic bag over your head, tying it firmly around the neck. Wait ten minutes. That should prove an adaquite proof/disproof for you both of oxygen and of God.

  5. #25
    Seasoned Pro
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John83
    Might I suggest you put a plastic bag over your head, tying it firmly around the neck. Wait ten minutes. That should prove an adaquite proof/disproof for you both of oxygen and of God.
    again this proves nothing all it shows is you require something from the atmosphere to live, something that you belive tobe oxygen ,why do you think that ? for no other reason than thats what you were told

    again im not saying oxygen does nt exist im just using it to illustrate the point .
    that you blindly belive with out question something that you cant prove yet you feel its ok to have a go at some one who belives in god because they cant prove to you he exists

  6. #26
    Coach Poor Student's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,042
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    239
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    70 Posts
    I think Anto has gone the wrong way about explaining his point. What he means is we laymen with little or no depth of knowledge in Science which I reckon is the majority of humanity put a certain degree of faith in Science. Most of us personally have not tried and tested most scientific facts (though in Junior Cert. Science we have checked the effects of an Oxygen deprived flame Anto!). Yes, we could go and try them ourselves but the fact of the matter is we don't and won't and will continue until the day we die believing the many scientific facts taken for granted that we haven't proved ourselves. Is that what you tried to say Anto?

  7. #27
    Banned dcfcsteve's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    74
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    Quote Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

    As for Oxygen - yes it can be proven scientifically that there is a gas around us, invisible to the human eye, that has a certain mollecular structure and fulfills certain properties that have been scientifically attributed to the word/concept of 'oxygen'. Oxygen has a clearly defined set of properties, and clearly defined 'experiments' to prove its presence. This isn't the 14th Century - we're not all illiterate peasants dependent upon the word of a tiny controlling academic clique for our idea of what is and isn't the 'truth'. If you suspect that that which is defined as 'Oxygen' doesn't exist, then conduct one of the numerous tests designed to prove it does and see what happens. The lighting of a flame or the sustainance of mammilian life should be enough for you - as both have been consistently proven to depend upon the presence of oxygen.

    If life wasn't built to ensure its own perpetuation, then chances are it would just die out !
    ye have kinda missed my point lighting a match does nt proove that there is oxygen , you belive this to be true because you have been told fire cant light with out oxygen so when you see fire you think there must be oxygen .
    why because you have been told this since a young age , in the same way adults firmly belive there is a god because they have been told it since an early age .
    Anto - life is a feckin complicated thing. None of us can be experts in EVERYTHING, and most of us are experts in close to feck-all. Therefore, how does anyone know anything at all ? How do you know that Amazon is a transactionally secure website - have you spoken to their in-house security team and toured their technological infrastructure prior to trusting their word on this ? When you get onto an aeroplane - how do you know it'll fly ? I don't mean the concept of aviation - I mean that particular plane that you've never been on before. Would you demand to speak to the mechanic and the Chief Engineer/Mechanic and tour the plane in advance before accepting that that particular aircraft is able to make the jounrye you're booked to make.

    Again - no-one can be an expert in everything, and most of us are experts in
    close to feck-all. But there are also lots of things in the world that - for those who have the time, resources and excpert knowledge - can and have been consistently proben to be scientifically accurate/factual. The presence of oxygen is one of those. Had you the time, the will, the equipment and necessary expertise, you too could prove the presnce of oxygebn in numerous scientifically indesputabel ways. But most of us don't, and are happy taking the word of people who's job it is to prove cretain things, and who present us with credible evidence to support it.

    Therefore - unless we're all going to cower at home afraid to leave in case everything we've told before turns out to be false (though how do you know the builders and surveyors weren't lying when they said your house was structurally sound...? ) then we have to accept the fact that there are people out there who's job it is to verify that certain scientific facts are indeed tested and accurate, and accept their word when they say so. Again - the alternative is to stay under your duvet for fear the sky might fall down.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anto1928
    what if years ago some one just came up with a theory that was just accepted
    They did. It's called religion.....

  8. #28
    First Team Bald Student's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,824
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    another one that keeps me awake at night is if when you look at an object thats blue , but in your mind you actually see green , but because when you were a kid some one pointed to a blue object and said this is blue ( you see green ) you will go through your life thinkin green is blue
    You're correct on this one. In Japan up untill about 50 years ago blue and green were considered to be different shades of the same colour. Colours have just been assigned names ant there's no particuar logic to them.

    That's a seperate point to the existance of God. There are people who claim to have demonstrated scientific facts. These people (with the exception of Homeopaths) are open to correction if their theories can be shown to be wrong. Noone, who's not a nutter, claims to be able to prove that God exists. Noone offers a means to prove or disprove the existance of God.

  9. #29
    First Team Bald Student's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,824
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Student
    I think Anto has gone the wrong way about explaining his point. What he means is we laymen with little or no depth of knowledge in Science which I reckon is the majority of humanity put a certain degree of faith in Science. Most of us personally have not tried and tested most scientific facts (though in Junior Cert. Science we have checked the effects of an Oxygen deprived flame Anto!). Yes, we could go and try them ourselves but the fact of the matter is we don't and won't and will continue until the day we die believing the many scientific facts taken for granted that we haven't proved ourselves. Is that what you tried to say Anto?
    The faith in science is very different from the faith in God. While most of us have no interest in checking up on scientists to make sure that what they're doing is correct it's obvious that whatever they're at produces results. If they were working on false theories they wouldn't have invented stuff that works.

  10. #30
    Youth Team REVIP's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Killiney
    Posts
    230
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Science and God are about completely different things, aren't they?

    It's only right-wing fundamentalists (and certain churchman who still won't apologise for condemning Galileo!) that think that God is running the physical universe.

    Isn't God a force outside of the material scientific realm?

  11. #31
    Seasoned Pro
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Student
    I think Anto has gone the wrong way about explaining his point. What he means is we laymen with little or no depth of knowledge in Science which I reckon is the majority of humanity put a certain degree of faith in Science. Most of us personally have not tried and tested most scientific facts (though in Junior Cert. Science we have checked the effects of an Oxygen deprived flame Anto!). Yes, we could go and try them ourselves but the fact of the matter is we don't and won't and will continue until the day we die believing the many scientific facts taken for granted that we haven't proved ourselves. Is that what you tried to say Anto?

    your right , but at the risk of repeating myself that simple junior cert test ,you are told that fire wont burn with out oxygen so when it the match goes out you assume its due to the lack of oxygen .you automatically link it because you have been told what to expect . is it beyond the bounds of possiblity that`what we accept as fact today will be laughed at in 100 years same as we do now , maybe even maybe they will figure out that there is no such thing as oxygen but what they called oxygen was a comination of 2 gases they werent able to seperate ?

    i dont think we should rule anything out maybe some day god will be proven to exist , i had a maths teacher that said he could prove the existence of god through an equation . do i belive it because its been "proven " no..

  12. #32
    First Team Bald Student's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,824
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    is it beyond the bounds of possiblity that`what we accept as fact today will be laughed at in 100 years same as we do now
    No it's likely to happen in a lot of areas. Oxygen is probably not one of them. If scientists were wrong about their theory of oxygen the breathing apparatus they invented for divers and space men wouldn't have worked. They do work so oxygen probably exists and is the stuff the tanks are filled with.

    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    maybe even maybe they will figure out that there is no such thing as oxygen but what they called oxygen was a comination of 2 gases they werent able to seperate ?
    That's been checked and is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by anto1208
    i dont think we should rule anything out maybe some day god will be proven to exist , i had a maths teacher that said he could prove the existence of god through an equation . do i belive it because its been "proven " no..
    Your maths teacher was talking rubbish.

  13. #33
    Reserves Hither green's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S/E London
    Posts
    263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Smile

    Sorry late catching up with this thread. I thought the Dawkin’s thing was quite interesting, better than Robert Winston’s patronising history of God. Didn’t agree with any of Dawkins though and would have quite liked a response about science doing what it can without asking whether it should or not. Surely the invention, creation and use of the atomic bomb was science doing something without the moral consideration that religion provides or should have provided. For good men to do that evil deed religion wasn’t needed at all, in fact it was the lack of any moral direction and structure that probably prompted them.

    I hate the argument on the purity of science. At least religion accepts that it relies on faith. Science starts with a hypothesis, an assumption, and that’s a departure from “science” at the very beginning. And if they stuck purely to observation and deduction there wouldn’t be so many disputes on what findings meant. I wouldn’t consider science and religion fundamentally different. Along with philosophy their roles are to explain the world around us. Without knowledge of the planets to explain day/night primitive man personified the forces that brought the sun up each day. Religion should be about expressing the larger things that even science can’t answer. The trouble with established religion is when it starts getting into too much details on how things are or how they came about. By going into detail on creation as a fact Christianity will always be in bother, they should stick to the larger picture and embrace evolution as the process by which creation happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by finlma
    At 7 I could have been taught that the earth is flat and God is a giant Monkey living on Pluto and I would have believed it.
    What are you trying to say? I hope you’re not doubting the existence of the giant monkey, in my book that’s blasphemy!
    "...and it's Charlie Chaplin on the wing..."

  14. #34
    Seasoned Pro Lionel Ritchie's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    4,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    194
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    285
    Thanked in
    168 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hither green
    Surely the invention, creation and use of the atomic bomb was science doing something without the moral consideration that religion provides or should have provided. For good men to do that evil deed religion wasn’t needed at all, in fact it was the lack of any moral direction and structure that probably prompted them.
    Evil to the people it directly affected undoubtedly, Evil in the threat it presented to world peace, human survival etc for sure ...but evil to use a weapon that saved the lives of (conservatively) a million of a your own for the cost of 120,000 of theirs? Tough on the ones below it for certain but the argument would've been forwarded "fcuk 'em ...they started it". I might regret it happened but I'm not going to wag my finger at people who's shoes I never walked in.

    Also if we followed all the "moral considerations" religion brought to the table, blood transfusions would be frowned upon, organ transplants would be a naughty no-no, IVF kids would not be born to families who's Dad had to w@nk in a cup and those of us who make it as far as their death bed would die in screaming agony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hither green
    I hate the argument on the purity of science. At least religion accepts that it relies on faith. Science starts with a hypothesis, an assumption, and that’s a departure from “science” at the very beginning. And if they stuck purely to observation and deduction there wouldn’t be so many disputes on what findings meant. I wouldn’t consider science and religion fundamentally different.
    Well wrong. Scientific research involves attempting to disprove hypothesis. Religion makes zero attempt to disprove the existence of God. It's just a given ...which is not satisfactory.
    If religion, before proclaiming the existence of a god, applied a fraction of the strictures to itself that science does before proclaiming a theory (never mind fact or truth,) there wouldn't be a church open anywhere.
    " I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"

  15. #35
    Banned dcfcsteve's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    74
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hither green
    I hate the argument on the purity of science. At least religion accepts that it relies on faith. Science starts with a hypothesis, an assumption, and that’s a departure from “science” at the very beginning. And if they stuck purely to observation and deduction there wouldn’t be so many disputes on what findings meant. I wouldn’t consider science and religion fundamentally different. Along with philosophy their roles are to explain the world around us. Without knowledge of the planets to explain day/night primitive man personified the forces that brought the sun up each day. Religion should be about expressing the larger things that even science can’t answer. The trouble with established religion is when it starts getting into too much details on how things are or how they came about. By going into detail on creation as a fact Christianity will always be in bother, they should stick to the larger picture and embrace evolution as the process by which creation happens.
    There is nothing '"impure" in beginning an investigation with an hypothesis. In trying to work out any unknown answer with a potentially large number of possible investigatory routes, you have to start somewhere. For example, the Police do it all the time when investigating serious crime (e.g. likely motive, assailant profiling etc) without making any ensuing convictions less defendable in court.

    Both religion and science do attempt to explain the world around us, but they have fundamentally different approaches to doing this. Science starts with a hypothesis, and then seeks to either disprove or prove it. Central within this is a feedback-loop - it doesn't just try to explain the world around it purely through the eyes of its own unchecked arrogant view. It constantly alters its hypotheses and world view depending on what results and findings are feedback to it by the world around it that it is seeking to explain. Science is therefore involved in a two-way 'discussion' with the world

    Conversely - religion starts with an hypothesis; makes no attempt to investigate it; rejects any attempts by any one else to even QUESTION, let alone disprove, it; ignores any form of 'feedback' from that world around it - instead clinging dogmatically to the purity of its monologue even if it becomes more and more unfeasible with time; and then tries to terrify/bully any one who refuses to believe their disproven hypothesis with fear of what will happen if they don't blindly accept it !!

    That is about as far from science as you can get....

  16. #36
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Dublin 7
    Posts
    20,251
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
    Conversely - religion starts with an hypothesis; makes no attempt to investigate it; rejects any attempts by any one else to even QUESTION, let alone disprove, it; ignores any form of 'feedback' from that world around it - instead clinging dogmatically to the purity of its monologue even if it becomes more and more unfeasible with time; and then tries to terrify/bully any one who refuses to believe their disproven hypothesis with fear of what will happen if they don't blindly accept it !!

    That is about as far from science as you can get....
    All religions seem to rely on the writtings many centuries ago. Sure for all we know they could have been started by from lads after night boozing deciding to pull the mother of all spoofs. A bit like the "hes the Messiah..." scenes from the Life of Brian.

    Isn't recognised religion like a really old cult?
    http://www.forastrust.ie/

    Bring back Rocketman!

  17. #37
    Reserves
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Totally off topic (kinda) but I presume everyone has seen this VERY old on:

    Proof that women are the root of all evil


    Women = Time * Money

    Now, we all know that time is money,

    time = money

    ....so...

    woman = money * money

    ......Therfore.....

    woman = (money)^2

    We also know that money is the root of all evil.....

    money = √(evil)

    woman = [√(evil)]^2

    Hence,

    woman = evil

    WOMEN ARE EVIL!
    The glass isn't half full or half empty it's just too damn big!

  18. #38
    Reserves Hither green's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S/E London
    Posts
    263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
    Conversely - religion starts with an hypothesis; makes no attempt to investigate it; rejects any attempts by any one else to even QUESTION, let alone disprove, it; ignores any form of 'feedback' from that world around it - instead clinging dogmatically to the purity of its monologue even if it becomes more and more unfeasible with time; and then tries to terrify/bully any one who refuses to believe their disproven hypothesis with fear of what will happen if they don't blindly accept it !!
    As a non-religious person I’m sure that you can comfortably say that religion starts with a hypothesis but that’s coming from “scientific” view point. Most religious thought is considered to start with a revelation (maybe to a group or maybe to a “divine” individual) and then is built on and expanded through philosophical and theological thought. Such revelations could be considered as being reached through the senses, although they’re not provable in a scientific way. Then again, philosophically speaking, isn’t all of science only provable through our ability to sense things (either through the limits of our technology or, some would argue, through our ability to recognise reality).

    I’m interested though in maths or subjects related to it (bits of Cosmology, theoretical physicals for example). Most people would consider maths scientific but it's axiomatic and unprovable, and it’s arguably closer to philosophy (didn't some philosopher describe maths as the language of God? – Can’t remember who). It would be interesting to find out how many mathematicians believe in something that we could equate to God, as compared to the limited (and I don’t mean that disrespectfully) scientific view - (Stephen Hawkin has talked of God hasn’t he?)


    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
    Evil to the people it directly affected undoubtedly, Evil in the threat it presented to world peace, human survival etc for sure ...but evil to use a weapon that saved the lives of (conservatively) a million of a your own for the cost of 120,000 of theirs? Tough on the ones below it for certain but the argument would've been forwarded "fcuk 'em ...they started it". I might regret it happened but I'm not going to wag my finger at people who's shoes I never walked in.
    Well not coming from a scientific viewpoint I'm happy to wag my finger, at a decision to wipe out half a million people, without the sensual experience of being in their shoes. My religious/philosophical views give me a moral code with clear boundaries and the dropping of the atomic bomb, for me, steps over those boundaries. Anyway, the point about the atomic bomb wasn't necessarily a scientific dig, it was a dig at using our capabilities without a moral framework, I could equally have used the holocaust or Joe Blogs being shot on the street corner.
    "...and it's Charlie Chaplin on the wing..."

  19. #39
    Seasoned Pro Lionel Ritchie's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    4,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    194
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    285
    Thanked in
    168 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hither green
    As a non-religious person I’m sure that you can comfortably say that religion starts with a hypothesis but that’s coming from “scientific” view point. Most religious thought is considered to start with a revelation (maybe to a group or maybe to a “divine” individual) and then is built on and expanded through philosophical and theological thought. Such revelations could be considered as being reached through the senses, although they’re not provable in a scientific way. Then again, philosophically speaking, isn’t all of science only provable through our ability to sense things (either through the limits of our technology or, some would argue, through our ability to recognise reality).

    I’m interested though in maths or subjects related to it (bits of Cosmology, theoretical physicals for example). Most people would consider maths scientific but it's axiomatic and unprovable, and it’s arguably closer to philosophy (didn't some philosopher describe maths as the language of God? – Can’t remember who). It would be interesting to find out how many mathematicians believe in something that we could equate to God, as compared to the limited (and I don’t mean that disrespectfully) scientific view - (Stephen Hawkin has talked of God hasn’t he?)




    Well not coming from a scientific viewpoint I'm happy to wag my finger, at a decision to wipe out half a million people, without the sensual experience of being in their shoes. My religious/philosophical views give me a moral code with clear boundaries and the dropping of the atomic bomb, for me, steps over those boundaries. Anyway, the point about the atomic bomb wasn't necessarily a scientific dig, it was a dig at using our capabilities without a moral framework, I could equally have used the holocaust or Joe Blogs being shot on the street corner.

    you could have but you didn't. So am I correct in deducing you think it would have been "a lesser evil" shall we say -to NOT use the a-bomb which killed some 80,000 in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki (dunno where your half a million figure came from) and go for a "D-Day" style conventional invasion of Japan instead which would've rubbed out (and this is worth repeating) 1,000,000 allied soldiers + fcuk knows how many japanese (certainly more again), reduced most of Japan to ashes and prolonged the war by two years maybe?

    how does multiplying the bodycount 20-fold rate as less evil when they'd the means to end it quickly with 5% loss of life rlative to the "fair" way?

    A means I've no problem conceding they were ham-fisted with by the way. Should've given the Japanese a lot more time after Hiroshima to let the word spread that the game was up rather than going for nagasaki within a week -but that's as far down the road of judging their actions I'll go.
    " I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"

  20. #40
    Coach John83's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,624
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,950
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,148
    Thanked in
    711 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
    you could have but you didn't. So am I correct in deducing you think it would have been "a lesser evil" shall we say -to NOT use the a-bomb which killed some 80,000 in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki (dunno where your half a million figure came from) and go for a "D-Day" style conventional invasion of Japan instead which would've rubbed out (and this is worth repeating) 1,000,000 allied soldiers + fcuk knows how many japanese (certainly more again), reduced most of Japan to ashes and prolonged the war by two years maybe?

    how does multiplying the bodycount 20-fold rate as less evil when they'd the means to end it quickly with 5% loss of life rlative to the "fair" way?

    A means I've no problem conceding they were ham-fisted with by the way. Should've given the Japanese a lot more time after Hiroshima to let the word spread that the game was up rather than going for nagasaki within a week -but that's as far down the road of judging their actions I'll go.
    I'd agree with most of that. I have been told (unverified) that there was rumour/intelligence that while the Japanese were considering a surrender after the first bomb, elements of their military were planning a coup to prevent that. Other people have a more cynnical view that they wanted to test the second type of bomb too.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reform, root and branch
    By A face in forum Premier & First Divisions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 25/10/2013, 11:28 AM
  2. Root Beer?
    By onenilgameover in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13/04/2007, 3:34 PM
  3. The Root of all Evil - Channel 4
    By Neish in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17/01/2006, 9:11 PM
  4. The Root of all Evil - Channel 4
    By anto1208 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17/01/2006, 1:58 PM
  5. Unions - The Root Of All Evil?
    By Peadar in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 14/10/2005, 8:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •