Dwalin2010
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dwalin2010
-
-
Um, what are you trying to get at here? I'll admit, I have a preference for my friends and relatives. I am actually worried I might be a little heartless if you gave me the option to take 10x the number of deaths if it saves my friends and relatives. Could I green light a decision that saves my friends and relatives if it costs 2x or 3x or 10x the number of people to achieve?
What I'm asking here is do you think I should prefer my own over others. The part of me that wants to believe I value all life equally says that yes, if the victims were my friends and relatives but losing them saved 3x their number in others then I would say that decision that killed my friends and relatives was a good one. I'll be miserable and so will any of the survivors that have lost their friends and relatives, but I would never gainsay that decision because it saved more than it cost. Can you not say the same? Are you so selfish that something is worse if it happens to your friends and relatives compared to strangers?
I asked this because imagining the victims being people close to you is the easiest way to understand the tragedy. Many people are very cold and distant in their judgement, but when something bad happens that involves their family or friends directly, they change their opinion completely.
-
You're not serious about my case. Because if you are, you're far too idealistic in this world.
There are two main problems with your thought process. I'll lay them out nice and straight for you:
1) Are you telling me that if a soldier dies intentionally, it's better than if a civilian dies accidentially? Keep in mind that the combat soldiers in this army are KIDS. Had I gone into Gaza, my friends who would be with me could lose thier lives at age 18/19. They have family, friends, girlfriends and lives. On Saturday nights, they go out drinking with buddies. On weekends, they are as much a civilian as the hypothetical civilian that lost his life since they were defending their own. When you ask your question, just remember that the soldiers are just as human as you are.
2) What about human shields? If a terrorist holds up a baby and I kill him and the baby, am I still a criminal? A "yes" answer here tells me that you are naive and should probably leave this topic before I actually get offended. I haven't checked your age yet but it sounds like you're under 20, probably about 16/17. If so, you need to grow up before entering into discussions such as these.
Believe it or not (I don't care), I am 26. Also, you are not a moderator to order me to leave the topic. And I personally would never be able to shoot a baby under any circumstances. Also, I am not saying there is no difference between cases and that the circumstances don't matter, but still there should be at least some remorse if a soldier has killed a civilian accidentally. I am not saying soldiers are not humans, I am not saying they are bloodthirsty monsters. In fact, there are countries where people are FORCED to enter military service. But if somebody joins the army on their own free will on the occasion their country attacks somebody else (another occasions are a different matter), just because of the fanatic desire "to serve their country", then I think they can't blame anybody but themselves if they don't return home.
I am not saying though you are one of people with such a mentality as I don't know you at all.
-
You wanted my opinion. You got my opinion. Contesting it in this manner will not change my mind. Move on.
What manner? I didn't mean to offend you, you at least have lost a relative and if you chose not to blame anybody, it's your right. What I am against is when people who personally never faced any tragedies and haven't lost anybody to war try to justify murder.
-
One of my distant relatives a casualty in Pearl Harbor. Yet I will not call for the heads of anyone because of it; he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's war, and people are bound to die one way or another. War is horrific, and rather than assign blame to someone or other who has long since died, I'd rather move forward. I cannot change the past, but I can change my tiny portion of the future!
But the topic is about Truman and what we should think about him, so it's not really out of place to dig into the past in this exact thread.
I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be so extreme in looking only to the future and never to the past. If we reason like that, what's the point of hunting down Nazis, Khmer Rouge and any other criminals linked to dictatorships long after their regimes had fallen? And what would be the point of the existence of police "cold case" units that investigate past crimes in which the guilty parties will probably never kill again? I know that this goes off-topic, but still... Even if it's history, it's not wrong to have a moral point of view on it.
-
Let's say that the US decided not to use the atomic bombs, and went with Operation Downfall (since they were going to do that until the bombs came in place)
Why don't you imagine some of the G.I. draftees of Operation Downfall being YOUR friends and relatives?
You know, answering questions with other questions won't get us anywhere. I asked first, so please answer then I will answer your question.
-
It's useless to argue as everybody will maintain their opinion (mine is that everybody who kills a civilian is a criminal, including the circumstances Tricky Dick described). I just want to ask the same question for the third and last time, since nobody of the bombing apologists replied to it:
Why don't you just imagine some of the victims being YOUR friends and relatives? Is it so hard?
-
Everyone else who was responsible for the Scouring had been dead for centuries, so nobody else would have needed to repent.
Yes, but still they could have said how [censored] those dead guys were and declared them as a shame of humanity. Posthumously, I mean.
-
Why? A typical invasion isn't a violation of typical war conventions. Do you also consider Churchill being a war criminal for pushing unconditional surrender on Germany?
When I said "criminal", I didn't mean "according to the war conventions", but from a moral point of view. Every logic that politicians who conduct wars can use to justify themselves goes to hell if they had to sacrifice some of THEIR friends or relatives. It's always easier to sacrifice unknown people, especially those belonging to the other side in the war.
As for Churchill and Germany, it's a difficult question because on one hand he could be considered a war criminal too for killing people, but on the other hand if Germany didn't surrender unconditionally, they might have maintained the Nazi regime and would have continued to massacre Jews and others. So I really can't answer this question.
Also, if we discuss Churchill, here goes another problem he had: if he didn't demand unconditional surrender, the Soviet Union which didn't want any negotiations could have grabbed the whole Germany for themselves.
-
Would you consider Roosevelt a war criminal if he rejected the peace offers (this is the guy who demanded unconditional surrender in the first place, btw) and enacted Operation Downfall?
YES. Definitely. To me, EVERYBODY who has killed more than could be avoided is a criminal.
-
Why? Signing off on that invasion would have led to millions of deaths, likely including the ones killed by the bombings. Do you prefer a choice that would kill millions over one that killed some hundred thousand?
You do what you have to do.
I changed my initial post because the fact of the peace offer changes everything in this case. It's not known for sure how many deaths there would be if the invasion without bombings would have taken place. Also, people who died because of the following radiation and leukemia should be considered as well.
-
You can keep arguing that people are better than that, but I'd bet money that if you were in that same position, you would do the same.
I assure you, not all people are willing to commit murder just like that. I sincerely hope the majority of the population of this planet are decent people, even though the ones in charge often (if not mostly) don't value human life that much.
Let me ask you this: if Truman had decided to invade Japan via Downfall, would you consider him a war criminal? A simple yes or no.
I don't know if you were asking Esau of Isaac only or everybody, but my answer would be NO if it were not for the peace offer. Otherwise, it is YES.
-
This is still alive?
Hey, a month hasn't yet passed, so it's not necroposting I think
-
To be honest, I always find very annoying the plots where the humans kick the dragon's butt so easily. Even in fairy tales for children when I was little. If a dragon is so easy to defeat, why is the human who does this viewed as a hero or a strong fighter? In my opinion, humans' victories over dragons should be the minority compared to the opposite.
And I completely agree with BrightBow's point about the genocide. There should have been more repentance on the humans' part in the game.
-
I doubt Truman had the ability to try and force a conditional surrender from Japan. Roosevelt made it abundantly clear that he wanted an unconditional surrender, and Truman definitely couldn't go against that.
What do you mean, he couldn't? Didn't want to or didn't have the courage to, I would say.
Anyway, in all discussions that involve injustices, why many people are always so reluctant to put themselves in place of the victims?
-
Which would you prioritize more if you were the President of the United States? It's not a race issue.
To me, all human beings are equal, no matter what country they belong to. No priorities, except for reducing the number of deaths.
-
I disagree with most of this. Truman's alternative was supposedly invading Japan with groud forces and having less casualties on their side but Americans would have died. And I don't think you can just generalize politicians like that and start talking like you're Ozzy Osbourne. They may have not given two shits about Japanese but they most likely cared about their own soldiers some amount.
So, to you the lives of Japanese civilians are less valuable than those of American soldiers? Please correct me if this interpretation of your words is wrong, but if it isn't, then that statement of yours is quite racist.
-
The concept of "troll" depends on different points of view. If somebody doesn't view himself/herself or somebody else as trolls, there is no way to convince them about the contrary. It's like in criminal proceedings, where no matter what evidence do you present, the lawyer will always say his client was convicted "without a shred of proof".
And don't tell me that what I just said is trolling
-
I would like to suggest to everybody who thinks murders of innocents (for whatever reasons they were committed) can be considered justifiable, to simply imagine some of the victims being their relatives or friends. The end doesn't justify the means, and I doubt that Truman's end was really noble as some people think. To politicians, wars are just games like Fire Emblem is to us.
-
Just wanted to ask whoever has the Nintendo 3DS platform: is it possible to attach it to the PC to transfer the images on the bigger screen (for me it's really important because I have a -9 sight, I'm not really comfortable with small screens even with glasses and contact lenses)?
The question may seem stupid, but I am not really an expert on all these platforms (especially the recent ones). I just saw there is a video walkthrough of Awakening on Youtube, so there must be some way to transfer images? I really want to know before buying.
-
But I have NO regrets being rude to people using "casual gamer" as an excuse.
I'm not saying I've never pirated anything... everyone has.
These 2 sentences together don't make much sense. If you too pirated something, then being proud of being rude to me just because I wanted to spare money for the platform (NOT for the game) is just hypocritical.
Anyway, I got to know what I wanted and I am telling you in advance I won't be replying if you want to continue to play arrogant, so I won't be the one to get in trouble with the moderators. Goodbye.
-
Well, I am the tactician who plans everything in the game, that hypocrite Malledus never says anything really useful in my opinion, so sacrificing him wouldn't be much of a loss (don't take me seriously, it's just I don't like him)
-
According to Vincent (and he seems more knowledgable about this stuff), the whole thing about male heirs to the Altean throne was abscent from the Japanese version of FE11, and was in fact a liberty taken by NoA in the localization. And judging from this quote.
I may not have access to the original script, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that Malladus's quote originally said "last descendant".
That's sad to hear, because it's always more pleasant to play a translation true to the original rather than having things made up that weren't there originally. Do you know if they took other liberties in the translation or this is the only serious one?
-
I buy games I want to play, but buying a separate platform for every game makes no sense either. It's not like there is any choice, but there is no need to be aggressive. I was just asking if there were any plans to release the game on other platforms. You told me there aren't any and that's it.
-
That's almost as bad as people whining that Pokemon XY are on the 3DS instead of the DS. :| Buy it legit, or hack it yourself if you want. You can't just not support the game makers.
No need to be rude. I am just a casual gamer, I know little about all these platforms outside of PC, I just read about many games being released on many platforms, not just one. Of course I will buy it when I can if there is no other solution.
Was Truman a war criminal?
in Serious Discussion
Posted
No, seriously, just because a fact is history and can't be changed, does it mean is should be excused? Then why do we remember Hitler or Stalin as incarnations of evil, theoretically there is no point anymore in accusing them either if we follow that logic. Or what happened just now in Boston, does that mean the law enforcement shouldn't go after those who did it just because the victims can't be brought back?
It's not to provoke you, the fact you at least lost a relative to the war gives you the right to express judgements, but I seriously don't understand the logic. For me, agreeing Truman did the right thing or that his actions can be in any way justified would mean disrespecting the memory of his innocent murder victims.