"What the media get wrong is..."

[Fenris]

. You are literally the only person in this conversation that is trying to argue that there was literally no choice.

No. You're the one arguing that both sides had equal culpability, which demonstrates a complete lack of moral clarity.

So, what? it is my understanding that many of the japanese leadership viewed that as the first step to colonization attempts by the west

"They sent their dudes here to sell me stuff, so now they must all die". Yup, more moral clarity.

They took it so seriously and believed it such an existential threat that they modernized at light speed, started playing the colony game themselves and went and started several wars. if you don't think it was significant to the Japanese and can be poo pooed away then I would say read some history, but it seems you have and still come away with this dismissive attitude toward the impact of that event.

The Japanese started wars for the same reason that every other dictatorship starts wars. conquest.

Are you trying at all at this point? are are you just so offended by my thoughts that you can't help but try and get the last word?

I will say it again. You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to comment on them. If you don't want me to comment on your opinions, don't post them here.

Thank you, that is exactly what i've been saying this entire time! Just because an option exist, or is even the one you feel forced into it doesn't make it moral or good or evil, there are other factors that should weigh into that calculus.

On the other hand, some options are clearly right and some are clearly wrong. Rampaging and raping and murdering and kidnaping are clearly wrong and evil.

Good side and bad side is not what 've been arguing against it is the Good versus irredeemable evil. I've called Hamas bad in a million ways, but I've been unwilling to act as if I believe that down to a man they are all irredeemably evil that is completely without any value and having no chance of future change or redemption.

Yeah, I generally think that rapists and murderers have no value and should face punishment. If they belong to the army of a country, that country needs to be smashed. It doesn't matter if its Hamas in Gaza or the Nazis in Germany.  I guess you feel otherwise. Which brings us back to your lack of moral clarity.

I AM NOT NEUTRAL! How many ways can I say that Hamas is a dangerous existential threat to israel

And yet you believe that Hamas is not "irredeemably evil". 

Hmm, okay I actually see how I could have worded that more clearly. I meant that I do not think that they are simply being spoken about in extreme terms, that the whole lot of them to a man are irredeemably evil and we are good does not add descriptive value at least not in my book.

And some acts by some people have to be called what they are. Evil.

Let me put it this way, isn't that the way that the Hamas propaganda talks about Israel and the Jews that is as irredeemably evil and the only conceivable response to that is killing every last one of them to a man?

It's not "propaganda" to observe that Hamas is a bunch of  genocidal lunatics.

Like idk if you think that there are any legitimate criticisms of how Israel has dealt with the Palestinians in the past, but even if there are, it makes no sense to describe Israel or the Jews as a people as irredeemably evil, it's just not a real thing imo and it can really justify essentially any degree of violence one wants.

So now Israel = Hamas. Yup, complete lack of moral clarity.

[Oscar_Kipling]

. You are literally the only person in this conversation that is trying to argue that there was literally no choice.

No. You're the one arguing that both sides had equal culpability, which demonstrates a complete lack of moral clarity.

Edit: I decided to go back to reply #158 because I was pretty sure that I specifically took the time to clarify that I wasn't saying that these things were equivalent and sure enough I did. I will quote myself here:

I really don't want to make this longer but I feel like you are going to assume that I'm saying that the black fleet strong arming Japan is exactly the same as Pearl Harbor when it is not, but the underlying motive is the same, that is to bully someone where they are vulnerable into getting what you want.   

This is a mess, you are flipping between what you claim to be arguing and it's really confusing. If merely not considering one to be pure good and the other as pure evil means that there is equal culpability then you would be right. I happen to believe that some amount of culpability and some other amount of culpability doesn't mean that those somes are equal. And again I was trying to illustrate that there were actually option, secondarily I would say that that the actions of the US fleet means that there is some culpability in the subsequent events that lead to the war between Japan and the US, but that isn't anywhere near the same as saying that the black fleet threatening military action against Japan if they didn't open up was exactly equal to pearl harbor just because both events were legitimate reasons to fight.

So, what? it is my understanding that many of the japanese leadership viewed that as the first step to colonization attempts by the west

"They sent their dudes here to sell me stuff, so now they must all die". Yup, more moral clarity.

Japan wanted to make themselves strong enough and modern enough to remove themselves as a target for colonialism by western powers. How they went about that leaves much to be desired, but they were not afraid of trade in and of itself, they were afraid of the cultural & colonial implications of opening up their ports to the west. The fact that you keep characterizing it as the Japanese simply feeling a little icky about consumerism and it really meant nothing to them is bizarre. 

They took it so seriously and believed it such an existential threat that they modernized at light speed, started playing the colony game themselves and went and started several wars. if you don't think it was significant to the Japanese and can be poo pooed away then I would say read some history, but it seems you have and still come away with this dismissive attitude toward the impact of that event.

The Japanese started wars for the same reason that every other dictatorship starts wars. conquest.

Sure, that's not entirely off base, but why did they feel the need right then to get bigger and stronger through war and conquest? just for funsies?

Thank you, that is exactly what i've been saying this entire time! Just because an option exist, or is even the one you feel forced into it doesn't make it moral or good or evil, there are other factors that should weigh into that calculus.

On the other hand, some options are clearly right and some are clearly wrong. Rampaging and raping and murdering and kidnaping are clearly wrong and evil.

Of course, right and wrong hasn't been my quarrel unless you mean to say that right=pure good and wrong=irredeemably evil or is there a matter of degrees anywhere in there in your mind?

Good side and bad side is not what 've been arguing against it is the Good versus irredeemable evil. I've called Hamas bad in a million ways, but I've been unwilling to act as if I believe that down to a man they are all irredeemably evil that is completely without any value and having no chance of future change or redemption.

Yeah, I generally think that rapists and murderers have no value and should face punishment. If they belong to the army of a country, that country needs to be smashed. It doesn't matter if its Hamas in Gaza or the Nazis in Germany.  I guess you feel otherwise. Which brings us back to your lack of moral clarity.

I guess i'll take it, if I have to believe both that rapists and murderers have no value and believe they should face punishment for their actions then I suppose I lack moral clarity. I believe they should face punishment for their actions, but not that they are generally human beings without any value. 

I AM NOT NEUTRAL! How many ways can I say that Hamas is a dangerous existential threat to israel

And yet you believe that Hamas is not "irredeemably evil". 

I mean, yeah.

Hmm, okay I actually see how I could have worded that more clearly. I meant that I do not think that they are simply being spoken about in extreme terms, that the whole lot of them to a man are irredeemably evil and we are good does not add descriptive value at least not in my book.

And some acts by some people have to be called what they are. Evil.

Okay, what material effect will it have if one doesn't?

Let me put it this way, isn't that the way that the Hamas propaganda talks about Israel and the Jews that is as irredeemably evil and the only conceivable response to that is killing every last one of them to a man?

It's not "propaganda" to observe that Hamas is a bunch of  genocidal lunatics.

I can hardly believe this, I was talking about the propaganda that Hamas generates about Israel.

Like idk if you think that there are any legitimate criticisms of how Israel has dealt with the Palestinians in the past, but even if there are, it makes no sense to describe Israel or the Jews as a people as irredeemably evil, it's just not a real thing imo and it can really justify essentially any degree of violence one wants.

So now Israel = Hamas. Yup, complete lack of moral clarity.

bro, just no. Take some deep breaths and read it again.

[Fenris]

This is a mess, you are flipping between what you claim to be arguing and it's really confusing. If merely not considering one to be pure good and the other as pure evil means that there is equal culpability then you would be right. I happen to believe that some amount of culpability and some other amount of culpability doesn't mean that those somes are equal. And again I was trying to illustrate that there were actually option, secondarily I would say that that the actions of the US fleet means that there is some culpability in the subsequent events that lead to the war between Japan and the US, but that isn't anywhere near the same as saying that the black fleet threatening military action against Japan if they didn't open up was exactly equal to pearl harbor just because both events were legitimate reasons to fight.

I don't even know what you're saying here.

Japan wanted to make themselves strong enough and modern enough to remove themselves as a target for colonialism by western powers.

The Japanese government wanted conquest. This is not a hard topic to understand.

Sure, that's not entirely off base, but why did they feel the need right then to get bigger and stronger through war and conquest? just for funsies?

Why does any dictatorship want conquest?

Of course, right and wrong hasn't been my quarrel unless you mean to say that right=pure good and wrong=irredeemably evil or is there a matter of degrees anywhere in there in your mind?

If murdering, raping, and kidnaping isn't pure evil, then I don't know what is.

I guess i'll take it, if I have to believe both that rapists and murderers have no value and believe they should face punishment for their actions then I suppose I lack moral clarity.

Great. I'm glad we can agree on something.

Okay, what material effect will it have if one doesn't?

The failure to call out evil for what it is in some way supports it.

I can hardly believe this, I was talking about the propaganda that Hamas generates about Israel.

So Hamas tells lies on top of everything else.

[Oscar_Kipling]

This is a mess, you are flipping between what you claim to be arguing and it's really confusing. If merely not considering one to be pure good and the other as pure evil means that there is equal culpability then you would be right. I happen to believe that some amount of culpability and some other amount of culpability doesn't mean that those somes are equal. And again I was trying to illustrate that there were actually option, secondarily I would say that that the actions of the US fleet means that there is some culpability in the subsequent events that lead to the war between Japan and the US, but that isn't anywhere near the same as saying that the black fleet threatening military action against Japan if they didn't open up was exactly equal to pearl harbor just because both events were legitimate reasons to fight.

I don't even know what you're saying here.
 

 i'd believe that you don't understand what i'm saying here if you didn't just gloss over the fact that I specifically took time out in my initial post about Japan to clarify that I wasn't calling these events equivalent. I can believe that you don't agree with me and don't want to admit to seeing what i'm saying though.

Japan wanted to make themselves strong enough and modern enough to remove themselves as a target for colonialism by western powers.

The Japanese government wanted conquest. This is not a hard topic to understand.

Sure, that's not entirely off base, but why did they feel the need right then to get bigger and stronger through war and conquest? just for funsies?

Why does any dictatorship want conquest?
 

I do not think it's a difficult concept to grasp either, in fact I think that difficult to understand concepts are pretty rare for any of us to run across.  So much so in fact that I'd bet my house on the fact that you can understand the concept of Japan modernizing their culture industry and military at least in significant part in order to make themselves a less appealing target and be considered a regional power of some reckoning if not a first world power. It's fair to disagree with my assessment, but ease of comprehension doesn't factor into it at all, they are both simple concepts.

Of course, right and wrong hasn't been my quarrel unless you mean to say that right=pure good and wrong=irredeemably evil or is there a matter of degrees anywhere in there in your mind?

If murdering, raping, and kidnaping isn't pure evil, then I don't know what is.
 

I don't think it is unreasonable to explore any distinctions to be made between a person that performed a kidnapping or rape and a person that is irredeemably evil. I do not believe that the two are naively synonymous and interchangeable.

I guess i'll take it, if I have to believe both that rapists and murderers have no value and believe they should face punishment for their actions then I suppose I lack moral clarity.

Great. I'm glad we can agree on something.
 

We probably agree on quite a bit, you seem to be too burnt by what you want me to be saying to see that though.

Okay, what material effect will it have if one doesn't?

The failure to call out evil for what it is in some way supports it.
 

So, people that don't believe in your concept of evil, are supporters of evil I guess? Actually that makes total sense to me, it's sort of how religious folks come off to me for the most part, its just rare that they'll admit to it in those terms.

I can hardly believe this, I was talking about the propaganda that Hamas generates about Israel.

So Hamas tells lies on top of everything else.

ha, Yeah, it's one of the many reasons that they suck. Do you have nothing to say about accusing me of saying asserting that Israel=Hamas or do you just want to gloss past that one too? I think either would be interesting.

[Fenris]

I don't think it is unreasonable to explore any distinctions to be made between a person that performed a kidnapping or rape and a person that is irredeemably evil. I do not believe that the two are naively synonymous and interchangeable.

And I'm tired of moral cowards like telling me nonsense like this.

I'm done talking to you.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I don't think it is unreasonable to explore any distinctions to be made between a person that performed a kidnapping or rape and a person that is irredeemably evil. I do not believe that the two are naively synonymous and interchangeable.

And I'm tired of moral cowards like telling me nonsense like this.

I'm done talking to you.

it's been illuminating. Thanks for your time.