"It is more accurate to say that slavery, an institution as old as civilization, still existed in the West at the time of our (USA) founding. The principles articulated at our founding were directly at odds with slavery and led inexorably to it's ending."
Thomas Amidon
I'd add that not only is slavery an institution as old as civilization, but that it was practiced in what would become the Americas long before the arrival of European settlers and that it continues to this very day.
122 comments:
..? Yes. There have been forms of slavery around forever. No one would say otherwise... What's the point?
I would say it's been around forever and it's been wrong forever. Would you disagree?
"The principles articulated at our founding were directly at odds with slavery and led inexorably to it's ending."
Agreed. Those were sound principles that we've only come close to living up to in our lifetime. Thank God for progressive minded people who kept pushing to end oppression of slaves, black people, indigenous people, women, gay folk... to make progress to finally live up to those principles.
Why do you think it took so long?
The point is that anyone who chooses to focus only (or primarily) on the US slave trade and how it affected the US is simply choosing to take the US out of the context of the entirety of history, and apply different standards to the US than to any other country.
So, despite your earlier comment about the founders being racist, you agree that the founders chose to intentionally lay the foundations for ending slavery in the US. What an interesting juxtaposition.
I guess if we look at the entirety of history, and that slavery has existed from before the beginning of recorded history, I'm not sure that the fact that it took the US 77 years to end slavery as a legal practice is all that long. The real question is why haven't other countries ended slavery as of 2022?
As far as what took 77 years, I'd guess that it was a combination of changes in attitudes, Christian abolitionists, and a gradual realization that slavery as an economic model was destined to fail.
I'm amused...in a disgusted kind of way...how Dan likes to pretend the fight against slavery in this country was due to people like him...so-called "progressives". The reality, of course, is that the people he supports now still engage in identity politics, which is a direct descendant of the racism of the Democrat Party of early America. It's hoped by most everyone that we wouldn't be among those who enslaved or oppressed others back in the day, yet there's no way to know how being a product of the culture of the time might have affected our beliefs. There were many who saw slavery as a great sin in every era of our nation's history. Yet they sincerely believed mixing the races was a bad idea without animosity toward other races being a factor. What was known and understood back then was informed by an entirely different body of information than what undergirds contemporary understanding. Dan's political ancestors defended the "oppresive" practices Dan opposes today.
It's also typical...and still immoral...for Dan to bring up homosexuality and pretend it's the same as race, ethnicity or sex, as if a fruit is properly listed among vegetables or meats. There's nothing at all progressive in defending sexual deviancy. Dan's grasp of morality us every bit as perverse as that if the slavers of early America.
Because people like Dan, strict pacifists, are unlikely to have engaged in the actions that proved necessary to end slavery.
That's a good point as well, but mine was more along the lines of a form of racism still exists and emanates from Dan and those like him. But instead of skin color, it's whatever "group" a leftist decides to defend at any given moment, too often simply to disparage a philosophical/political opponent. It's typical of the Dem party and leftists in general to pit one group against another. True Americans regard everyone as American and work for the benefit of all. Those like Dan like to pretend that true Americans don't.
Ever notice how the LEFT never mentions that it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. It wasn't whites who were to blame, it was blacks who sold blacks into slavery, and even blacks in the USA had black slaves.
To compare "oppression" of those who practice sexual deviancy with the REAL oppression of slaves is about as stupid as it gets. Oh, and women aren't oppressed.
"Because people like Dan are unlikely to have engaged in the action that proved necessary to end slavery..."
It's interesting how you dismiss the teachings of Jesus are Lord as ineffectual.
Are you embarrassed by the teachings of your Lord and savior? Do you wish he would be more like the Warriors who would go and drop an atomic bomb on entire cities killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children? Do you wish Jesus was more violent and deadly, like that?
It's like you're unaware of the efficacy of nonviolent direct action and the inefficacy of killing people - including innocent bystanders - as a solution.
"It's interesting how you dismiss the teachings of Jesus are Lord as ineffectual."
Not nearly as interesting as how you make shit up out of thin air, and attribute it to others without even the tiniest attempt to demonstrate that you've expressed something real or True. It's also interesting that you seem to be conflating your personal hunches about pacifism with the "teachings of Jesus".
"Are you embarrassed by the teachings of your Lord and savior?"
No, but you seem to be embarrassed by those teachings that don't line up with your political or theological views.
"Do you wish he would be more like the Warriors who would go and drop an atomic bomb on entire cities killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children?"
Not specifically. However being a warrior who risks life and limb to free slaves, stop genocide, protect the innocent, and stop oppression is an honorable thing.
"Do you wish Jesus was more violent and deadly, like that?"
Your made up hunches about what you imagine, have no real relevance to anything.
"It's like you're unaware of the efficacy of nonviolent direct action and the inefficacy of killing people - including innocent bystanders - as a solution."
It's like you are unaware of human nature and the reality that force is occasionally necessary to stop obvious evil.
For example, let's say that (hypothetically) Lincoln had chosen to use NVDA to restore the Union and free the slaves. Would we have gotten the capitulation of the South, and the 13th amendment more quickly than the 4 years of war?
Can you show one instance where NVDA has successfully ended a conflict on an international scale?
Why are you not actively involved in using NVDA to end slavery in the 21st century rather than bitching about the means used to end US slavery in the 1850"s?
I'll note a few things.
1. Since you've chosen to ignore the question, and the responses to your questions prior to the last comment, I have no hope that you'll start answering questions now.
Art,
I believe you might be referring to the "soft bigotry of low expectations". It's interesting that the left is currently advocating for lower academic standards for black students. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might think that inadequately educated black folks might be perceived as easier to manipulate for political ends.
Glenn,
There are many things that the American Political Left chooses to ignore or downplay about slavery through history. Those you mention are certainly obvious. The fact that Kamala Harris' family were slave owners is another. The fact that there are more people enslaved now than were ever enslaved in the US. The fact that the world is getting ready to hold the Olympics in China, while ignoring the fact that slavery and genocide are practiced there.
The reality is that it has nothing to do with slavery, it is a convenient club that can be used to bash the US. It's about imposing 21st century liberal orthodoxy on the US in the 18th and 19th centuries, while not subjecting other societies or nations (past or present) to similar scrutiny.
As I asked Dan. If NVDA is so effective, why is he not actively engaged in using it to stop slavery in the 21st century instead on bitching about folks in the 18th and 19th centuries handled it. It'll be interesting to see if he'll answer.
I suspect, it'll be some version of "It's not my fight, I'm fighting other things." or "It's not happening in the US so it's not my problem.". But we'll see.
Hell, Ida Bae Wells is unaware of the reality that the North entered the Civil War in 1861. She's also unaware that the US didn't exist in 1619 and that it's absurd to attribute any actions taken in North America to the UK, prior to 1788.
Wow. Dan's really scraping the barrel to find something other than a legit response to our comments. Is he really rejecting the fact of the relationship between the identity politics of his party and the more blatant discrimination they practiced in American history?
As to NVDA, it's never had any effect on anyone willing and ready to employ VDA on others. I'm certain Dan's been challenged in the past to provide examples where it has and failed to do so.
I can see that NVDA might be reasonably effective in smaller contexts, but the notion that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, or Guevera would have turned from their evil without more significant encouragement is simply absurd. The reality is that folx like Dan can tout NVDA as being some sort of panacea, but can't point to significant large scale success or aren't actively engaged in using it to confront evil. I'd be impressed is Dan would take his NVDA and go confront ISIS, or protest the genocide in China, but somehow we never see that level of commitment.
Dan is doing what he usually does. He either disappears from the conversation, or he changes the subject.
Craig... " why is he not actively engaged in using it to stop slavery in the 21st century instead on bitching about folks in the 18th and 19th centuries handled it."
1. Who says I'm not?
2. Who exactly do you propose we bomb/destroy/kill in order to stop modern slavery?
3. It would help if your side would come out strongly against sexual oppression (which is akin to modern sex slavery... just a few steps removed) when it's your leader who's engaging in it. Saying, "Such a man is not FIT to be president" and calling on your side to stop supporting him would be a start. Bombing/killing them and their children would not be a good start.
Marshal... " Is he really rejecting the fact of the relationship between the identity politics of his party and the more blatant discrimination they practiced in American history?"
What are you even talking about? Modern black folks and their allies speaking out against racism and systemic racism is NOTHING like ancient conservative Democrats (in no way related to modern Democrats) who supported slavery.
When "conservatives" try to refer to early Democrats (and many others) being pro-slavery and paint modern Democrats with it, it's a losing proposition. Black people and their allies are not stupid enough to conflate ancient Democrats with modern ones. They know their history and they know about the Republicans becoming the party of racism with the Civil Rights movement and since. They/we/rational people know about the Southern Strategy that marks modern "conservative" GOP movement, with the incipient racism and dog whistles.
The Democrats fail in many ways but today's Democrats are not 19th century Democrats, nor are today's Republican's equal to 19th century Republicans.
Be serious. Are you actually saying that today's black folk (some 80-90% of them who are supportive of Democrats) are actually racist against black folk? Do you know how insane that sounds? How racist it sounds?
Craig... " The reality is that folx like Dan can tout NVDA as being some sort of panacea, but can't point to significant large scale success or aren't actively engaged in using it to confront evil. "
1. We've engaged in it to fight the oppression and terrorism of right wing-supported violence in Latin America and did quite well with it. Read your history.
2. NVDA is not a perfect solution. But we've never ONCE deliberately killed off hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to achieve "peace..." nor are we foolish or evil enough to confuse that with peacemaking.
3. You can't even find it in you to condemn the deliberate targeting of men, women and children in Japan for mass torture and destruction, can you? Then don't talk to me about the efficacy of our efforts.
4. Why not try following Jesus' actual teachings instead of trying to defend the indefensible?
Marshal... " it's never had any effect on anyone willing and ready to employ VDA on others. I'm certain Dan's been challenged in the past to provide examples where it has and failed to do so."
Again, look to the efforts of Witness for Peace in Latin America in the 1980s, when Reagan's conservatives were supporting violent terrorists (and Bin Laden and terrorists in the Middle East at the same time) to oppress poor farmers and campesinos. It had an effect. A positive, life-changing, life-saving effect.
But you are correct, when Reagan and others like him are determined to kill, then even NVDA might not stop them from killing. BUT - and this is vital - neither does war. By definition. The questions are: Which ways are more likely to have positive, moral results and which require us to engage in active evil?
Open your eyes. Listen to Jesus. Follow HIS way, instead of those who support terrorism like Reagan and that Democrat, Harry Truman, who decided to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of civilians in the greatest act of terrorism in world history. Will you condemn THAT Democrat and his acts of terrorism?
And to the topic of the post: Can EITHER of you clearly come out and condemn any and all slavery as always a great evil, for one human being to OWN another human being and force them into labor against their will? If you can't, can you understand how some might not place much weight in your opinions about matters of morality and reason?
Actually, the above is clearly NOT on the topic of this post. Further, why is my answering this question one more time going to make any difference? It clearly hasn't made a difference when I've answered it before, because you still play this bullshit game.
I have always condemned, and always will condemn, the institution of slavery in every country. I also condemn even moreso those who sell their people into slavery.
1. Yet, you still can't provide one example of it working to achieve a long term, stable result on a large scale. You literally have one example, which you acknowledge didn't actually show the positive, large scale, long term results, you imply are possible.
2. Well, you still can't show one example of where NVDA resulted in a long term, large scale, reduction of conflict. The reality is that the use of nuclear weapons in WW2 was not about peacemaking. It was about vanquishing an evil regime that had inflicted years of the most horrible actions on other countries. It was literally abut stopping literal slavery. I think that your problem is that you've taken one action out of the context. You've failed to acknowledge that the use of nuclear weapons was in reaction to the unprovoked actions of the Empire of Japan that started in the 1930's. How many innocent civilians died when Japan invaded China? What of the Chinese, and Korean women forced to become sex slaves, before being killed? What of the captured Allied troops who were starved, tortured, experimented on of simply beheaded because the code of Bushido convinced the Japanese that captured enemies were to be killed? What about the people who were experimented on? I suspect that the lives lost on Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't begin to even the balance sheet with those innocents killed, enslaved, rapes, and oppressed by the Japanese.
FYI, the Japanese leaders were warned that something horrible was coming before the first bombing. They could have surrendered, or they could have warned their population, yet they continued to fight. They were given a break between the first and second strikes, yet they continued to fight. Strange that the Japanese themselves remain blameless in this little alternate universe you inhabit.
Yet, strangely enough, the victors chose to rebuild the vanquished after the war. Strangely enough, there has been peace between the Allies and the former Axis since 1945. Not merely peace, but friendship and mutual prosperity. I think that if one looks at the outcome of Japan since 1945, and Central America since the 80's that one might see a contrast that is instructive.
3. As long as you can't acknowledge the evil that that caused the use of nuclear weapons to no necessary, and the culpability of the Japanese themselves in the circumstances leading up to their use, you have no room to talk. But, it's a seemingly great way to ignore the reality that you have zero successful instances where NVDA has provided a long term, large scale, positive resolution to a conflict. It also draws attention to the reality that NVDA advocates like yourself, are not currently in any one of the areas of the world where there is major conflict, applying your solutions in real life.
4. Since you can't prove either part of your "question", I see no reason to dignify it with an answer.
1. The fact that you answered my question with "Who says I'm not?", tells me all I need to know. The logical follow up would be, "Please show us where you are using NVDA principles to fight slavery in the 21st century?"
2. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this question, as it's clearly based on false assumptions and a desire to divert attention from your lack of engagement in modern slavery. My answer is no one.
3. Interesting that you choose to suggest that Trump represents the sum total of what conservatives are doing to end actual slavery. Again, diverting attention from the reality that you and yours are not using your NVDA principles to stop 21st century slavery.
I suspect that you'd consider Bob Goff to be a conservative (maybe even an ultra conservative), yet he's engaged in very effective methods to stop slavery in the 21st century. He's supported by many conservative evangelicals and other conservative Christians. That's just one example, but it's one more than you've given.
Trabue
The problem is that there is not now nor has there been for at least 50 year no such thing as "systemic racism" except on the part of the LEFT against whites.
BLM is a racist and terrorist organization who can't care lest about black lives.
Blacks are voting for racist Demoncrats because they are being brainwashed by you and your ilk. But, only ignorant blacks vote Demoncrat and they are ignorant because they listen to LEFTIST propaganda instead of doing their own research.
Nor is their any oppression of anyone based on their sex (real sex, not pretend sex), nor in regards to what perverse sexual behavior they like to practice (I can never understand why those practice homosexuality/bisexuality feel the need to tell everyone what their sexual desires are-- WFC?!?!) The real oppression is by sodomites who demand Christians go against God and Christian beliefs and sue bakers, florists, etc who don't want to sanction their ungodly perversions. THAT is oppression. Forcing everyone to accept and even sanction perversion by pushing the agenda in public schools, colleges, businesses etc. Keep your sexual behaviors to yourself and we don't care what you do but the first time you fly a rainbow flag to let everyone know what a pervert you are, then you will get absolutely no respect from me, just as if an adulterer or fornicator wanted to push their sexual behavior then I would have no respect for them either. So quit your lying crapp about sexual perverts being oppressed.
FYI, my church (which you'd consider conservative) supports and engages with multiple organizations dedicated to ending human trafficking. I know that doesn't fit your narrative about "conservatives", and I'm sorry that reality sometimes does that.
Glenn,
I appreciate your attempt to placate Dan, but rest assured, he'll ask the question again at some point as if it hadn't already been answered.
Craig... "Well, you still can't show one example of where NVDA resulted in a long term, large scale, reduction of conflict."
1. Nvda absolutely helped in Nicaragua. It saved lives. That combined with non-violent journalism eventually ended the conflict in Nicaragua.
2. There are other examples I can relate, later.
3. But what is absolutely factual is that war as solution has a 100% record of taking lives. So, if you're saying that nvda is a failure if no lives are lost, then war is a failure as well.
4. Nvda is about fighting oppression WHILE still being moral and just. To do that, we HAVE been successful. War as solution is a 100% failure on that front.
Do you recognize those realities?
Craig... "FYI, my church (which you'd consider conservative) supports and engages with multiple organizations dedicated to ending human trafficking. I know that doesn't fit your narrative about "conservatives", and I'm sorry that reality sometimes does that."
1. Of course, I am not surprised that conservative churches sometimes do good things like oppose slavery. I came from a conservative church. Remember that?
So no, you don't know what I thought. Can you recognize that reality does not always align with your made up impressions about what liberals think and don't think? Why not just start there..? Have the decency to admit you were mistaken.
2. There are a wide range of ways that people and churches can work against oppression. We work year around side-by-side with refugees and immigrants and part of that work is fighting against slavery.
So there's your second mistake, assuming that we don't do anything about slavery. And even if we aren't giving money to buy giving money to "fightslavery.com," there are many ways to fight for Justice. Of course.
One of my crazy liberal family members, for instance, was in a poorer nation and an anti-trafficking agency. So why don't you start there, too, by admitting that you don't know Jackshit about what we are and are not doing about slavery. How many years have you dedicated your life in another nation fighting human trafficking?
What arrogance.
While I disagree with conservatives, I've never said they aren't doing anything. Yet here you are doing exactly like that, ignorantly suggesting that we're not working against human trafficking when you just don't know. This is exactly part of the problem with fair cycle arrogance an in today's conservatives.
An apology would be in order if you were operating in good faith.
Glenn... "I have always condemned, and always will condemn, the institution of slavery in every country..."
OK. In the Old Testament then, if you take it literally, you have stories where God commanded Israel to enslave slave other nations.
You are coming out now unequivocally and saying that was an evil thing for Israel to do and you clearly condemn that slavery and those forced "marriages" (ie, rape)?
OR, are you saying, except for those times when slavery IS moral, it's always immoral?
How about you, Craig? Will you unequivocally condemn the rape and slavery found in The Bible... Those times that people say God commanded it?
If you'd ever just clearly answer the question directly, THEN you can say that you answered the question. As long as you're being unclear and dodge and obfuscate, the question remains unanswered.
I can't believe Dan is really trying to pretend the Dems of the slavery days are different than the Dems now, when the Dems now engage in all manner of identity politics. What the hell does he think slavery is, but the extreme of that political philosophy?? It's the blatant end result. Remember, slavers presumed blacks were less than human, if human at all. Who do you think is promoting that attitude about the unborn? Republicans? I don't think so.
But even on issues of "LGBT rights" and race, religion and politics, Dan's kind continues to put people in boxes apart from others, just as the slavers did. Republicans then and now (more now than then) speak in terms of AMERICANS. Trump certainly did.
And of course, the lies about the so-called "Southern Strategy" continue to be told by lefties in order to convince their voters they were not the slavers and promoters of race-hating behaviors like the Klan. Those who actually study that time know what a lie that is.
Indeed, Trump never told lies like those the lefties continue to spew...lefties which include Dan Trabue.
And yes, blacks who vote Democrat are complicit in their own suffering. Many have awakened to that reality, as black support for Trump was high compared to other GOP presidents. He actually did stuff which benefited them. Dems don't. They never do. I can't help that they insist Dems are the way to go, but it's not for lack of trying. I'd like to see the GOP do more to invite the black community to discuss why they're hurting themselves by their continued support for asshats.
Dan invites me to "look to the efforts of Witness for Peace in Latin America in the 1980s". He again expects me to convince myself that he's right. That's not how it works and anyone who insists on pretending he's the adult in the conversation should know that it's up to him to present a source which can prove a clear and solid line between the efforts of such groups to whatever peace came about, if it did at all. That line would include proving it couldn't have been done without them, and that it could have without all other means being employed at the time. For such people to be part of a process is one thing. To suggest it means they actually had a definitive impact is quite another. I doubt any such evidence exists and if it does, I wonder why Dan doesn't have it at the ready for moments like this.
As to Japan, I disagree that dropping the bomb wasn't an act intended to bring about peace in the world, especially since it did. To annihilate evil brings about peace. They're connected. The world took notice of what happened in Japan and major hostilities ceased. That's called "peace" even if the bad guys were spending time trying to figure out how to get their own bomb. Rarely in history...if ever...has peace been achieved without the use or threat of force. That's just the reality, because those against whom force is used are those who cannot be turned away by any other means. Anytime negotiations ended a conflict, it's been between two (or more) actors who didn't want to engage in war in the first place and sought peaceful means. NEVER has NVDA served to end a conflict where at least one side was intent on imposing their will. NEVER.
Craig, are you not at all concerned how overtly racist Glenn sounds, and him making these outrageous hateful claims on your post, apparently with your blessing? Are you not going to call him out?
Glenn... "Blacks are voting for racist Demoncrats because they are being brainwashed by you and your ilk. But, only ignorant blacks vote Demoncrat"
So, 80+% of black people vote/lean Democrat (depending on the election). Glenn is stating unequivocally that the vast majority of black people are ignorant. They are, Glenn says, "too stupid" to not be "brainwashed" by people like me (never mind that I'm following THEIR lead, not the other way around)?
Good God, have mercy.
Will you not condemn this racism? Have you no spine? No decency? No sense of right and wrong?
Do you not at the very least SEE how it appears so very racist when old white men say crap like that?
Glenn says... "Nor is their any oppression of anyone based on their sex (real sex, not pretend sex), nor in regards to what perverse sexual behavior they like to practice"
Reality is different. Craig, do you at least recognize this? Do you not recognize that LGBTQ folk have been abused, oppressed, kicked out of their homes, chased out of their conservative churches... KILLED for the "sin" of being LGBTQ?
Glenn can make stupidly false claims like this, but the reality is there and won't be ignored. Hell, I'd be more than willing to bet that Glenn has mocked and abused gay folk, himself. He seems the type.
Open your eyes to reality, men. Gay folk ARE being abused, even today. They are being mocked and belittled and attacked, kicked out of their homes and families. How do I know? Because my church is full of such stories.
Indeed, our church's unofficial nickname is "The Church of the Last Hope," because so many LGBTQ folk had written off church and religion because of the unending abuse, humiliation and attacks at the hands of people who say they are Christian. (Well, that nickname has happened for other reasons besides just LGBTQ folk - many other people have been abused and molested and harassed by conservative religious folks to the point where they'd given up on church...)
Craig... ""Please show us where you are using NVDA principles to fight slavery in the 21st century?"
1. When one fights to make our nation more freely open to abused and oppressed people, and when we advocate to make it EASIER, not more difficult, for the oppressed to be welcomed to our free shores, one fights against oppression and slavery using NVDA principles.
2. When one fights to educate people about the plight of the poor, one fights oppression/slavery using NVDA.
3. When one works with groups like Peace Corps, Witness for Peace and dozens of other such human rights and justice groups, one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA.
4. When one works with groups (and one's own) for the rights of workers - especially poor workers - one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA.
5. When one educates about signs of oppression/slavery, one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA.
6. When one warns about/boycotts/educates about companies making products using slave/near-slave labor, one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA. When one refuses to buy products from such companies, one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA.
7. When one works with poorer nations to ensure people get education and welcome and basic needs, one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA.
8. When one says clearly that ALL instances of slavery and forced marriages are wrong, one fights oppression/slavery with NVDA.
I could go on but hopefully, you get the idea. Do you disagree... do you think that these efforts are not legitimate and helpful to the cause?
Where are you using war-making and deadly threats to successfully fight oppression/slavery? What tactics are you using? What groups are you supporting? That's not an accusation, it's a sincere question.
"How about you, Craig? Will you unequivocally condemn the rape and slavery found in The Bible... Those times that people say God commanded it?"
Not again.
I could point out that your question assumes facts not in evidence. You'll have to prove that God didn't command the things that are attributed to Him.
But all of that is just you trying to change the subject.
Dan,
If you are not going to call out people on your blog, why should I call out people on mine? I have a history of allowing people a lot of freedom and leeway in their comments. You have benefited from my liberal policies on this.
So, no. If you want to prove Glenn wrong, feel free. Hell, this who sideshow is simply you trying to divert attention away from the actual topic of the post, and your inability to address the topic. If Glenn wants to indulge you in your diversion, I'll allow it.
"Indeed, our church's unofficial nickname is "The Church of the Last Hope,""
Are you really suggesting that your little congregation in Louisville is really trying to suggest that you are the "last hope". That there is no other possible source of hope anywhere else? That's quite the show of pride, and we know what Jesus says about pride.
Do you know where gays are most in danger of being killed or persecuted in the 21st century? I'll give you a hint, it's not the US. Maybe y'all should pack up and move to where real persecution of gays is happening and offer your "last hope" there. Maybe use your NVDA tactics to change the laws.
NVDA
1. Excellent example. Nicaragua is a shining example of how well NVDA works over the long term. The fact that you can only come up with one example that doesn't actually meet the criteria I set out, isn't encouraging.
2. See above. Good luck finding one that actually meets the criteria I laid out.
3. Ahhhhh, the straw man approach. Well done. But I'm not suggesting that not "taking lives", is the measure of success. But congratulations you've managed to waste more time with this pile of bullshit.
4. Well, since you can't give me an example of "success" that meets the criteria I mentioned, this is quite the claim to make without actually offering proof.
No, your made up bullshit isn't reality.
What's interesting is that I offered a significant amount of information that led up the the use of nuclear weapons, and you just ignored all of it. Spewed your unproven talking points, dropped a straw man diversion, and asserted that your unproven bullshit is "reality".
The reality is that context matters and you've chosen to take the use of nuclear weapons out of the context of the actions of Japan, and of the potential cost in US and Japanese lives had it become necessary to invade the home islands. O course, you still can't agree that morality is objective or universal, so that makes it hard to take you seriously.
"An apology would be in order if you were operating in good faith."
Unfortunately, if you're not going to apologize when you lie, why should I when I express my opinion?
Dan,
Maybe if you spent more time demonstrating that your claims are True, giving specific examples, and answering questions, and less time bitching about others it'd be helpful.
FYI, "My church does some vague, undefined, thing that kinda sorta indirectly, might have an effect on slavery in some small sense." isn't really that helpful.
Trabue
Leave it to you to say we need to condemn the slavery that God commanded. My context had nothing to do with slaves taken as a result of war, it had to do with the institution of buying and selling people all through history and mostly everywhere but the USA.
Forced marriages were cultural even into the 1800s in European countries. It’s not rape within the confines of marriage so quit diverting, fool. You are so anti-God.
Is ir immoral to take POWs and force them to work, i.e. slavery? NO.
Abuse of LGBTQXYZZ people has always been brought on by themselves when they throw their perversion in people’s faces. They are chased out of Churches because the real purpose of the Church assembled is Christian teaching and communion. Non-Christians who come in bragging of their perversion are not to be countenanced. Families don’t want perversion practiced in their homes. So how is this oppression?
And there goes Trabue with his false witness — i.e. lying—accusing me of mocking, etc of “gay folk” (they never seem to be to “gay”—i.e happy). I’ve worked together with many of them. I don’t condemn them, I condemn their sin.
So I’m now racist for pointing out the FACT that anyone, black or white, who votes Demoncrat are ignorant and brainwashed? Trabue again lies when he says I suggested they are “stupid,” a word I didn’t use. (Of course that word fits Trabue perfectly). People, black or white (the discussion at the time was blacks) who don’t educate themselves and just rely on LEFTIST political propaganda are indeed ignorant because they allow themselves to be brainwashed. There is nothing at all racist about stating such.
And so you know what 80+% of black vote Demokrat? What polls do you cite? And if that number is correct, does it alter the facts of the reasons why they vote for a party who is racist against them and has been for over 150 years?
Glenn,
I won't stop you from responding to Dan's comments to you. Especially since he essentially called you racist (he's good at calling someone a racist with enough wiggle room to claim that he didn't). I just want to clarify that following him down this rabbit hole is exactly what he wants because it moves the conversation away from the topic of the post. Given that, it's your call.
Craig,
Thanks for indulging my self-defense. Unless he get stupidly asinine and again lies about me or mischaracterizes what I've written, I'll try to ignore his stupidity. He has demonstrated zillions of times on many blogposts over the past several years that he is a pure LEFTIST with no real understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Craig... "Are you really suggesting that your little congregation in Louisville is really trying to suggest that you are the "last hope"."
No. I'm telling you that it's a literal fact that people who have been abused and molested and kicked out of other churches and who were ready to give up on religion have called us that. that's the fact. Do you have a problem with that fact?
Dan likes to use the word "delusional" to describe those like us. It's supreme irony and projection of the kind so common to lefties. Dan takes all lefty traits...none of which are honorable in fact, but only superficially if at all...to high levels. Delusion is just one.
He accuses Glenn for his comments about blacks who vote Democrat. I've responded to this lie each time I've seen him make it, which means he's intentionally lying yet again. As Glenn reminds what was so blatantly obvious, the point was regarding black people specifically. (Before going further, I can assure Glenn that Danhave polling data regarding the percentage of black people who stupidly support the Democratic Party) The clear fact is that race doesn't matter, as ANYONE who votes Democrat is stupid and it's grown exponentially stupider to do so over the past half dozen decades or more.
Craig... "I could point out that your question assumes facts not in evidence. You'll have to prove that God didn't command the things that are attributed to Him. "
No. I don't. YOU appear to be the one who is saying "God sometimes commands slavery as a moral option and forced marriage/rape as a moral option." THAT is the outlier and, frankly, insanely evil suggestion. We who don't say we "take the Bible literally" are under no such obligation.
Here's the reasonable position and the perfectly rational reasoning behind it... YOU tell me where I'm mistaken:
1. Slavery and forced marriages/rape are ALWAYS wrong and a great evil. Period. Full stop. (do you disagree?)
2. I believe there is a perfectly good, perfectly loving and perfectly just God.
3. A perfectly good, loving and just God does not command followers to engage in acts of grotesque evil.
Now, whether or not you agree with the reasoning, do you agree that this reasoning is perfectly rational and internally consistent?
Do you understand how, very many rational moral people of Good Will that this reasoning is quite compelling? Even some who believe in and love God's Word?
Glenn... "Leave it to you to say we need to condemn the slavery that God commanded. My context had nothing to do with slaves taken as a result of war..."
YOU were the one who said that, and I quote, "I have always condemned, and always will condemn, the institution of slavery in every country."
When you said that you "ALWAYS CONDEMN AND ALWAYS WILL CONDEMN SLAVERY," I took you literally. It appears that you are now changing your position to something different than that quote. It appears you are NOW saying that you "condemn slavery... EXCEPT WHEN SOMEONE HAS BEEN CAPTURED IN WAR... In THAT context, slavery is perfectly fine and moral."
Is that what you're saying? And so, if a war happens and you and your loved ones are kidnapped during that war, it's okay to put you all into slavery and for your women folk to be in forced marriages (ie, raped...) Is THAT what you're saying?
If so, do you at least understand how many rational people find that horrifyingly evil and immoral and a great affront to a Good God of justice? I'm not asking if you agree, just if you can understand how evil such a position is to many people of good faith?
Glenn... ". It’s not rape within the confines of marriage so quit diverting, fool. You are so anti-God."
???? HOLY SHIT. If your women loved ones are kidnapped and forced into a marriage, YOU DON"T BELIEVE THAT IS A GREAT EVIL OF RAPE?!!
Do you truly not understand how much of an evil monster that makes you sound like?
Help me out here, Craig. Are you cool with it if your beloved women friends (or male friends, as far as that goes) are kidnapped and forced into marriage? Do you agree with Glenn's quite grotesquely evil position that it's not rape??
What sort of upside down world do you all live in?
Come on, Craig. It's not too late. Save your soul! Denounce this rape and this rapist-defender!
Glenn... "Is ir immoral to take POWs and force them to work, i.e. slavery? NO."
That isn't slavery. Slavery is the ownership of another human being and forcing them into slavery. What you're speaking of is a TEMPORARY prisoner relationship where a gov't has people TEMPORARILY in prison where they may be charged with tasks.
I will say this: ANY gov't that enslaves prisoners and uses them to do slave labor against their will for the rest of their life, THAT Government is acting in a greatly evil fashion.
Come on guys, this isn't that hard. I'm talking about the owning of another human being - as God "commands" if one takes parts of the OT literally - for life, against their will. IS it, or is it not always a great evil?
Glenn... "Abuse of LGBTQXYZZ people has always been brought on by themselves when they throw their perversion in people’s faces."
Again, Craig, maybe Glenn is beyond hope. But save yourself. Begin by admitting that gay folk have LONG been abused, beaten, abused, mocked, kicked out, belittled and killed for the "sin" of being gay. For much of history, they had to keep their orientation secret due to the threat to their very lives. Just the HINT that MAYBE they were gay was enough to get beaten by perverts and bullies like Glenn and his ilk. And IF a gay person is OPEN about who they are, that is NOT justification to abuse, molest, beat, kill or otherwise oppress them.
PLEASE say you agree, Craig. Please tell Glenn that this is not morally acceptable. Stop blaming the victim.
Good God, no wonder why so many have to run for their literal lives from threats like Glenn and other religious zealots in the Pharisee mould.
Glenn... " it had to do with the institution of buying and selling people all through history and mostly everywhere but the USA."
And what is it with you all that you feel the need to endlessly defend the US, even when we're talking about oppression, slavery, overt deadly racism, overt deadly homophobia, the oppression of women throughout much of our history? You'd have more credibility if you'd JUST SAY that yes, of course those things were wrong. A great evil we must repent for and work to repair the damage that was done and acknowledge the benefits we white men have enjoyed because of these awful realities in the past.
We all know that awful actions against women and LGBTQ folks happen in other nations controlled by conservative religious zealots. We also must work against that... but we only have the credibility to condemn them IF we are clear-eyed about our own acts of oppression and evil in the past.
And there would be NO SLAVE MARKET where Africans could sell slaves IF there were not people in the US and elsewhere willing to buy them. So your constant attempts to try to pass the buck to other people just makes you seem like you're not willing to look at our own complicity in these great evils.
Glenn... "And so you know what 80+% of black vote Demokrat?"
Because I'm not blind to reality.
Glenn... "What polls do you cite?"
Um... all of them? And, you know, just reality and stuff.
And just to be clear, the polls show a range and it depends on the place and location. Generally speaking, a vast majority of black people vote Democrat and against the GOP. Instead of questioning reality, why don't you take an honest look at what it is about the GOP that would cause so many people of one race to vote against you so regularly?
And I'm not saying you are or aren't racist. I'm saying that when the vast majority of a race of people are easily fooled by Democrats (or, you know, other black leaders) to vote for a party that's worse for them, that IS A RACIST THING TO SAY.
I'm not sure what you're failing to understand.
But lawdie, lawdie, ain't we ALL so thanksful for Mister Glenn to show us the way!
"1. Nvda absolutely helped in Nicaragua. It saved lives. That combined with non-violent journalism eventually ended the conflict in Nicaragua."
Saying so doesn't make it so. Be specific and don't weasel out by pointing to Craig's response. If he can describe the definitive manner in which NVDA saved lives in that country, that would be great. But I would prefer Dan actually makes the effort to defend SOMETHING he asserts, and this would be a great place to start.
"3. But what is absolutely factual is that war as solution has a 100% record of taking lives. So, if you're saying that nvda is a failure if no lives are lost, then war is a failure as well."
Personally, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying NVDA is ineffective where one or both sides insists on destroying the other. I'm saying that NVDA is likely ineffective in any scenario even if neither side preferred not to war in the first place. In such cases, when has any peace-activist intervention done what diplomacy was doing anyway?
"Open your eyes to reality, men. Gay folk ARE being abused, even today. They are being mocked and belittled and attacked, kicked out of their homes and families. How do I know? Because my church is full of such stories."
Aside from having no respect for anything you church claims, I agree with Glenn regarding those pervs who have been kicked out of their homes, families and churches: they are likely unrepentant pervs and likely those who promote their perversion as morally benign or equal to that which Scripture teaches. No one is "oppressive" for refusing to accept such rejection of morality in such "in your face" manner.
"Indeed, our church's unofficial nickname is "The Church of the Last Hope," because so many LGBTQ folk had written off church and religion because of the unending abuse, humiliation and attacks at the hands of people who say they are Christian."
This validates my previous comment just above. These people "wrote off church" because of the behavior of the church? Bullshit, unless by that you refer to those congregations who refused to appease the demand to accept their perverse lifestyle choices. Most people who "write off church" do so because they're constantly faced with their own sinfulness, not because of any "oppression" by the church. This is so common, and "progressives" (meaning, fake "Christians") enable these people by bending God to sin, rather than be encouraging repentance from sin. Despicable and sad, but very Trabue.
Craig... "since he essentially called you racist (he's good at calling someone a racist with enough wiggle room to claim that he didn't..."
Craig, if someone says erase this thing, then it's reasonable to say that's a racist thing.. Isn't that rational?
And if someone says that the vast majority of black people are too gullible, foolish, stupid to understand they're being fool, is that not a blow against a race of people... Literally? How is that claim not a racist claim?
"Craig, if someone says erase this thing, then it's reasonable to say that's a racist thing.. Isn't that rational?"
No. If someone says "erase this thing specifically because of the race of the people involved>", then you might have a case, but not as you've phrased it.
"And if someone says that the vast majority of black people are too gullible, foolish, stupid to understand they're being fool, is that not a blow against a race of people... Literally?"
Not necessarily. If it's pointing out that an entire race of people does "foolish" things, then no. If the claim is that the foolish things are done specifically and only because they're black, then you might have a point.
"How is that claim not a racist claim?"
Because it doesn't even suggest that "race" is the reason.
But "racist" is such a convenient term. It's so useful. It doesn't even have to be used accurately in order for you to accomplish your goal.
"No. I don't."
Yes you do. Your problem is that you simply assume that YHWH wouldn't command something that disagrees with your hunches (I probably could have stopped with command and been equally correct). The question is "Did YHWH actually command those things that get your panties in a wad, or not. If He did, then you'd need to give us your qualifications for pronouncing His actions wrong. If He didn't then we have another problem entirely.
"YOU appear to be the one who is saying "God sometimes commands slavery as a moral option and forced marriage/rape as a moral option.""
Then you appear to be mistaken.
"THAT is the outlier and, frankly, insanely evil suggestion. We who don't say we "take the Bible literally" are under no such obligation."
Again, assuming that your hunch about "taking the Bible literally" is correct, without actually providing proof of that objective claim.
"Here's the reasonable position and the perfectly rational reasoning behind it... YOU tell me where I'm mistaken: 1. Slavery and forced marriages/rape are ALWAYS wrong and a great evil. Period. Full stop. (do you disagree?) 2. I believe there is a perfectly good, perfectly loving and perfectly just God. 3. A perfectly good, loving and just God does not command followers to engage in acts of grotesque evil."
Instead, how about you start by proving that the above is "perfect", and "rational" (in a universal sense). Then you can provide the standard that makes something "always" wrong in an objective sense. Then you can enumerate your "rational reasoning" that makes your hunch the objective Truth. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time doing something you won't do.
"Now, whether or not you agree with the reasoning, do you agree that this reasoning is perfectly rational and internally consistent?"
I understand how you would consider your personal "reasoning" to be "perfect" and "rational", and that you would consider your personal reasoning to be "internally consistent" within your own context. What I don't understand is by what standard you would impose your personal hunches on others, or assert that they are anything bit your unproven opinions.
"Do you understand how, very many rational moral people of Good Will that this reasoning is quite compelling? Even some who believe in and love God's Word?"
Do you understand that an argument from numbers (especially absent any actual numbers) is a logical fallacy? Do you understand that Truth is not measured by the (unknown) number of those who you claim agree with your hunches? Do you understand that this sort of argument is doomed to fail, unless you actually provide objective proof?
"No. I'm telling you that it's a literal fact that people who have been abused and molested and kicked out of other churches and who were ready to give up on religion have called us that. that's the fact."
So, all you are suggesting that s few people have called your church the Last Hope, but that you don't believe that your church actually is the "Last Hope".
"Do you have a problem with that fact?"
I have a problem with any local church who believes that they are the "last hope", whether it's your little church in a small southern city, or a 15,000+ thousand member mega church in the NW. It's simply an absurd claim.
While I realize that you've ignored all of my previous context surrounding the use of atomic weapons against Japan in Aug of 1945, and that it's likely that you'll ignore this as well. I feel compelled to write about the reality, and the context, even though you'll ignore it and the questions from it.
So, here goes.
On VE day, May 8, 1945, (That's the day where victory in Europe was officially confirmed), President Truman warned the Japanese that they would be on the receiving end of increasingly more destructive attacks if they refused to surrender.
In addition to that warning, the Japanese were given multiple warnings prior to dropping the first atomic bomb.
Including one between the two bombings.
The Japaese themselves acknowledged that they had lost the war as early as January of 1944, yet continued to fight until August of 1945.
The Japanese leadership wanted to "lure" the Americans ashore on the home islands of Japan as a way to both inflict additional casualties on the Allies as well as to satisfy Japan's "honor".
The war minister was quoted as saying "Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?".
Given the reality as outlined above, how does NVDA end the war in the Pacific? Why would the Allied leadership sacrifice hundreds of thousands of troops, billions of dollars, and spend another year or more giving Japan it's last glorious battle to satisfy their "honor"? Given the reality that by mid 1945 the Japanese had essentially "drafted" every adult between 16 and 80 into a defense force how does one consider these "civilians" as "innocent"? What kind of government equips their women with sharpened sticks and sends them out to repel a modern armed force?
Given all of those realities, isn't it rational to assign the blame (or at least a significant amount of it) for the use of nuclear weapons to the Japanese leadership? Was not the ability to forestall the use of nuclear weapons totally in the hands of the Japanese?
Let's look at the options that the allies had with Japan.
1. They could have just stopped after Okinawa, let the Japanese alone on the home islands and gone home.
2. They could have imposed a blockade on the home islands and starved the Japanese to the point of surrender.
3. They could have continued the aerial bombardment (actually increased due to the availability of more bombers from Europe) using conventional weapons, until the Japanese gave up or were all killed.
4. They could have invaded. The projected cost in allied casualties was estimated between 50,000 and 250,0000, the projected cost in Japanese casualties was well over a million. Given the attitudes expressed by the Japanese leadership, 100,000,000+ doesn't seem unreasonable.
So, explain how NVDA would have worked better than any of those options? Explain how NVDA would have been able to end the war sooner than August of 1945? Explain how starvation is more humane than nuclear weapons?
Of course, given the devastation in Europe, it seems reasonable to conclude that another 12-24 months of war with Japan would have diminished the ability of the US to start the rebuilding of Europe leading to thousands of needless additional European deaths. Would thousands of starving Europeans in addition to the additional suffering of the Japanese for an additional year or two have been better than the limited use of nuclear weapons?
I suspect, I'll not get any acknowledgement, let alone response of answers to this additional dose of reality, but at least it's here.
Trabue, again try context. God’s commanding Israel to take war captives for slaves has nothing to do with slavery as an institution which was the context of my statement. You are being intentionally stupid.
Then you really go off on a tangent, supposedly as a defender of women (not real ones but pretend ones who are really men). It is not “rape” in the confines of marriage. Only you would think they way you do, again totally out of context of my statement. My statement originate in you claim against God for Israel taking women from those they subjugated. They were taken as marriage partners. This was not rape in that culture, nor was it rape when European royalties forced marriages among their various lineages to keep the royal lines. You seem to have no concept of history, which is standard for LEFTISTS like you. Totally ignorant and wanting to force YOUR “morality” into historical situations — anachronisms all over the place.
I did NOT defend slavery in the USA; you really need to learn to read. The institution of slavery was everywhere throughout history and mostly everywhere BEFORE it arrived in the USA. The point is that you rail about slavery in the USA yet never say boo about everywhere else or about who does the selling of their own people into slavery. The market for AFRICANS selling their people was active for hundreds of years before it arrived in the USA. So the USA was a johnny-come-lately to buying slaves and if they USA didn’t buy slaves it would most likely not slowed the slave trade; those horrible people who were selling were even more immoral than the buyers. Without the sellers there would be no buyers. Quit passing the buck from the sellers.
Quit putting women in the same context as LGBTQ perverts. Perverts almost always suffer abuse because of their own actions, and THAT was what was said; I said nothing about abuse women suffer. You buy into to much LGBTQXYZ victimhood propaganda. AGAIN, how much abuse would have been suffered if they didn’t throw their perversion in everyone’s face or go about letting everyone know what sexual perverts they are. Why do I have to see pervert flags hanging from homes or business? Why do I have to see commercials by major industries and businesses extolling the “virtues” of perversion? And it has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with biology.
When it comes to your ideas about why blacks vote Demoncrat, you are the one who is blind to reality. Show proof of your claims the polls and prove the polls weren’t taken by biased organizations virtue-signaling to continue to make victims out of “black folk.” And truth is not racist.
I love how TRABUE redefines slavery so as NOT to include POWs being forced to work.
The only irrational person in this comment string is you, you ignorant moron.
Craig... "Given the reality as outlined above, how does NVDA end the war in the Pacific?"
When I'm home at my computer, I'll provide some expert opinion about this. But for right now let me just be quite clear...
The answer is... we might try different things through NVDA. BUT one thing we would not do is choose to deliberately target and slaughter hundreds of thousands of men women and children. Period. That's off the table. That is a non starter for us. Not for you, but for us.
Now, You might ask us also... would we have raped only 10,000 women to end the war if we thought that would do it? No.
Would we have eaten 500 Babies to win the war? No we wouldn't.
We would not engage in evil to fight evil.
And that appears to be the difference between non violent Just peacemaking types and war defenders.
Is that a fair assessment? Are you saying that to save a 100,000 people, you would be part of a "rape force" that would rape 10,000 women to ultimately save lives? Would you eat babies to save lives?
I can state definitively I would not. Would you? If those things are off the table, why is killing a 100,000 innocent civilians - including babies and children - not?
The problem with discussing Biblical truths with Dan is that when the topic are those like slavery and "forced" marriages, he ignores all the context, the details, all the scholarship from theologians which explain exactly what was going on, how it differed from what went before it and how those situations were improvements over how every other nation had dealt with those issues. One cannot say that females taken after battles were "raped" because they were chosen by a Hebrew combatant, because of the time between the choosing and the actual marriage. God's command required what would be a far better consideration for the female than anything she faced by her own people. And what's more, in those days, an incredibly small percentage of females had much choice regarding who they might marry.
The important part is that for a "progressive" clown to regard it as rape is insulting to true rape victims and modern sex trafficking where the women are merely objects of pleasure. The women of those ancient days were to be cherished as God intends a wife to be cherished, not abused like a sex slave as Dan enjoys regarding it.
So the issue is not what God commanded. It's how Dan chooses to regard it in order to make some leftist point about today. I have no problem with anything God has done, and I would strive to be cool with anything He might decide for me. Dan insists God must bend to Dan's will, and it manifests in his rejection of the plain words of Scripture which offends his girlish sensibilities. It makes me wonder just how much God will take from this guy. God on Dan's terms. No thank you.
A similar tactic is employed by Dan when you champions perversion. He likes to pretend those who "bullied" homosexuals are the pervs. That's rich. They are bullying because perversion is even offensive to bullies. But I wholly doubt that even in his little storefront church...it's setting I suspect is part of what Dan finds so appealing (Oh look at us! We're such a humble little group!)...are that horde of LGBT "victims" as victimized as they claim. They're already consciously rejecting God's will, as evidenced by Dan's own telling of their trauma. How much more effort is required to make out as if they've been brutalized physically or emotionally by whatever malevolent force from which they've fled...home or church? It's nonsense, but just the kind of nonsense moronic lefties like to accept as fact so that they can get all churchy and christiany when they're enabling behaviors God clearly and plainly and unequivocally rejects in the strongest terms? I would really love to hear from some of these churches or parents who cast out these innocent angels to hear their side of the story. I'm certain we'd hear details these people never relate to suckers like Dan and his ilk.
The NVDA stuff is just nonsense. As I've stated earlier, we need to see EXACTLY how methods employed by these NVDA people made a direct difference...a difference that is tangible and unmistakably the result of their efforts. That would require, possibly, an example in which there were no other actors involved in ending a conflict BUT the NVDA kumbaya people, and I fully doubt there exist any such examples. But even in working with others seeking the same end to a conflict, how can Dan prove that they made any difference really? I know I've made this appeal in the past. Just another question for which an answer will never be given, and that's likely because as I suspect, the NVDA stuff is just nonsense.
(Sorry...I keep hitting the "publish" button and then thinking of something I should've added.)
These many circumstances of no answers are remarkably less informative and less supportive than the many comments of mine deleted by Dan at his blog. There is currently another example of Dan's fascism at his blog wherein what he demands has been provided and then deleted rather than addressed directly. Worse, among his many lame excuses is the bias of my sources, while he provides less compelling evidence for his claims from sources every bit as biased. But I will no longer waste time and effort to fulfill his demands there. His blog is for mocking him, as despite his claims, he's not interested in nor clearly not capable of adult conversation. We can see that above.
"The answer is... we might try different things through NVDA. BUT one thing we would not do is choose to deliberately target and slaughter hundreds of thousands of men women and children. Period. That's off the table. That is a non starter for us. Not for you, but for us."
That's not an answer. The reality is that even if NVDA would have worked on the scale and with the realities in the PTO, it would have dragged out much longer than August of '45, with the result of thousands of additional deaths, human experiments, women forced into sex slavery, oppression, murder, and the like. The difference isn't in killing people, it's just a matter of who kills them. You're simply advocating for allowing people to be killed/oppressed by others while trying to reason with people who's sense of honor and code of Bushido wouldn't have taken NVDA seriously. I will say that if you and your NVDA advocates wanted to gain some credibility, you'd actually go into situations where you risked life and limb to demonstrate the effectiveness of your hunches.
No, I wouldn't ask those idiotic and pointless questions, because they are stupid and a waste of time.
I did however ask a number of actual questions, and you've chose not to answer those questions. Instead you've offered steaming piles of bullshit.
Let me give this a try:
1. The solutions to preventing oppression and war and deadly terrorist actions are not simple or as easy as giving a one paragraph answer.
Agree?
2. When one is considering how best to deal with oppression/acts of war/deadly threats, it is helpful to have guidelines about how best to deal with it. What are the things we will and won't do in order to fight against violence? This is a reasonable set of guidelines to have in place ahead of time.
Agree, or not?
3. There are SOME acts that probably you and I can agree that THIS is something we would not do to try to fight violence. For instance, I suspect that we can agree that, no matter what happens, we will not rape women - nor ENDORSE raping women - as a violence-fighting technique.
Agree, or not?
4. Do we agree that we will not deliberately target children specifically to terrorize our enemy/the violent threat into surrender?
I would not ever do that. No matter what. Would you?
4a. But what if someone says, "IF we just threaten to kill their children - and be willing to do it - THEN that will end the violence. That is, IF we say - and ACT UPON the threat - that we will kill 100 of the children of the violent threat to force them to surrender, they will. If not with the threat, then with the actual killing of those children. And doing so will "likely" save 10,000 deaths from fighting later on..."? Will we say, Yes, in that situation, I'd be willing to kill 100 children of the enemy.
I would not and I don't think you would, but you tell me.
5. Not only would I not specifically threaten - and kill - 100 enemy children deliberately and specifically to potentially save 10,000 lives, NOR would I take actions that can predictably be known to kill 100,000 men women and children in order to save potentially 1 million on both sides.
Would you?
I think it's vital for moral people interested in justice to be abundantly clear about what things we will and won't do in order to fight oppression.
Do you agree? It sounds like you don't think that's a question worth considering or answering. I do. You tell me.
Craig: Craig... "Given the reality as outlined above, how does NVDA end the war in the Pacific?"
Dan: The answer is... we might try different things through NVDA. BUT one thing we would not do is choose to deliberately target and slaughter hundreds of thousands of men women and children. Period. That's off the table. That is a non starter for us. Not for you, but for us.
Craig: That's not an answer.
If the question is: What can we do to prevent deadly threats of violence... should NVDA be one of the options? THEN thinking about what lines we will and won't cross IS part of the answer.
How is it not?
Seriously: You DO want to find the most just, most effective, most moral answers to problems like oppression and threats of violence, do you not? I believe in you. I think you do support the most moral, loving, just and peaceful answers that can be found. Right?
Then why is considering what we will and won't do in order to prevent it one reasonable starting point?
Marshal... "The problem with discussing Biblical truths with Dan is that when the topic are those like slavery and "forced" marriages, he ignores all the context, the details, all the scholarship from theologians which explain exactly what was going on, how it differed from what went before it and how those situations were improvements "
What am I ignoring? That killing an enemy female is what might happen in other cultures at the time and that "only" forcibly wedding them is a less evil option (some might argue)? I'm not ignoring that. Killing would ALSO be a great wrong. And so is forcing them into marriage.
How is that not the morally correct answer? How is that contrary to biblical truths. Are you arguing that "the Bible" makes an argument that sometimes forcing women into weddings (ie, raping them) is a moral option?
Really?
You think God thinks that?
You think that would be okay if it were someone you loved?
Come on.
Craig... "I did however ask a number of actual questions, and you've chose not to answer those questions. Instead you've offered steaming piles of bullshit."
And I'm getting to them, but if we want to tackle big complex adult problems like war and peace, I can't give you an answer on a bumper sticker. We have to use our reason and our moral understanding and start with a desire for rational justice.
Do you think I can give you an answer to something as big as this on a bumper sticker?
"If you can read this, thank a soldier" is fine for a shallow little slice at something as complex as oppression and war, but it's not full measured adult reasoning.
Craig... " I wouldn't ask those idiotic and pointless questions, because they are stupid and a waste of time."
You can't really believe that. Come on.
Marshal... "As I've stated earlier, we need to see EXACTLY how methods employed by these NVDA people made a direct difference...a difference that is tangible and unmistakably the result of their efforts. "
Wow. The degree of disdain and childish mocking of attempts to be moral, just and peaceable is amazing here. Y'all can do better than this. Dig deeper.
Craig... "The reality is that even if NVDA would have worked on the scale and with the realities in the PTO, it would have dragged out much longer than August of '45, with the result of thousands of additional deaths, human experiments, women forced into sex slavery, oppression, murder, and the like."
That's a guess, not a reality. We can't know what effects more serious attempts at NVDA and a commitment to only acting with moral, just guidelines would have had because we didn't try them, did we?
You can say, "We THINK this might have resulted in more deaths..." but you can't say it's the reality.
The REALITY is what we know: That the US deliberately chose to target and kill and maim hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Begin with acknowledging reality before moving to your estimates and best guesses.
Can you acknowledge that this is the reality of what we chose to do?
Glenn... " The point is that you rail about slavery in the USA yet never say boo about everywhere else or about who does the selling of their own people into slavery."
? I've always been quite clear, Glenn. Slavery is a great evil. One person owning another person and forcing them into labor (or sexual acts) IS ALWAYS EVIL.
That isn't saying anything about the great evil that the US engaged in alone. It's a condemnation of SLAVERY, regardless. I've been quite clear that I think that such slavery is always evil.
Do you agree or not?
Glenn... "I did NOT defend slavery in the USA; you really need to learn to read."??
?? Again, where did I say that? Can you admit that I didn't say this? That I'm clearly and unequivocally condemning SLAVERY in all instances, including the evil that the US engaged in.
Can you agree to that, as well? OR, do you think there are SOME instances of forced slavery, forced labor and forced sexual activity that are NOT evil?
Glenn... "Perverts almost always suffer abuse because of their own actions, and THAT was what was said; I said nothing about abuse women suffer."
If that were true, you would be pummelled nearly to death and then dragged behind a car until you died, because this attack on gay folk IS a perversion of decency and morality.
Craig, here's your chance. Save yourself.
Tell Glenn that the victims of perverts like him who defend abusing and molesting LGBTQ folk "because of their own actions" is, itself, a great evil perversion.
Save yourself. Take a stand for Godly decency.
Marshal... "They are bullying because perversion is even offensive to bullies."
Wow. And THAT is why decent, moral people concerned about justice have oftentimes abandoned church and religion, as you all present yourselves as monsters who defend the greatest perversions and indecencies possible.
Craig, save yourself. Condemn this. Take a stand for God's justice and just basic human decency.
Save your soul.
Which side will you be on, son?
Glenn... "I love how TRABUE redefines slavery so as NOT to include POWs being forced to work."
I'm sorry... are you saying that nations like the US are engaged in SLAVERY when they capture POWs?
Are you saying that it would be okay if, after the war is over, that these POWs were then sold to US citizens and forced into labor? Into sexual activity?
How evil are you?
No. I'm not redefining slavery. Slavery is not the same as POWs. It's just legally, literally not. You recognize that reality, don't you? You recognize that POWs must be released at the end of a war and to sell them off to people for slave or sex labor (ie, actual slavery) would be a war crime and a great evil?
How far will you go to defend at least SOME rape and slavery?
At the very least, do you recognize how it sounds like you are defending rape and slavery to probably most of the rational, moral world?
The definition of POWs and how it's NOT the same as slavery:
"In primitive times, the captured warriors were considered the personal property of the captor and were forced into slavery..."
https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/history-legal-status-pows.htm
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-slavery-and-prisoners-of-war
The notion of enslaving POWs (ie, for life) is, literally, primitive and not moral. Can you agree with this?
Craig... "I have a problem with any local church who believes that they are the "last hope", whether it's your little church in a small southern city, or a 15,000+ thousand member mega church in the NW. It's simply an absurd claim."
1. It's not a claim we have made. To say that we have made this claim is, itself, an absurd claim. Do you understand that it's a false claim to say that we have made this claim about ourselves?
2. The point, which you're missing, is that it's SO EXTREMELY RARE and unusual for a church to actually be kind and loving and accepting to LGBTQ folk and others who are outsiders, that when a church (and we're not the only one) IS kind, loving and accepting and welcoming... that it's actually amazing to people. It is hard for many people today to understand that churches like ours exist.
That is not in praise of our little church. It's a devastating condemnation of American Christianity (and beyond the US, as well). Do you understand that THIS is the point of that claim by people when they say it?
Craig... "Given all of those realities, isn't it rational to assign the blame (or at least a significant amount of it) for the use of nuclear weapons to the Japanese leadership? Was not the ability to forestall the use of nuclear weapons totally in the hands of the Japanese?"
1. Well, ultimately, it was literally in the hands of the US. You understand that, right? The US had the option to choose to target and kill hundreds of thousands of men women and children or NOT to do so and they chose to do so. That is the literal reality. You understand that, right?
2. Japan certainly had blame in this war. They and the US and the other nations involved all engaged in acts of violence AND they (we) all engaged in acts of violence that we knew would kill innocent civilians. I have not said otherwise. You recognize that reality?
3. Who should we assign "a significant amount" of blame for the attack on Pearl Harbor? The Japanese. Who should we assign "a significant amount" of blame for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US. We are each responsible for our own actions, are we not?
4. It's interesting how you want to defend the US for targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children because the Japanese provoked them, and yet, you want to blame the looters and rioters (at least the ones who were black and allies of BLM) for their own actions, even though those actions did not result in targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Do you see the irony there?
"1. Well, ultimately, it was literally in the hands of the US. You understand that, right? The US had the option to choose to target and kill hundreds of thousands of men women and children or NOT to do so and they chose to do so. That is the literal reality. You understand that, right?"
Actually no it wasn't. The decision was made/supported by all of the allied nations. Yes, the US could have chosen a different path, that would have likely ended up with more "innocent" people dying.
"2. Japan certainly had blame in this war. They and the US and the other nations involved all engaged in acts of violence AND they (we) all engaged in acts of violence that we knew would kill innocent civilians. I have not said otherwise. You recognize that reality?"
Really, you are really going to deny the history of Japanese aggression, oppression, enslavement, rape, murder, and sex slavery, that started years before Dec of 1941? Really? Yes, I recognize the reality that you are choosing to take one specific act (use of nuclear weapons) out of the context of the prior actions of the Japanese, the actual words of their leadership, and ignore the reality that they wanted to inflict millions of casualties on both their own subjects and on the allies.
"3. Who should we assign "a significant amount" of blame for the attack on Pearl Harbor? The Japanese. Who should we assign "a significant amount" of blame for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US. We are each responsible for our own actions, are we not?"
Again, your willingness to ignore the context is stunning. The fact that you somehow think that the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 is unrelated to Japanese actions between 1931 and August of 1945 is simply beyond ignorance. As I pointed out, the Japanese had multiple options to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, and the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ample warning that they should leave before the bombs were dropped, are you suggesting that they have no responsibility? The Japanese could have prevented the second bombing, but intentionally chose not to, but you absolve them of responsibility, interesting. Clearly context doesn't matter when your narrative is at stake.
'4. It's interesting how you want to defend the US for targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children because the Japanese provoked them, and yet, you want to blame the looters and rioters (at least the ones who were black and allies of BLM) for their own actions, even though those actions did not result in targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Do you see the irony there?"
No irony at all. The Japanese chose a course of action starting in 1931 that inexorably led to the use of nuclear weapons. They slaughtered, oppressed, enslaved, raped, and prostituted millions of innocent men, women, and children. They chose to place their conception of "honor" above the well being of their subjects. The looters and rioters chose to move away from peaceful protests and engage in wanton destruction of parts of cities mostly populated with innocent men, women, and children who were mostly POC and immigrants. They willingly and consciously made those choices, and are responsible for both the choices and the consequences of those choices.
I'll note that you're continuing to make up bullshit and attribute it to me as if it actually represents me or anything I've said. If you're going to do this, then prove your claims. I'll also note that you've chosen to ignore significant aspect of the leftist history of rioting, looting, and destruction in pursuit of political gain, again context must not matter very much when your narrative is at risk.
"1. It's not a claim we have made. To say that we have made this claim is, itself, an absurd claim. Do you understand that it's a false claim to say that we have made this claim about ourselves?"
Hey, you're the one who brought it up, you must have had some reason to have done so. I'm just responding to your hubris.
"2. The point, which you're missing, is that it's SO EXTREMELY RARE and unusual for a church to actually be kind and loving and accepting to LGBTQ folk and others who are outsiders, that when a church (and we're not the only one) IS kind, loving and accepting and welcoming... that it's actually amazing to people. It is hard for many people today to understand that churches like ours exist. That is not in praise of our little church. It's a devastating condemnation of American Christianity (and beyond the US, as well). Do you understand that THIS is the point of that claim by people when they say it?"
That's another bizarre claim. Hell I can't swing a dead cat up here without hitting a church that isn't trumpeting the fact that they'll include anybody. Rainbow flags at churches up here are more common that snow. So, no I don't understand how your claim that something as common as what you describe merits special acclaim.
Hell, my church (which you'd denigrate as ultra conservative and all sorts of things will welcome and show God's love to anyone who walks through the door.
"That's a guess, not a reality."
No, it's more than a guess. Given your inability to provide any proof that NVDA has ever worked to provide a long term solution to a problem the size and scope of the PTO, makes it extremely unlikely that you're hunch is realistic in any way.
"We can't know what effects more serious attempts at NVDA and a commitment to only acting with moral, just guidelines would have had because we didn't try them, did we?"
Why not? Where were the proto SJW's in 1931 when the Japanese started to conquer China? Where were the Anabaptists when the Japanese started to oppress, enslave, kill, rape and prostitute that people of China, Korea, etc? Why can't you acknowledge that the actions of the Japanese from 1931-1945 were heinous, evil, depraved, vile, and completely unacceptable? Where is your criticism of the Japanese oppression, murder, rape, enslavement, prostitution, and engaging in human experimentation of innocent men women and children for more than a decade? You do realize that in your zeal to condemn one action (taken out of context) you are effectively defending 14+ years of Japanese oppression, enslavement, rape, murder etc of millions of innocent people, don't you?
"You can say, "We THINK this might have resulted in more deaths..." but you can't say it's the reality. The REALITY is what we know: That the US deliberately chose to target and kill and maim hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Begin with acknowledging reality before moving to your estimates and best guesses. Can you acknowledge that this is the reality of what we chose to do?"
The reality, you idiot is that the Japanese deliberately chose to target millions of innocent men, women, and children for more than a decade. They didn't give them the ability to avoid anything. They showed absolutely zero concern for those they conquered and oppressed. The Japanese chose to ignore the warnings they were given, they chose to place legitimate military targets in areas of dense civilian population. But none of that context matters because you are on a crusade to vilify the choices made decades ago because they don't meet your standards, and to ignore the reality of the position of the Japanese, and of the number of casualties that would have resulted from any of the other option I've mentioned. You also haven't (so far as I can tell) explained which option fits your 21st century sensibilities.
Estimates of the number of innocents killed by the Japanese between 1931-1945 range from 3-14 million by one source. Unlike that Germans who kept precise records of the millions they slaughtered, the Japanese didn't keep track of the millions left dead or damaged in their quest for power.
"You can't really believe that. Come on."
Idiotic and pointless were the nicest things I could say.
" You can't really believe that. Come on."
No. Of course you could have figured this out by noting the fact that I never asked you for a "bumper sticker" answer. But anything that keeps you from actually answering the questions long enough for you to play the "I can't remember what they were because it was so long ago." card just works to your advantage.
I'll note that unlike some people who quote the specific question, then write the specific answer, you tend to just ramble on vaguely so no one really know if you're answering a question or what question you're answering.
That's technically an answer, but it doesn't really provide any specifics of how y'all would do anything, just an assertion about what you wouldn't do. Which really isn't an answer at all.
"If the question is: What can we do to prevent deadly threats of violence... should NVDA be one of the options?"
No, that's not the question. The questing was (given when we know about the Japanese actions and attitudes) what specific measures would NVDA engage in to have ended the war in the PTO before 8/45, or to have engaged with Japan in 1931 to have stopped their 14 year reign of terror, oppression, slavery, rape, death, and destruction?
You making up questions doesn't really help.
"THEN thinking about what lines we will and won't cross IS part of the answer. How is it not?"
I'm confused, why would you offer a partial answer as if it's the entire answer? Why would you just leave it hanging after a partial answer?
"Seriously: You DO want to find the most just, most effective, most moral answers to problems like oppression and threats of violence, do you not? I believe in you. I think you do support the most moral, loving, just and peaceful answers that can be found. Right? Then why is considering what we will and won't do in order to prevent it one reasonable starting point?"
Yes I do, unlike you I acknowledge that there are some things that are so evil that any possible means might be considered in order to stop the evil. Also, unlike you, as the leaders of the US/GB etc decided it was their responsibility to prioritize the protection of their citizens. They did so because that is what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately the Japanese didn't really give a shit about their subjects or those they conquered. But, that's just context.
"1. The solutions to preventing oppression and war and deadly terrorist actions are not simple or as easy as giving a one paragraph answer. Agree?"
I agree, but since I've never even suggested restricting you to a "one paragraph" or "bumper sticker" answer this bullet point is completely irrelevant other than as a way to avoid actually answering the entirety of the questions asked.
"2. When one is considering how best to deal with oppression/acts of war/deadly threats, it is helpful to have guidelines about how best to deal with it. What are the things we will and won't do in order to fight against violence? This is a reasonable set of guidelines to have in place ahead of time. Agree, or not?"
Since I just dealt with this repetitive bullshit, I'll refer you to that.
"3. There are SOME acts that probably you and I can agree that THIS is something we would not do to try to fight violence. For instance, I suspect that we can agree that, no matter what happens, we will not rape women - nor ENDORSE raping women - as a violence-fighting technique. Agree, or not?"
Yes, I personally would agree with your hunch. I'm curious as to who specifically is suggesting that rape is an appropriate means to stop violence? I would suspect that the Japanese (in this context) probably thought that raping women and placing them in sex slavery WAS a pretty good way to stop violence against them. It certainly seems reasonable that someone who doesn't value human life highly might conclude that imposing a "reign of terror" would prevent violence against the conquerors. Given the Japanese treatment of, and attitude towards, those they conquered it seems reasonable to conclude that they thought that rape, torture, murder, and slavery, would be effective in protecting them from violence. The problem is that those sorts of tactics only work until you come up against someone who's stronger than you.
"4. Do we agree that we will not deliberately target children specifically to terrorize our enemy/the violent threat into surrender? I would not ever do that. No matter what. Would you?"
What you or I might or might not do is irrelevant to the question I asked. Explaining what you would NOT do, isn't explaining what you would do. FYI, I addressed this in a previous comment but thanks for asking it for the third time.
"4a. But what if someone says, "IF we just threaten to kill their children - and be willing to do it - THEN that will end the violence. That is, IF we say - and ACT UPON the threat - that we will kill 100 of the children of the violent threat to force them to surrender, they will. If not with the threat, then with the actual killing of those children. And doing so will "likely" save 10,000 deaths from fighting later on..."? Will we say, Yes, in that situation, I'd be willing to kill 100 children of the enemy. I would not and I don't think you would, but you tell me."
The further you go into these wild hypothetical simply leads me to believe that you can't answer the "what would you have done" question. That you'd rather waste time on repeating different versions of what you wouldn't do. Look, I understand that you don't have a positive "what would have worked" answer and that it's easier to waste time on this bullshit. Again, I've already addressed this earlier. Simply rewording the same thing is stupid and a waste of my time.
"5. Not only would I not specifically threaten - and kill - 100 enemy children deliberately and specifically to potentially save 10,000 lives, NOR would I take actions that can predictably be known to kill 100,000 men women and children in order to save potentially 1 million on both sides."
It appears that you are saying that you would stand by and watch 10,000 people die so as to save 100. What a strange way to protect lives.
"Would you?"
Good lord, again. There are things that are so evil that stopping them might require engaging in actions that are extraordinary. Because the alternative is worse.
"I think it's vital for moral people interested in justice to be abundantly clear about what things we will and won't do in order to fight oppression. Do you agree? It sounds like you don't think that's a question worth considering or answering. I do. You tell me."
What I think about your question is immaterial. The reality is that you've (at best" given a partial answer to a question asked, then wasted a bunch of time arguing with yourself about a question you decided is more important than the question you're (partly) avoiding.
I don't care about you trying to retroactively apply your hunches to the past. I don;t care that you ignore the context. I don't care that you are willing to allow evil to flourish in order to protect hypothetical innocent lives. I don't care that you are unwilling to acknowledge that millions of dead innocent people, the decade plus of oppression, the human experimentation, the torture, the beheadings, and the slavery that the Japanese inflicted on millions of innocent people.
If you can't or won't finish your answer to the question, just say so now and stop this torture.
Craig... "it doesn't really provide any specifics of how y'all would do anything, just an assertion about what you wouldn't do. Which really isn't an answer at all."
But of course, it is. IF it is known that we WON'T do certain things... that unlike you, we would not eat babies or rape women to win a war... then that informs the "enemy" about us and it also informs potential allies. This is a foundational point to NVDA. You win people over by taking the higher moral ground as a starting point.
If black folk and their allies in the South had responded to the racists attacking them with their own attacks, it would have muddied the waters. But instead, people around the country and world SAW mean-spirited, hateful white people responding in a vulgar violent manner to peaceful protesters and THAT STAND is part of what turned the tide against white people in the south.
You know this, right?
Craig... "It appears that you are saying that you would stand by and watch 10,000 people die so as to save 100. What a strange way to protect lives. "
No. I NEVER said that. I was quite clear. I said I would not rape 100 women (or any women) in an attempt to save 10,000 people be killed. I would not target and kill 100 children in an effort to save 10,000 people. I would take other actions, but I would not engage in evil.
So, while it does NOT appear that I'm saying I would "stand by and watch 10,000 people die," it DOES appear that you're willing to rape or kill children or whatever it takes to try to save 10,000 people... and that may or may not work, either.
So, UNTIL YOU make it clear that you would NOT deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to fight violence... you've not really provided any compelling case for your violence argument. You appear to be quite clear that you are fine with the deliberate targeting of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, you being concerned about me "not taking actions" when I never said that are not an especially rational or moral or decent starting point for you.
Tell Glenn that the victims of perverts like him who defend abusing and molesting LGBTQ folk "because of their own actions" is, itself, a great evil perversion.
I'm not a pervert but you obviously are because you defend sexual perversion.
You liar, I did NOT defend "abusing and molesting LGBTQ folk." I only stated that they are usually the cause of their being abused. People don't like hearing about others' sex lives, people don't want the LGBTQ agenda being thrown in their faces, people don't like being told they have to go against their own beliefs as they are forced to make special bakery/floral items for fake weddings, etc. While most of us will just walk away or ignore or even ask them to shut up, there are some who will not tolerate being told they have to accept sexual perversion.
Dan wrote in a comment directed at Glenn: "And what is it with you all that you feel the need to endlessly defend the US, even when we're talking about oppression, slavery,"
Dan citing Glenn "I did NOT defend slavery in the USA; you really need to learn to read."
Dan responding to Glenn ?? Again, where did I say that? Can you admit that I didn't say this?
Glenn said: "I love how TRABUE redefines slavery so as NOT to include POWs being forced to work."
Dan responds: "I'm sorry... are you saying that nations like the US are engaged in SLAVERY when they capture POWs? Are you saying that it would be okay if, after the war is over, that these POWs were then sold to US citizens and forced into labor? Into sexual activity?
WOW, talk about eisegesis! I never even hinted that taking POWs makes captors being engaged in slavery. My point, which I think anyone not quick to jump to conclusions would understand, is that countries taking POWs (as in the Old Testament, and even in the USA during WWII) will force some POWs to work (in the USA we had Germans working farms). Being captured and then forced to work sure fits the meaning of slavery in my book, regardless of whether it is intitutionalize slavery. So I really don't have a problem with the German POWs in WWII being forced to work because we were short of our men to do the jobs since they were fighting the Germans! And I never even hinted that it would be for life; you do know that being a slave doesn't have to be for a lifetime, don't you? And the use for sexual activity wasn't even hinted at. And I never even hinted that POW and slavery were the same! The rest of your comments regarding POWs and slavery are too stupid to respond to. You are about as stupid and ignorant as it gets.
Dan How far will you go to defend at least SOME rape and slavery? At the very least, do you recognize how it sounds like you are defending rape and slavery to probably most of the rational, moral world?
Again, I never even hinted at any defense of rape. I only stated that forced marriages were not rape (O.T., among European royalty, et al). The only people who would think that I believed as you stated are irrational and stupid and unable to comprehend what they read -- just like you!
I will note that while you're being cagey, vague and not committing to direct clear answers to what seem to be incredibly simple and obvious questions, you appear to be saying that, NO, you would NOT rape 100 women to save 10,000 lives. That would not be a line you'd be willing to cross. And I don't believe you would.
BUT, at the same time, you appear to be saying that YES, it IS an acceptable (moral?) choice to deliberately target men, women and children in the hundreds of thousands for deliberate murder. What would be considered a heinous war crime, in most circumstances and if committed by other people against us.
The question - one reasonable question that should be considered if we're serious about trying to find moral responses to deadly threats - is WHY? Why would you not be willing to rape 100 women to save 10,000 lives, but you are willing to target innocent children for mass murder, maiming and devastation? I THINK what you're saying is that you believed that targeting civilians for mass murder would be an effective way to force the end of the war and that raping 100 women would NOT be an effective way to end the war.
Is that right?
And if so, then how is this not a rather gross reductionist utilitarian argument of morality? That rape or mass murder of children is not, in and of itself a gross evil, but one possible tool (that should be avoided, to be sure, but still, it's in the tool box) to effectively end a war and, in THAT situation, rape or murdering innocents is not evil. In fact, it's a moral good. Because what would happen if we DIDN'T embrace that rape/mass murder would be worse.
At the very least, do you see the rational, moral problems with this thinking?
You'd have some credibility if you could at least acknowledge, "Yes, I realize this is a horrible moral choice to make... I'm not willing to call it moral at all... it would be a great and terrible evil... it's just that it's a lesser evil. But we must be sure that it WOULD be an evil action to take."
Can you acknowledge that?
And rest assured, all of this IS part of the answer to your questions.
Dan asks, "what am I ignoring?" After it was already spelled out in the very quote his posted to which he responded with this absurd question. He goes on to ask the same moronic questions which continue to stand as evidence that he's ignoring all I listed in the quote. He does so with the very same perversions of what Scripture presents regarding the question of taking a bride from among those captured after a battle. He ignores the times while pretending he's morally superior to God and His mandates for how the people of those times should behave, compared to how the whole world normally behaved and pretends he can't see the improvement. Apparently Dan believes God should have just left the Israelite soldiers to rape with impunity the women captured in battle, rather than to, as He did elsewhere with regard to other issues, incrementally bring them to what He wanted all along. Dan always knows better than God. This from a "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture!
In Dan's next comment, he goes on to ignore the actual response in order to frame the conversation only in terms of "gay" being beaten for being "gay". That's not at all to what any of us have responded. We've never so much as hinted at approving anything even resembling that. But the alleged suffering of "gays" is nonetheless the result of their own actions, even in the context of severe beatings by bullies. Indeed, Dan's words suggest to some extent bullies who beat "gays" beat no one else. The issue here, then, would be dealing with bullying, not with the victims. End bullying and there would be no victims of bullying, "gay" or not.
But at the same time, that wasn't at all the alpha and omega of Dan's blatherings about the suffering of "gay" people. Being rejected by family and church is without question the result of "gay" people refusing to reject their desires as the sinful desires they are. They want to insist they should be allowed their compulsions and family and church should just deal with it without objection. Bullshit. Only fake Christians tolerate open sinfulness and immorality. God doesn't, and He doesn't demand that anyone else do so, either. So real Christians don't. Too bad for the "suffering" of "gays" who then choose to decide the problem is with the church, not their own immoral selves.
Craig... "There are things that are so evil that stopping them might require engaging in actions that are extraordinary. Because the alternative is worse."
So, let me try to understand. Help me understand. We both agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a great evil.
Right?
The reason to use violence against a Nazi Germany or a Japan is to try to DEFEAT that sort of evil.
Right?
And you and I agree that, while normally, it's wrong to steal carburetor/disable someone else's car is wrong... to take that action against Nazis chasing an innocent family, that this is a MORAL action, in that instance.
Right?
And you are positing, I think, that IF we think that deliberately targeting and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children will ultimately save, say, 1 million lives, then it's just a math equation... Choosing to deliberately kill all those innocent civilians on purpose is a MORAL and reasonable option to save even more people? Is that what you're suggesting?
OR, are you at least allowing that murdering all those people was a great evil - actual evil/wrong/atrocity - but that it was, in your estimation, a lesser evil than not doing so?
Next, Dan again takes my words and intentional perverts the meaning...progressives being all about perversion. He lies about what my words conveyed. I never said those who bully "gays" are Christians, church members or anything else. I only stated that bullies are offended by the clear and unambiguous perversion of homosexuality. They simply use that as an excuse to mistreat people. I certainly never condoned it or suggested such behavior should be tolerated, but it takes a lying POS like Dan to force that meaning into my words so as to legitimize his illegitimate claim to have the moral high ground on the issue of the perversion of the LGBT community. It won't work. Dan mocks God with impunity by his championing that community as sad, innocent, angelic victims of oppression simply because honest people acknowledge the immorality inherent in their positions and agenda.
Next, Dan purposely lies about what Glenn is saying. No, Dan, you lying fake Christian. Glenn is not in the least suggesting that POW's should be sold into slavery after a conflict ends. Nothing...NOTHING in Glenn's comments so much as hints at such a thing. But again, you need to frame the words of your opponents in the worst possible light so as to force vile meaning as if it makes you look moral. It doesn't. It proves you're a liar willing to lie at any moment for any reason.
The point Dan pretends he doesn't see, because he needs to make Glenn out to be some twisted demon Dan himself is, is that POWs...and incarcerated felons as well...are often made to perform tasks against their will. So, for that time they are incarcerated, they are as slaves. They've been taken without their consent, just as a slave is. This point wasn't so ambiguous as to provoke the inane, insulting and vile questions Dan is so eager to ask. And Dan doesn't fail to invoke "rape" as well, because, "let's make Glenn's position out to be a evil as we can, because we progressives are honest, moral people who 'embrace grace'."
Then this asshat dares appeal to Craig to save himself! Amazing!
Next he goes on to defend his little fake Christian congregation and the labeling of it by "gay" as the "last hope". There's no hope for "gay" in churches which fail to encourage them to repent of their immoral lives. None. It's a lie to suggest to them they can live anyway they like and have actual hope of eternity with God. God disagrees.
Few who pay attention are unaware these heretical, apostate "churches" exist. It takes a liar like Dan and his little storefront church to dare suggest there's a problem with American Christian churches who have the unmitigated audacity to believe in the Word of God. Dan's doesn't. They reject God and invent a replacement who just happens to agree with their worldview. Good luck with that.
"Parents of the United States of America...what could be more important to us, more cherished, than our children. But their lives are now at great risk by our enemies. The sad fact is that we've exhausted all strategies to end this conflict, from NVDA...which, damn it, should've worked...to all out war. We are left with only one remaining option, which is to target every child of our enemy in order to protect the lives of our own. That's a line we won't cross, so kiss your kids goodbye."
President Dan "Embrace Grace" Trabue
Craig... "I don't care about you trying to retroactively apply your hunches to the past."
Nor I, you.
But thinking about how best to fight oppression while maintaining a moral, just stance that doesn't devolve into the very oppression we're fighting IS a concern of mine. Hopefully, for you, as well. I suspect it is.
"Nor I, you."
That's bizarre, everything I've offered for you to provide alternatives to are the actual reasons/options that were part of the decision making process in 1945. You haven't actually offered anything at all related to what you WOULD have done or suggested, just a lot of blather abut what you wouldn't do. Until you actually offer alternatives and explain what was wrong with the alternatives discussed in 1945, I don't see any point in indulging your fantasies.
"But thinking about how best to fight oppression while maintaining a moral, just stance that doesn't devolve into the very oppression we're fighting IS a concern of mine. Hopefully, for you, as well. I suspect it is."
That's special. When will you be addressing the specifics of how that would have played out in the PTO between 1931-45, and provide your alternatives to the ones given?
I'm sorry that my clear,repeated. unambiguous statement, was so confusing to you. Hopefully once we get past this current round of delay and obfuscation, you'll actually answer the questions as asked, and detail what you would have done that would have worked better.
"We both agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a great evil. Right?"
No. The motive, context, and goals matter.
"The reason to use violence against a Nazi Germany or a Japan is to try to DEFEAT that sort of evil. Right?"
Yes. Because allowing evil to expand unchecked is a problem. Do you not agree that evil should be checked as quickly and effectively as possible?
"And you and I agree that, while normally, it's wrong to steal carburetor/disable someone else's car is wrong... to take that action against Nazis chasing an innocent family, that this is a MORAL action, in that instance. Right?"
No. Not that this has any bearing on this topic or on you providing your better options as contrasted to the options that were discussed in 1945.
"And you are positing, I think, that IF we think that deliberately targeting and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children will ultimately save, say, 1 million lives, then it's just a math equation... Choosing to deliberately kill all those innocent civilians on purpose is a MORAL and reasonable option to save even more people?"
No. I'm suggesting that under every scenario that the allies discussed in the period between Okinawa and the potential invasion of Japan resulted in more death, suffering and destruction than the use of nuclear weapons. I'm suggesting that Japan had the ability to forestall the use of nuclear weapons, and intentionally chose not to. I'm suggesting that the Japanese leadership welcomed an invasion of the home islands, the decimation of their subjects, the destruction of their country, and the cost it would have inflicted on the allies. I'm suggesting that you haven't offered any alternatives where NVDA would have been a better option. I'm suggesting that you haven't offered any options because you don't have any and because you'll drag this idiotic bullshit out until you can complain that you don't know what you were supposed to answer, or until you can justify your faux outrage and run away.
"Is that what you're suggesting? OR, are you at least allowing that murdering all those people was a great evil - actual evil/wrong/atrocity - but that it was, in your estimation, a lesser evil than not doing so?"
No.
Craig... "Do you not agree that evil should be checked as quickly and effectively as possible?"
I believe that whatever actions we take against oppression - and we should take action - must also be moral and just and rational, as well.
I'm guessing you say that it's OK to forget moral and just and it just needs to be effective and quick?
That's where I think we run into problems. But please, be clear. Do you think we should set aside morality and Justice and just go for effective and quick? Or should our actions also be moral and just?
"I will note that while you're being cagey, vague and not committing to direct clear answers to what seem to be incredibly simple and obvious questions, you appear to be saying that, NO, you would NOT rape 100 women to save 10,000 lives."
Not at all, I'm choosing not to waste time on your idiotic hypotheticals and to try to finally get an answer from you regarding how NVDA would have been a better response to the alternatives that the allies were faced with.
"That would not be a line you'd be willing to cross. And I don't believe you would. BUT, at the same time, you appear to be saying that YES, it IS an acceptable (moral?) choice to deliberately target men, women and children in the hundreds of thousands for deliberate murder."
1. No, you are incorrect. What I personally would or wouldn't do isn't the issue.
2. I'm still waiting for your NVDA specifics that are better/more effective than the alternatives that faced the allies in the summer of 1945.
3. I'm waiting for you to acknowledge the context of the decision, not to try to make the decision to use nuclear weapons into some out of context hypothetical.
"What would be considered a heinous war crime, in most circumstances and if committed by other people against us. The question - one reasonable question that should be considered if we're serious about trying to find moral responses to deadly threats - is WHY?"
Excellent, asking more questions when you haven't answered the original questions I've asked. (Although you do claim PART of an answer, you still haven't offered one single thing thing that you would have done, nor finished the answer).
I'm curious, who said that the allies between 1939-45 were primarily concerned about finding the most "moral" answers to stop the great tide of evil that was sweeping across the globe? Why wouldn't they have been focused on the most effective options? What is the most "moral" answers resulted in the deaths at the hands of the axis of another 10 million innocents? What about 20 million? What if the choices made in the ETO prevented the Germans from developing nuclear weapons and vaporizing the entire country of England? By what objective standard (that would be recognized and accepted by the NAZIs, and the Japanese) are you using to determine what is "moral" and what isn't? Isn't it moral to take the life of an evildoer in defense of the innocent?
"Why would you not be willing to rape 100 women to save 10,000 lives, but you are willing to target innocent children for mass murder, maiming and devastation?"
Because it's a stupid hypothetical that adds nothing to the discussion. Why would you ignore the reality that the Japanese (in addition to the heinous acts I've already mentioned) engaged in the systematic rape of thousands of women over the course of 15 years. Do you really think that that kind of evil doesn't deserve to be stopped by any means necessary?
"I THINK what you're saying is that you believed that targeting civilians for mass murder would be an effective way to force the end of the war and that raping 100 women would NOT be an effective way to end the war. Is that right?"
No.
"And if so, then how is this not a rather gross reductionist utilitarian argument of morality?"
I don't know. What is wrong with basing morality on a utilitarian worldview? Are you really suggesting that the loss of over a million lives, and the destruction of Japan would have been a better option?
"That rape or mass murder of children is not, in and of itself a gross evil, but one possible tool (that should be avoided, to be sure, but still, it's in the tool box) to effectively end a war and, in THAT situation, rape or murdering innocents is not evil. In fact, it's a moral good. Because what would happen if we DIDN'T embrace that rape/mass murder would be worse. At the very least, do you see the rational, moral problems with this thinking?"
Since you aren't makiing any sense, then my answer is no. How about spending more time making a positive case for how NVDA would have provided a better, more effective, equally thorough, long lasting solution to an evil reign of terror that had already lasted almost 15 years and resulted in rape, slavery, torture, human experimentation, war crimes, starvation, forced prostitution, cold blooded murder, and the like. You do realizing that you are suggesting that the allies should have been nicer to the evil people who engaged in rape, slavery, torture, human experimentation, war crimes, starvation, forced prostitution, cold blooded murder, and the like, don't you?
"You'd have some credibility if you could at least acknowledge, "Yes, I realize this is a horrible moral choice to make... I'm not willing to call it moral at all... it would be a great and terrible evil... it's just that it's a lesser evil. But we must be sure that it WOULD be an evil action to take." Can you acknowledge that?"
Again, you trying to force/bully people into regurgitating words that you want to put in their mouths is a shitty tactic and is going to be counter productive. I'm not going to parrot your tripe, just to help you continue to obfuscate.
"And rest assured, all of this IS part of the answer to your questions."
Bullshit. Just don't forget the questions in this comment.
"I believe that whatever actions we take against oppression - and we should take action - must also be moral and just and rational, as well."
Oh my goodness, an actual answer.
"I'm guessing you say that it's OK to forget moral and just and it just needs to be effective and quick?"
Then stop guessing, it makes you look stupider than you do already.
"Do you think we should set aside morality and Justice and just go for effective and quick? Or should our actions also be moral and just?"
1. By what standard are you asserting the objective morality/justice of the actions of the allies in the PTO?
2. I would argue that ending evil (especially on the massive scale we saw between 1931-45 IS both moral and just.
3. Protecting those who've been enslaved, robbed, raped, tortured, experimented on, conquered, oppressed, and punishing those responsible for all that plus the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions is the very definition of just/moral.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong to punish evil as swiftly and effectively as possible? That evil should be allowed to continue until you come up with a way to stop it that is "moral" and "just"" enough for your 21st century liberal worldview?
Still absolutely zero examples of what you WOULD have done that would have been more effective, shorter, and as long lasting, with fewer casualties.
"No. I NEVER said that. I was quite clear."
No, you simply implied it.
"I would take other actions, but I would not engage in evil."
This is the fucking question you won't answer. Simply explain what "actions" you would take to save your hypothetical rape victims, and that would have ended the war in the PTO. It's not hard to spew this vague, bullshit, pablum. Be specific.
"So, while it does NOT appear that I'm saying I would "stand by and watch 10,000 people die," it DOES appear that you're willing to rape or kill children or whatever it takes to try to save 10,000 people... and that may or may not work, either."
No, you'd be wrong. But that's not new.
"So, UNTIL YOU make it clear that you would NOT deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to fight violence... you've not really provided any compelling case for your violence argument."
I'm not making a "violence" argument. I'm presenting the context and the options faced by the allies in 1945 that led to the decision to use nuclear weapons. The problem is that you won't engage with that reality, nor have you made ANY case for an NVDA alternative that would have been led to an outcome that would have been better. This attempt to obfuscate by trying to turn the discussion away from the reality of what actually happened, toward a hypothetical where it's all about what I personally would do, is simply absurd. The only redeeming factor for you, is that it keeps you from explaining what your alternatives would have been and what "actions" you would (or would have) engaged in.
"You appear to be quite clear that you are fine with the deliberate targeting of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, you being concerned about me "not taking actions" when I never said that are not an especially rational or moral or decent starting point for you."
I'm sorry that you are so addicted to making shit up and attributing it to me.
"But of course, it is. IF it is known that we WON'T do certain things... that unlike you, we would not eat babies or rape women to win a war... then that informs the "enemy" about us and it also informs potential allies."
Yes, it does give information to the enemy that they can use to their advantage. Excellent plan.
"This is a foundational point to NVDA. You win people over by taking the higher moral ground as a starting point."
Great, now that this is established, can we finally get to the specific of what "actions" would have been more effective in peacefully halting the evil that was Japan, and overcoming their stated desire to see their homeland destroyed and their subjects killed?
"If black folk and their allies in the South had responded to the racists attacking them with their own attacks, it would have muddied the waters."
Actually, the "black folk" (that sounds as condescending as darkies) did use force to defend themselves at times.
"But instead, people around the country and world SAW mean-spirited, hateful white people responding in a vulgar violent manner to peaceful protesters and THAT STAND is part of what turned the tide against white people in the south. You know this, right?"
Yeah, the armed federal troops had absolutely nothing to do with it right? It's amusing to see that you are so hung up on your one dimensional viewing of things to the exclusion of the context that doesn't fit the narrative.
FYI, the 600,000 union casualties had absolutely nothing to do with any of it either. Hell you and a few Quakers could have talked the slave owners out of that whole rebellion thing, in a couple of days.
Of course, since you won't explain how your miracle NVDA techniques would have applied to large armed conflicts, we'll never know.
Craig... "1. By what standard are you asserting the objective morality/justice of the actions of the allies in the PTO?"
Reason. Good old human reason. Since neither you nor I have an objective way to objectively PROVE that it's moral (or not moral) to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of innocents for death and maiming (but then, duh! OF COURSE, it's a great evil! Who argues otherwise??), then we need to use our moral reasoning. What would you do differently?
Craig... "2. I would argue that ending evil (especially on the massive scale we saw between 1931-45 IS both moral and just."
Well, it would depend on how you do it, wouldn't it? I mean, I THINK you've already agreed that you wouldn't rape women or eat children to "end evil" so I think perhaps you agree. Or are you an Ends justifies the means kind of guy?
As a side note: Of course, we didn't end evil... especially when we engaged in it to "win..." that war. IF we choose to fight evil WITH evil, then I'd say evil won, not goodness, humanity, decency or justice.
Craig... "3. Protecting those who've been enslaved, robbed, raped, tortured, experimented on, conquered, oppressed, and punishing those responsible for all that plus the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions is the very definition of just/moral."
?? ENGAGING IN torture, oppression and widespread terrorism and murder is NOT "protecting those who've been enslaved, robbed, etc..." Will you also enslave, rob, rape, torture and oppress to save people from slavery, robbing, rape, torture and oppression?
You've become the enemy when you use their evil tactics. How is that not factually obvious to you?
You can't even condemn killing hundreds of thousands of innocents as always a great evil... do you see what you've become? You've become a moral relativist... something that conservatives will often say the oppose. AND you've become a moral relativist to defend mass slaughter.
You see that, right? This is literally what you're doing, is it not?
Craig... "Why would you ignore the reality that the Japanese (in addition to the heinous acts I've already mentioned) engaged in the systematic rape of thousands of women over the course of 15 years. Do you really think that that kind of evil doesn't deserve to be stopped by any means necessary?"
I'm not ignoring anything. The widespread rape of women by Japan was a great evil. The less widespread rape - but still rape - of women in Europe by Allied soldiers was a great evil. Period. BOTH should be opposed.
I'm not ignoring the killing of innocents done by Germany or Japan. I'm saying killing innocent people is ALWAYS wrong. And that's why I am opposed to the US decided to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
The difference is: I'm being consistent. I'm ALWAYS opposed to deliberate harm of innocent people. YOU are saying that you can justify it in some cases. Hell, you can justify killing babies, children men and women in Hiroshima and you don't just justify it... you apparently think it was MORAL to do so!
Do you see the difficulty your position has, when it comes to fighting oppression and harming innocent people? You're not actually opposed to it. You just have different reasons you're willing to call such behavior good than, perhaps, Germany and Japan were. But you agree with them that there is a time and place where killing innocent people - even by the hundreds of thousands... even children - is a moral good.
?!
I"'m not ignoring anything."
Really, it seems like not dealing with the context is pretty much ignoring things.
"The widespread rape of women by Japan was a great evil. The less widespread rape - but still rape - of women in Europe by Allied soldiers was a great evil. Period. BOTH should be opposed."
Interesting, but you left out two factors.
1. The vast majority of rape in the ETO was carried out by the Soviets as they occupied Germany. Of course, widespread rape was a fairly minor evil when one looks at the track record of the Soviets.
2. To the extent US troops engaged in rape (a violation of the Articles of war), I'd suspect that as many as possible were court martialed and punished.
3. The difference between the Japanese and Soviet raping, and the US/UK instances of raping is that the Western allies treated rape as a crime, while the Japanese and the Soviets encouraged rape as a way to spread fear, and to reinforce their dominance over the conquered population.
Of course, all this did is provide you one more way to turn the conversation away from your failures to provide specifics, and to introduce that "everyone else did it" excuse.
"I'm not ignoring the killing of innocents done by Germany or Japan."
Really, then why haven't you addressed the topic before now, and provided your awesome NVDA approved "action"s that would have stopped it all.
"I'm saying killing innocent people is ALWAYS wrong. And that's why I am opposed to the US decided to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The difference is: I'm being consistent. I'm ALWAYS opposed to deliberate harm of innocent people. YOU are saying that you can justify it in some cases. Hell, you can justify killing babies, children men and women in Hiroshima and you don't just justify it... you apparently think it was MORAL to do so! Do you see the difficulty your position has, when it comes to fighting oppression and harming innocent people? You're not actually opposed to it. You just have different reasons you're willing to call such behavior good than, perhaps, Germany and Japan were. But you agree with them that there is a time and place where killing innocent people - even by the hundreds of thousands... even children - is a moral good. ?!"
No, you'd be wrong again. But you usually are when you make shit up and attribute it to me.
Still ZERO examples of the "action"s you'd take/would have taken, answers to an increasing numbers of questions, examples of how NVDA would have been a better option that the ones listed above.
"?? ENGAGING IN torture, oppression and widespread terrorism and murder is NOT "protecting those who've been enslaved, robbed, etc...""
Do you understand how punctuation works?
Really, with the exception of the Soviets please give details of specific examples of the allies engaging in sanctioned torture, oppression, or sanctioned robbery?
You do realize that the US literally spent billions of dollars to rebuild all of (non soviet bloc) Europe, including Germany and Italy? IS that the oppression you speak of? FYI, the only reason that the US didn't rebuild the Soviet bloc was that the Soviets refused the help.
"Will you also enslave, rob, rape, torture and oppress to save people from slavery, robbing, rape, torture and oppression?"
Again, where in the PTO did the allies (except possibly the Soviets) sanction or engage in enslavement, torture, rape, torture, and oppression? Are you really suggesting that granting the Philippines independence was oppression?
"You've become the enemy when you use their evil tactics."
Until you can demonstrate actual instances of that happening, this is just one more hypothetical rabbit hole to hide the fact that you can't provide the examples/answers you promised.
"How is that not factually obvious to you?"
Hypotheticals are usually never factual.
"You can't even condemn killing hundreds of thousands of innocents as always a great evil... do you see what you've become?"
You can't/won't condemn the evils perpetrated by the Japanese and the Germans beyond some namby pamby "Everyone did it.". Why should I condemn the actions of the countries that stopped the expansion of evil, punished those responsible, then rebuilt the countries of the aggressors? This notion that the actions of the defender are just as egregious as the acts of those who aggressively tried to spread evil across the globe is simply beyond understanding.
"You've become a moral relativist... something that conservatives will often say the oppose. AND you've become a moral relativist to defend mass slaughter."
If you're going to continue with these absurd falsehoods, at least provide proof.
"You see that, right? This is literally what you're doing, is it not?"
How bizarre. The fact that you see no difference between the people who committed genocide to the tune of 20 million people, between people who invaded, raped, plundered, burned, murdered, enslaved, and experimented on human captives, and the people who risked life and limb to STOP those great evils, is simply irrational.
Dan... ""So, while it does NOT appear that I'm saying I would "stand by and watch 10,000 people die," it DOES appear that you're willing to rape or kill children or whatever it takes to try to save 10,000 people... and that may or may not work, either."
CRAIG: "No, you'd be wrong."
Then quit dodging and answer questions directly.
You've already said it's NOT always immoral to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. (Here that is again:
Dan: "We both agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a great evil. Right?"
Craig: No. The motive, context, and goals matter."
You JUST SAID in that quote, that context and motive and goals matter. That SOUNDS like you're saying that SOMETIMES, it is a moral option to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Is that correct?
Flipping it over: Can you affirm that it is always a great evil to target innocent people for death?
But then, that's something you already answered with your subjective and relative morality answer. So, then answer THIS directly:
Do you believe in relative morality? Is slavery always wrong or are there instances where you think it's a moral option? Is killing innocent people by the hundreds of thousands always wrong are are there instances where it's a moral option?
It sure SOUNDS like you're offering up a very milquetoast and evil-justifying moral relativism. Which is fine if that's what you believe, just be clear on that point.
Craig... "Are you suggesting that it's wrong to punish evil as swiftly and effectively as possible? That evil should be allowed to continue until you come up with a way to stop it that is "moral" and "just"" enough for your 21st century liberal worldview?"
? NO. You can tell by the way I never said that. What I HAVE said is that it is a great evil to target innocent civilians - by the hundreds of thousands - for death and maiming. Those innocent men, women, children and babies were NOT an "evil" to be massacred.
Agreed?
Why is this so hard? Why not be clear?
"Reason. Good old human reason. Since neither you nor I have an objective way to objectively PROVE that it's moral (or not moral) to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of innocents for death and maiming (but then, duh! OF COURSE, it's a great evil! Who argues otherwise??), then we need to use our moral reasoning."
Excellent argument in favor of holding others to your subjective, personal, hunches about morality.
"What would you do differently?"
Since you haven't even begun to hint at what you'd do/would have done, this question is absolutely fucking hilarious in it's hubris. I'll give you more than you'd give me. You answer the questions asked, give us your specific "actions", and explain how your NVDA would have worked better, then I'll gladly answer this question.
"Well, it would depend on how you do it, wouldn't it?"
By all means let's equivocate about how to end evil to Dan's subjective moral "code", while the evil continues to grow and cause more harm. Good plan.
"I mean, I THINK you've already agreed that you wouldn't rape women or eat children to "end evil" so I think perhaps you agree. Or are you an Ends justifies the means kind of guy? As a side note: Of course, we didn't end evil... especially when we engaged in it to "win..." that war. IF we choose to fight evil WITH evil, then I'd say evil won, not goodness, humanity, decency or justice."
Still making shit up and trying to pretend as if I said it, still not coming through with the promised examples/answers.
"Then quit dodging and answer questions directly."
I've answered virtually all of your questions directly or explained why I couldn't. Why should you expect me to do what you won't do.
"You've already said it's NOT always immoral to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children."
Where have I made that blanket statement? If you're going to claim that I "said" something, then prove it.
"(Here that is again: Dan: "We both agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a great evil. Right?" Craig: No. The motive, context, and goals matter." You JUST SAID in that quote, that context and motive and goals matter."
Yes, that's one thing I said.
"That SOUNDS like you're saying that SOMETIMES, it is a moral option to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. Is that correct?"
Ahhhhhhhh, the old "it sounds like". Maybe you should stop trying to impose your hunches based on what your biased brain thinks something "sounds like".
"Flipping it over: Can you affirm that it is always a great evil to target innocent people for death?"
1. So are you saying that the actions of Japan starting in 1931-1945 are "great evil"?
2. Are you suggesting that "great evil" shouldn't be stopped?
3. Given the fact that the Japanese were arming their women and children to defend the home islands, can it really be said that they were 100% innocent? Perhaps they should have waited until these women and children killed a few thousand allied soldiers/marines before bombing them?
4. Are women and children working in factories making war materiel really 100% innocent?
5. If a legitimate military target is located in such a way that it is surrounded by "human shields", is that intentionally targeting those human shields?
6. If the "human shields" are there voluntarily, are they innocent?
It's hard to give you a really specific answer without your answers to my questions. But, in general, it is wrong to intentionally, and specifically target ONLY civilians. Every effort should be made to avoid doing so.
"But then, that's something you already answered with your subjective and relative morality answer. So, then answer THIS directly: Do you believe in relative morality?"
In the absence of a definition of "relative morality" I don't know exactly how to answer specifically. Perhaps you could provide one.
Again, I have to note the hubris is your extensive effort NOT to answer my main questions, give examples, or detail the "actions" you'd take, yet demanding that I answer a bunch of idiotic bullshit I've already answered.
"Is slavery always wrong or are there instances where you think it's a moral option?"
Asked and answered multiple times.
"Is killing innocent people by the hundreds of thousands always wrong are are there instances where it's a moral option?"
Based on what definition of "moral". I would suggest that the 600,000 Union troops who gave life and limb to end slavery in the US were engaged in a morally good mission. I'd argue that the ending of the evil being engaged in by the axis was morally good. I'd argue that scripture supports the notion that it is sometimes necessary to use extreme measures to stop evil.
The question remains, are people who actively engage in support for wars of aggression definitionally 100% "innocent"?
"It sure SOUNDS like you're offering up a very milquetoast and evil-justifying moral relativism. Which is fine if that's what you believe, just be clear on that point."
I don' care what things "sound like" to your biased, twisted brain. The fact that you can't stop making shit up and attributing it to me isn't a good sign.
"NO. You can tell by the way I never said that. What I HAVE said is that it is a great evil to target innocent civilians - by the hundreds of thousands - for death and maiming. Those innocent men, women, children and babies were NOT an "evil" to be massacred. Agreed? Why is this so hard? Why not be clear?"
Then what ARE you suggesting? What magical combination will stop evil AND satisfy your subjective moral guidelines? What "actions" would you take?
But we're back to the fact that you'd rather spew this bullshit than do what you said you'd do.
Zero examples, zero better options, zero "actions", essentially zero answers.
Craig... " The fact that you see no difference between the people who committed genocide to the tune of 20 million people, between people who invaded, raped, plundered, burned, murdered, enslaved, and experimented on human captives, and the people who risked life and limb to STOP those great evils, is simply irrational."
There is, of course, a difference. Those who willingly committed genocide to the tune of 20 million people committed a great evil, to the tune of 20 million people. Those who committed a great evil to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people "only" committed a great evil at a fraction of the rate of the others.
And they all engaged in great evil. They all believed, as you believe, that there is a time and place when mass killing and oppression of vast numbers of people is an acceptable, even moral, action.
I oppose both groups, as I believe Jesus would teach us and as most moral and just people would aspire to oppose.
I oppose vomiting in a glass and calling it fine wine. IF you want to say that sometimes a lesser evil might be an option we feel forced to engage in to fight a greater evil, then say that. But don't kid yourself by calling it moral.
"There is, of course, a difference. Those who willingly committed genocide to the tune of 20 million people committed a great evil, to the tune of 20 million people. Those who committed a great evil to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people "only" committed a great evil at a fraction of the rate of the others. And they all engaged in great evil."
What excellent logic. You put the aggressor and the agressed on the same "moral" plan, you give the attacker the same status as the attacked, and you remove all context from the discussion in pursuit of a narrow, unrealistic, subjective, narrative. It's just too bad that your "moral guidelines" are so subjective and personal that it makes it hard to take your pronouncements of "evil" seriously.
"They all believed, as you believe, that there is a time and place when mass killing and oppression of vast numbers of people is an acceptable, even moral, action."
It's interesting that you regard liberating the captives, freeing those enslaved, returning conquered territory to it's inhabitants, and rebuilding the countries of the aggressors as "oppression". Of course defense is a moral response to an unjustified attack, if all liberals think like this it's no wonder that so many cities run by liberals are crime ridden, cesspools with literal shit on the streets, and junkies on the sidewalks.
" oppose both groups, as I believe Jesus would teach us and as most moral and just people would aspire to oppose."
Interesting, I keep seeing the quote that says that not opposing the oppressor is supporting the oppressor. (or something), yet here you are assigning some moral equivalence to the aggressor/oppressor and the victims/oppressed. Of course, since you've still offered absolutely NOTHING to contrast with the actions taken in the PTO, NO examples of the "actions" that you promised, absolutely nothing, it's not unreasonable to conclude that you'd likely sit around doing nothing until the evil came for you.
"I oppose vomiting in a glass and calling it fine wine. IF you want to say that sometimes a lesser evil might be an option we feel forced to engage in to fight a greater evil, then say that. But don't kid yourself by calling it moral."
Look, until you stop this bullshit, proved the answer to the original question, examples of the "actions" you would take, examples of NVDA actually ending a confrontation equivalent to the PTO effectively, for a long term, and quickly, I have no interest in playing these bullshit games, answering your questions, and dealing with more obfuscation.
LAST CHANCE
IF YOUR NEXT FEW COMMENTS DON'T PROVIDE THE ANSWERS, EXAMPLES, AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO, INSTEAD OF SIMPERING ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULDN'T, I'M SIMPLY DONE WITH THIS THREAD. EITHER YOU DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU'D DO, ANSWER THE MULTITUDE OF QUESTIONS, AND STOP OBFUSCATING, OR DON'T BOTHER COMMENTING ANY FURTHER.
What Trabue keeps claiming is that the US deliberately chose to bomb civilians. He doesn't seem to understand the virtually all military targets have lots of civilians. What about iron bombs and incindiary bombs? or is it just atomic bombs that are the problem.
Hiroshima was chosen because it was a huge military base and Nagasaki was chosen because it was an important port.
Military reasons from bombing, not intentionally seeking civilians. DUH. Trabue has no concept of history.
"I oppose vomiting in a glass and calling it fine wine."
But you'll spew bullshit liberally and call it a fine argument.
Dan won't answer your question because he has no answers. It's really easy to say, "I oppose this or that" when one is not in a position to make decisions where lives are on the line. But let me try to explain Dan's stupidity once again:
The lives of those innocent civilians and children defended by Ducky Dan are the responsibility of the government under which those people live.
In Chicago, there are way too many stories like the following. A man with ties to street gangs is out driving to one place or another with his baby girl in the car seat in back. A car full of enemy gang-bangers pulls up next to him and sprays the car with bullets, killing the child in the process. That child died because of the lifestyle of her father. While those pulling the trigger are guilty of murder, the father and child would not have been targeted if not for the behavior of the father.
It's a very similar situation in war, especially the Japan of which we're speaking here. It was Japan who is responsible for the lives of their own people. Like the father above, the moment they decided to act in a criminal manner...invading Korea, China and attacking Pearl Harbor...they put their civilian population at risk. It is not the responsibility of those who are defending themselves against the aggression of Japan to concern themselves with the lives of Japan's civilian population, especially after all other options have been played out.
To target entire cities with atomic bombs was the moral choice. Dan likes to think he has some way to end war that doesn't require hard choices resulting in death to even civilians. He's a moron and among his many moronic arguments over the years, this one is especially egregious because he's unconcerned with the lives lost while he and other kumabya assholes putz around pretending evil people give a flying rat's ass about whatever it is they're selling.
Dan can't answer your questions, Craig. He can't even provide an example of when NVDA ever resolved a war. They want to pretend they're deserving of accolades for opposing war and oppression, as if war and oppression is the default setting for every government on earth, including our own. In a similar fashion, he hasn't explained to me exactly what Desmond Tutu did beyond preaching against apartheid that made any difference in it's end.
I give thanks to Almighty God that Dan is not in government. We have enough stupid people in the Dem party as it is.
I'm done. You can't answer questions directly. You CLEARLY believe that it's a moral thing to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, but you dodge around it. You won't own your evil ideology.
I might take up the notion of what we might do differently in the instance of deadly aggressors as in Japan and Germany, but what is clear: You hold the same ideology that they do: That sometimes it's a good, moral thing to commit mass murder.
Shame on you. You are part of the problem in the same vein of the Nazis and Japanese in WWII, because you share the same ideology of them, as well as more modern terrorists.
That you can't even condemn targeting and killing children is just a shame on you and your comrades.
Last chance, indeed.
Save yourself.
Just as I predicted, you found an excuse to bail without doing what you said you would do. No specific enumeration of what "actions" you'd take, no explanation of how your NVDA options would be more effective than the options that faced the allies, no explanation of how NVDA is effective in dealing with a large scale conflict, or how NVDA deals with a nation that is willing to destroy itself to satisfy it's honor, and as usual a litany of unanswered questions. It's so predictable that it gets boring. The lies, the misrepresentation, the unsupported claims, the failure to do what you say you'll do, and all the rest. It's just one more steaming pile of bullshit, wrapped up in your faux outrage so that you can run away from proving your claims and still maintain your perception of your honor.
Interesting that you've gone from you "rest assured, I'll answer your questions", to I "might take up...". Which means you'll do it at your blog where you'll capriciously delete comments when things get uncomfortable for you.
Even as you run away from doing what you said, and from the litany of unanswered questions, you can't just run away you have to persist with your false characterizations and misrepresentations. The ad hom attacks as you run away are just because you had to throw one in before you slunk off to hide at your blog where you can control and bully others.
I suspected that when faced with a put up or shut up moment, you'd stay as far away from put up as you could. I also suspect it's because you realized that you couldn't actually do what you said you'd do, and that I wasn't going to tolerate your obfuscation any more.
Glenn,
It's clear that Dan is woefully uninformed about these events. He seems to lack the knowledge and context to discuss the events rationally, so he chooses to rip one event (the choice to use nuclear weapons) out of the context of the entire war. He has to set up some kind or "moral" equivalence between the Japanese and the allies, which involves ignoring or minimizing the 15 year reign of terror the Japanese inflicted on the Pacific region, and trying to use "the allies did it too" as a way to excuse the inhuman brutality of the Japanese. He's clearly over his head, and trying to pretend that it's possible that the Japanese would have gotten tired of beheading peaceful protesters and realized the error of their ways. He couldn't do what he said he'd do, and he couldn't deal with being forced to show his inability to perform, so he ran away.
Sometime in the next week or so, there will be a post at the cesspool in which he'll spin some sort of fantasy scenario and pretend that he's provided the final word on the subject. Of course,since he's banned me and habitually deletes Art, his fantasy will go unchallenged and his ego will be intact.
The following describes who brought upon themselves the bombing of their cities with civilians with children paying the price:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre#Massacre_contest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Rape
Dan thinks it's immoral to "target women and children". This of course is one way Dan routinely lies, by perverting the reality of the situation. It was NOT the intention with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to "target women and children". That's not to say it wasn't understood women and children were present, though all were warned of the impending attack. The Target Committee identified Hiroshima as very important from a military perspective since it was home to the 2nd Army Headquarters, which were responsible for the defense of southern Japan. It was an important center of storage, communications, and assembly of soldiers. Nagasaki wasn't a primary target, but weather altered the plans. It was, however, also a place of military importance.
Dan's question is as I said, deceitful, because there is no indication that the intention was to target women and children. Knowing their presence and targeting the cities anyway is not the same as targeting women and children, and Dan...though he's a liar...knows it.
A better question is, does Dan love his children enough to prevent their death, even if in doing so, other children die?
I once worked with a guy who was a strong Christian and politically conservative. We had some nice chats and I found him knowledgeable and interesting in his understandings of things. At one point the perennial question arose: if someone was about to murder your wife and children and the only way to stop it was to kill the murderer, would you do it? He insisted not only would he not kill the murderer, but he had the very conversation with his wife and children and insisted they were aware of this position. He insisted he knew the difference between killing and murder, but still regarded them to be the same thing morally. It's the only point on which I remember him being so wrong, and he couldn't cite Scripture to support his position. I found it sad. I find Dan to be sad, but his position to be crap and false.
"LAST CHANCE
IF YOUR NEXT FEW COMMENTS DON'T PROVIDE THE ANSWERS, EXAMPLES, AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO, INSTEAD OF SIMPERING ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULDN'T, I'M SIMPLY DONE WITH THIS THREAD. EITHER YOU DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU'D DO, ANSWER THE MULTITUDE OF QUESTIONS, AND STOP OBFUSCATING, OR DON'T BOTHER COMMENTING ANY FURTHER."
Dan,
Was there something about this warning that was unclear? Did I use too many multisylabic words for you? Are you unable to read or comprehend plain English?
I gave you a pass on your "I'm going to surrender" comment because I'm a reasonable person. But this notion that you can avoid the current mandate and do whatever the hell you want, I'll pass. Either do what you said you'd do or do what you said you'd do (be "done"). Choose one or the other.
Because I don't operate like you, I won't delete your drivel yet. I also will allow your comments on other posts. But if you want to change your mind about running away when confronted with put up or shut up, then you'll play be the rules.
FYI, random hypotheticals and questions unrelated to the topic are not "trying to answer the question".
You promised answers, and a list of "actions", I've given you plenty of room to provide what you promised. If your word means so little to you, I can't help you.
Art,
All of what you said is accurate, but as Dan has demonstrated, that sort of context is immaterial. The fact that Japan was responsible for the killing, raping, torturing, and experimenting on exponentially more "innocents" than were affected by the two bombs, is immaterial to him. The fact that Japan was the aggressor, and was determined to fight until their homeland was destroyed (prior to the use of nuclear weapons) is immaterial. The fact that the Japanese had multiple opportunities to end hostilities prior to the use of nuclear weapons (and after the first use) is immaterial. Clearly no amount of facts and context will make any difference in this conversation.
The bottom line is that Dan assured me that he would provide examples of instaces where NVDA had resolved midespread conflicts as in the PTO, and done so more effectively and more quickly than the actions taken by the allies. Yet he hasn't done so. He assured me that he would provide examples of "actions" he would or would have taken, yet he hasn't. He has also been asked to provide an alternative to the 3/4 scenarios that the allies were faced with, yet he hasn't. Finally, the litany of unanswered questions remains. Enough is enough, I have to draw the line somewhere and stop this circus of delay and obfuscation. The fact that he doesn't understand that his doing what he said he would, and answering the questions he's been asked would actually benefit him in this conversation, baffles me.
Anyway, he knows what's expected and it's on him whether or not he wants to live up to his assurances or run away when it's time to put up or shut up.
I guess that since Dan has NOT provided any of the things he said he would, that it's safe to presume that he isn't going to live up to his repeated claims of what he WOULD do, and therefore I can delete his moderated comments.
Post a Comment