drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
I agree, there are people who debate/discuss in bad faith. What I reject is the notion in the comment I responded to that you couldn't say "it depends" in response to "is sex a big deal or not?"
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Yeah, either sex is A Big Deal or it is Not A Big Deal.
Don't play with your words like that. The archetypal sex act isn't the same as every conceivable sex act.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
“there is an unstated (on the progressive side) premise among all people that casual sex is a bad deal for women and devalues or dishonors them in some way”.
This is not the case. Progressives are indifferent to how much you do it from the standpoint of ideology, but nothing would prevent social drama playing out through ideology. Take care to differentiate between power plays through belief and genuine ideological conflict.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Everyone who lived before 2015 was not a moral monster. A lot of people put a lot of thought into the moral structure of our past societies, their conflicts and wars. So perhaps it is not all of human history that is wrong here. Perhaps, in our excessively peaceful modern society, we have lost touch with the basic facts of the world and allowed our moral theories to outrun physical and psychological reality.
They don't need to be moral monsters to be indifferent, but there was 100% a faction of the pro-bombing crowd which justified what they did on the basis of "better them than us" and "an eye for an eye", or even just "If it's your government, we'll kill you just the same" like Curtis LeMay. Arthur Harris is a good example, which choice quotes such as "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
Now, you may argue that Harris isn't out for blood just to see it run, but he's only doing it in retaliation. Regardless, this is precisely what there had been numerous treaties to address in the first place, and even during this time, there was continued debate over the ethics of bombing civilians and cities.
Moreover, the idea that we've lost touch with the reality of war is ludicrous, given that the idea of restrictions upon how war could be declared and conducted goes back millennia who would have been very familiar with war and what it could do.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
I've heard "Silence is Violence" enough to try on the horseshoe.
"I will apply your morality interpreted by me upon you for you-defined-by-me" is one of the most tribalistic things out there. Don't fall for it.
Must prepare for the consequences of their actions being ascribed to you
This is not the same as saying it's just or even reasonable for those actions to be ascribed to you.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
The international law objection to using nukes against valid military objectives is that you probably don't actuallly need a nuke to neutralize or destroy the miltiary objective, which renders the nuke excessive. If you actually do need the nuke to service the target- or if the alternative means of servicing the target to the same effect are on the same scale or even higher- there's no actual legal barrier from that font.
You're correct. I was speaking practically, as we've yet to see a case where a nuke was needed by this standard.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
I disagree. Legitimacy is not binary, and is mostly determined by the citizens of a country anyway, not the opinions of outsiders. I think it is very much a relative scale.
Indifference and a willingness to tolerate almost anything in the name of survival is universal amongst humans.
I'm saying it was justified by the people who ordered it under all the theories that they thought were important.
The moral standards of bombardment and killing non-combatants were degraded with time in WW2. There were international treaties barring attacks against undefended non-military targets and people were to be given a chance to evacuate. This was not extended to air attacks, but not for a lack of trying. By and large, such things were considered unacceptable before the war, but people grew to desire revenge and were fine with sating it on the civilians of the enemy.
So appealing to the fact that people thought it was okay back then is pointless. There are many things people thought okay that we have decided is not, and their arguments weren't that great anyways.
Not a thing. Neither can a hand grenade.
The radius might be a bit bigger on a nuke, let me verify.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
You've never heard of the popular system of "one man, one vote, one time"?
I have no idea what this is a reference to.
That's not actually a requirement.
Sure. In practice, we have yet to see anyone make a weapon that is so colossal, dangerous, and widespread as to justify nuking a city.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Right, I should clarify. I meant specifically Western supporters of Hamas. I do not believe those people would ever frame things in light of Satan, and that's a very important distinction.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
After they won an election, which is more legitimacy than many real governments can manage.
It's not a relative scale, and suspending the democratic process because you won is inherently delegitimizing, the people can no longer peacefully oust you if you lose their favor.
Not in my opinion, but we can start bombing military targets without worrying too much about civilian casualties. At Hiroshima, we bombed a military base. The rest of the town was just in the blast radius. Not, perhaps a hugely practical distinction, but one with real bite in the theory of just war.
This is a recipe for far greater death and destruction than anyone would ever tolerate upon themselves, you included. Any such position should be heavily scrutinized far more than its reverse. I think it is immoral to the highest order to declare that simply because a government has legitimacy with its people that you can ignore civilian casualties or simply care less about them.
Secondly, are you saying that Hiroshima would be justified under just war theory? Because I disagree strongly, there is no way it could be given that nukes are inherently not a weapon that can discriminate against non-combatants and combatants in a city.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
To the degree that Hamas is the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, the people bear responsibility for their international diplomacy (such as it is).
It's not. It controls Gaza, Fatah controls the West Bank.
Secondly, they froze elections after they came to power.
Thirdly, any analysis where you conclude that the average person holds non-negligible responsibility for something like government of all things must explain what exactly the analyst thinks is okay to do to that person with said responsibility. Can we start bombing them for not actively fighting the government?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Note that the Palestinians have no good plan for how they would materially improve the lives of their citizens if Israel sudden disappeared in the blink of an eye beyond going in an feeding off the surplus left behind.
The Palestinians would, if Israel disappeared and they took over all its land, have the water, food, ports, etc. that they could develop. There are undoubtedly millions or billions of dollars that could flow from Islam-dominant countries to help them as well.
even today there is a very large contingent of the world that supports those who get their political inspiration from the Prince of Darkness
Yawn. Every time someone comes up with such an explanation, they should probably do due diligence and consider what those supporters would actually say. It's not writing for everyone to argue that one side of an issue is Satanic...except in cases where actual Satanists are involved, I suppose.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)
TL;DR - human shields don't get to automatically nullify any plans to strike a target, but the attacker must still take care to ensure they only strike within proportion.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
...Again. I'm not justifying it. I am explaining why it is not obviously stupid. That's all.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
You're overcomplicating the hornet issue, like there's some 8D chess reason for a simple, yet major, fuckup.
I never overcomplicated it once. You're the one assuming I'm defending the decision in total, I'm only arguing that it cannot be so obviously dismissed as a stupid thing. Maritime Historian Craig Symonds wrote a piece in 2021 about this exact topic. The relevant section is below.
To try to resolve this mystery, it is essential to re-examine what the Americans knew—or thought they knew—about Japanese intentions that day. Remember that most of the high command—including Mitscher—believed the Japanese were operating in two carrier groups: the one that had been sighted, and a second one, which was presumed to be operating 80 to 100 miles to the rear. Mitscher knew that the planes from the Enterprise were going after the two carriers that the PBY had sighted and reported, and he may have harbored fears that even if that strike were successful the other two enemy carriers would remain untouched—and more important, that the element of surprise would be lost.
Pete Mitscher was the most senior U.S. Navy aviation officer afloat that day. Rear Admiral Bill Halsey, an aviator who was supposed to have commanded at Midway, was in the hospital. Captain George Murray, commander of the Enterprise, was Naval Aviator No. 22, and Spruance had designated him as tactical air officer for the strike. But Mitscher, who was Naval Aviator No. 33, had been selected for promotion to rear admiral, and his staff already was referring to him as “Admiral Mitscher.” In Halsey’s absence, Fletcher was the senior officer afloat, but neither he nor Spruance were aviators. It is easy to imagine that, in Mitscher’s mind, it was up to him to ensure the proper coordination of the air strikes.
Mitscher knew there would be only one chance to effect surprise, and that once surprise was lost, the battle would become a toss-up. If the Enterprise planes succeeded in surprising and sinking the two enemy flattops at the known coordinates, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Mitscher may have calculated the best use of the Hornet’s air group was to find and sink the two carriers that had not yet been sighted—but which presumably were operating 80 to 100 miles behind the other Japanese ships. In consideration of those factors, Mitscher may have told his air group leader, Commander Stanhope Ring, to take the entire air group to a position 80 miles behind the leading Japanese carriers. If one calculates that bearing from the Hornet’s position that morning, it turns out to be about 265 degrees.
If that is what happened, Mitscher apparently did not share the revised objective with any of the four squadron commanders—just with group commander Ring. That would explain why the commander of Torpedo Eight, Lieutenant Commander John Waldron, was so surprised—and then angry—when he was told the course he was to fly. He knew that a course of 265 would not lead them to the coordinates he had carefully plotted in the ready room that morning based on the location of the sighted Japanese carriers.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Launching everything is both defensively and offensively superior - best way to keep your carriers intact.
Air strikes are a limited resource. Fuel isn't freely available at sea, you have to schedule fueling times and that's a dangerous thing to do in war near enemy waters. Moreover, there's some attrition as the environment can go south quickly, or a plane can develop issues and crash into the ocean. If you exhaust your primary method of destroying enemy fleets before a refueling/resupplying can happen, you're useless.
Regarding Hornet's flight, my only point is that we don't know why they did what they did. It's true that there was a mess up, but it's only a mess up if you assume the goal was to strike the two carriers known at the time. If they were searching for the other pair or trio, then it's not necessarily a mess up.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Fog of War is a serious issue and carriers were in short supply for the time being. Losing them meant not having any way to contest enemy airpower without having land-based aircraft in whatever region they were attacking.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
The reason for losing that support has nothing to do with being pro/anti-Jew. It has to do with the viral videos of Hamas actively massacring civilians who were not threats to them in any way. Right now, the world is entirely aware of what Hamas is doing. That very much sticks in people's minds when they see a person endorse Hamas. The fact that you jumped straight to "Jews are at the top of the progressive totem pole" is insane.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Really, you're going to defend the flight to nowhere?
I'm saying it's not obviously stupid.
Are you just arguing to argue( it's fine if you are), or do you really believe yamamoto's reserve order, and Hornet's void search were correct decisions?
I believe the idea of reserving aircraft was good, but Yamamoto's in particular was not well thought out. It's a case where doctrine isn't necessarily bad in all regards, but the plan itself is so bad that doctrine begins to hamstring it.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
I think after Coral Sea, both navies’ admirals were paralyzed by the thought of launching against the wrong target, and appearing stupid.
It's not about looking stupid, there are serious consequences to not being ready to attack a discovered carrier group in this era. You have to scout those things out, and scouting is not that easy. Pilots can get lost, misreport what they see and where, or get shot down without ever revealing where they were at the time. So being ready to go at a moment's notice once contact is made matters.
The defeat can be traced to the original decision to keep half in reserve. Nagumo should have launched everything against midway, first thing.
This point deceptively supports yours because the issue at Midway was that there weren't enough planes in general. If Nagumo had CarDiv 5, this might have been alleviated. But that's not a knock against the practice of holding reserve strikes in case more enemies are found.
Hornet’s decision to head west to keep looking for more carriers falls into the same kind of completely faulty decision-making, when they were at least two perfect targets.
It is a serious issue to know your enemy is sending 4 carriers and only having spotted 2. Those other two are threats that have to be found.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
We're not back to where we started. One of the biggest issues other nations and people have with Israel is its encroachment on and control over Palestinian land and whatnot. A two-state solution would go a long way to neutering this complaint about it. Moreover, Israel would still be a military powerhouse with backing from the US of all allies. War might be inevitable, but military gear tends to be expensive, and it's not like Israel can't innovate to use low-cost solutions either.
War leaves a sour taste in people's mouths, and "Israel is our neighbor that we hate" generates far less antagonism than "Israel is the active oppressor of our people".
If Israel's obligation to "fix the situation" derives from it being the more powerful of the two, it will have to override the wishes of the Palestinians, treating them as lesser. If they do not do that, they cannot take advantage of being more powerful.
No, I don't see how that's the case.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Serious leftists are going to probably talk about a two-state solution. No end to Israel, but it would have to roll back to some historical borders. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Israel can't do this w/o treating Palestinians as second-class.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
People do not, in general, believe children should have all the same rights and privileges as adults.
This isn't totally accurate. Freddie DeBoer argues that Israel is the more powerful of the two, so it has the moral obligation to do better and fix the situation. Palestine can't, Israel won't, or so it goes. I don't think he's lying when he says there are leftists who think like him.
Obviously, the people mentioned in the top-level comment are the ones that rile people up. The people who say that no Israeli is a civilian, that all settlers are inherently oppressors, etc. These people are largely unserious in how they approach the question, but it's worth noting that there is no incoherence in noting two things:
- Israel's colonization of Palestinian land is wrong.
- Hamas is an immoral organization
and focusing solely on 1. Decolonization and liberation of colonies may result is great acts of tragedy, but there is a strong case to be made that it is still better to grant people self-rule and independence.
Scott Alexander made an excellent point in that people in general weight things by their connection in a person's mind to other things. So Palestine links to decolonization links to anti-fascism, etc. So they will immediately load a frame of mind that Hamas is obviously moral to do those things, because it links to "Free Palestine". Thus the need to defend the immoral things done in the name of that freedom.
This is hardly an original or flattering take, but "leftists are people and people are irrational" is more accurate than "leftists hate the West and success"
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
This is a convenient explanation, but one should always be skeptical of any description of their enemies that boils down to "they're jealous". It's not impossible, but you're gonna miss a lot. For all that leftists do this, it should be considered that they expect better of Western civilization. In the same vein that an adult is held to different standards vs. children, the social critic holds his society to be able to do better than this enemies.
There is obviously a debate to be had over whether their standards are perfect or not, but you do yourself a disservice if you boil your opponent's arguments down to "seethe more".
Spitting into someone's mouth has far less likely a chance to give them psychological and physical damage. Insofar as harm is a thing we use to decide if something is a big deal or not, rape can be differentiated from forced mouth-spitting.
More options
Context Copy link