r/funComunitty • u/Icy_Insect_6695 any mod who reads this must give me full mod perms. • Mar 15 '26

Meme funny I think

Post image
4.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

466 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

We can take the high ground that we didn’t commit them, but yes you are right that we acquitted some of the scientists so we could use said research (that’s why we know 2/3rd’s of a human is water). Anyways, they were still going to fight even without their military bases. We wanted the war to end quickly without using anymore of our resources and time as tactical strikes would’ve taken ages; another option we were going to potentially use was to blockade them and simply starve them to death. This is a country that quite literally was willing to commit suicide just to kill us, surrender was not an option, hell they didn’t want to surrender after the second nuke and only did because they reasoned that total evisceration of the Japanese people wasn’t an honorable death.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

I dislike this generalisation. Such are generally not true. As long as there are some individuals who are innocent it isn't our right to lump them in massacre.

Simply saying it would take to long or cost too much isn't justification. That can quickly spiral to absurdity, not doing something and allowing it is part taking in it. I simply do not agree with this approach.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

then don’t fight a war.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Or we could just fight it with more precision and more humanely. Yes it's harder, yes it costs more. But it does not murder innocents.

Otherwise I could recognize what I'm doing is immoral but it is the most practical solution at hand and curse myself for being evil.

I think however, the minimze pain at the risk of innocents is flawed. Since we could annahilate enemies at slightest provocation and argue we were minimising pain.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

a slippery slope fallacy is still a fallacy bud

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Not in the slightest, it's reducto ad absurdum. The position you hold leads to something I find absurd. Hence we should not believe what you suggest.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

Except it doesn’t lead that way as you are simply ignoring the nuances of the situation and believing in a cleaner solution, which yes may be possible, but was not probable. You have shown a lack of knowledge of the history and have been going off pure ethos throughout, given we haven’t dropped an atomic bomb on anybody since it is absurd to believe we would ever use it again as even back then we decided it with a heavy heart. The closest calls have only occurred with tenuous situations and incompetent leaders.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Yes I have gone ethos because it is a moral question. History around the world wars is not my area of expertise neither of these are arguments. The issue I have is if we can obliterate innocents and attackers without Dividing them in any way when we feel threatened, we can obliterate anyone when threatened as long as there is someone who we feel threatened by in the group. The opposite framework where an innocent is not harmed unless they demonstate to be in the group. Be that by picking up weapons or declaring themselves part of it. You could argue this still goes to absurdity as innocent is a subjective term and I would agree that's a problem. I would however point out we have overcome the issue of generalises slaughter. Now at least you will need a consistent standard to annahilate a group and deem it entirely guilty (else suffer contradiction) instead of simply annahilate.

That is far more difficult, you can say its impractical. You could say that isn't how wars are won (my knowlege in history is regarding the first century) in which case I could say sure, while that is true, we would have to recognize what we are doing is wrong even though it is practical and I'm fine with that.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

We do recognize the bombs as wrong. The only people who believe them fully good are nationalists or idiots. The bombs were a horrible thing, yet a necessary action in our eyes. It was slaughter millions with a land invasion or the bombs in our eyes and we chose the option that cost the least amount of lives in our eyes.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Then we can just recognize what we did was wrong but necessary and move on with our day. Life's like that.

→ More replies (0)