This mess goes beyond any human understanding or philosophy. — javi2541997

Yes. 20,000,000 Chinese civilians died during their war with Japan. The Japanese put themselves at the top of the list of the most destructive nations that have ever existed. I'm sure you didn't mean to pass that over without comment.

Frank, it was a tremendous pity to see a lot of people dying because of a nuclear attack. More than 140,000 civilians died in minutes. Nobody deserves to be nuked by another nation, it doesn't matter the context and circumstances at all. I don't know who is 'wrong' here. Me, for defending Bushidō and Hirohito or you for backing up the nuclear attacks. Yet, what is obvious is that it was a human disaster. — javi2541997

I also love Japanese culture, particularly the wabi sabi aesthetic. My love of it is in evidence throughout my house and garden. I have about 7 bonsai's made from Japanese privets, and two from a cypress. What I want you to do is take a broader look at what happened to Japan in the 20th Century. Read the article I posted about the Sino-Japanese war. Understand the America's war with Japan wasn't America versus bushido. Americans were literally fighting countries that were intent on global domination. Americans were fighting for their own security.


:up:

It's ALL choosing which MYTHS are going to be your INDIGNATION. — schopenhauer1

True. There was once a quiet little village in the middle of nowhere. One day the blacksmith said it had come to him that he owned the moon. Startled by this, the weaver said he'd always thought of the moon as his own property. The villagers began taking sides and war broke out amongst them to finally decide who owned the Great Orb. Now they're all dead.

Japan's attack was not honourable because there was no just cause - it was naked aggression. At the same time the fire bombings of Japan and the nuclear bombs were clear war crimes as well because all of indiscriminately targeted civilians. — Benkei

I agree. The bombing of Dresden was also a war crime. It killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think anyone would hold Germany up as a pitiful victim because of Dresden, though. That's what Javi has been trying to do with Japan and the atomic bomb attack.

Just curious did you see my response to that? My response to that quote was because it basically was "yadadyadaya.. but AMERICA couldn't know". It just seemed like knee-jerk leftist rhetoric which goes.. Yadyadayda..America (bad). — schopenhauer1

Yea. We all see the world through myths, I think. There's the Muslim terrorist myth, which shows up sometimes. The America-bad myth is ever-present. What I do is just try to be slow to judgment so I can detect my own myths and try not to write off what someone says as if it's nothing but myth. Sometimes a person is appealing for a particular fact to be recognized, and it may be important. How do you get to that when there's a cloud of myths in the way?

Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. — schopenhauer1

Yep

That's true, Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. Although I don't think Americans knew that. — flannel jesus

China and the US became allies immediately after Pearl Harbor. China provided the US Navy with intelligence throughout the war. Americans knew.

I disagree. They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict. — javi2541997

There were civilians who died at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, but worse, when the Japanese invaded China, around 20 million Chinese civilians died as a result. The US was allied with China at the time.

Second Sino-Japanese War

You're being insulting to all of Japan's victims.

Japan has always been more developed than many Western countries, but they were attacked by a nuclear bomb in the most cruel way... so what? — javi2541997

Javi, Japan attacked first. It was all-out war. Stop with the bullshit about how Japan was unfairly targeted.

I prefer masturbating over semantics so I can score a point and ignore what's actually under discussion. — Pneumenon

That's weird.

You prefer the 1950s jargon. :up:

This is an example of the problems caused by weather volatility. It's not just a matter of destructive storms. It's that agriculture as we know it can't tolerate weather variability.

First vs third world = difference in level of technology — Pneumenon

These days we talk about core countries and developing ones. We talk about regional influence versus global influence.

I see what you're saying. The source I read was a Pakistani who was giving a broad history of Islam since 1900. He said that Iran is a beacon for Shiites everywhere because there are elements of Shiite practice that are deeply offensive to Sunnis. Where the two groups are living in the same area, Shiites have to hide or squash their practices. This is a burden that Shiites have to carry. Iran is a symbol of emancipation from it.

The same author did say that conflict between the two comes and goes, and that it's not the same conflict over time. It's usually a symptom of tension that's arisen for other reasons.

That all sounds reasonable to me. Science always starts from assumptions. There's a practical aspect to that. I was just saying there's a contradiction in questioning the existence of space beyond what you can see. You can't imagine that space just stops at a certain point, so you'll end up considering the truth of a proposition that can't be meaningful to you. Obscure point, I know.

But I think you'll run into trouble with your conception of space. If the room you're in is the limit of the universe, are you saying there is no space on the other side of the wall? Brian Greene uses this thought experiment, so don't poo poo it. :razz:

Who is more moral? The leadership of group A who aimed and succeeded at destroying the armanents factory of group B at the cost of 100 civilian lives or the leadership of group B who did the same thing re group A but used different methods? — Baden

It takes a lot of aggression to kill a hundred people with an axe (I assume). One imagines that remotely launching a guided missile takes no aggression at all.

This is mentioned as a factor in gun violence in America. It's just fairly easy to shoot someone vs using a butcher knife, so we end up with gun shot wounds all over the place.

But I think the emotions involved work the other way as well. If you hear a heroic story about a fireman saving someone, yay! But if Bill Gates helps save millions of people by helping to fund vaccine research, nobody cares.

My point was that it is of equal validity to say that the body no longer does what it once did, avoiding the dualism. — Banno

Yea, but non-reductive physicalism is the standard view of consciousness. That's like property dualism.

Robert Rosen wrote about causally open and closed systems in Life Itself. The theme ends up being Kantian.

Schopenhauer is the ultimate dude for cause and effect, but I think he might drive you nuts because he's a hard determinist. You're pinging his view when you say the universe is self-determining, though.

That's true, but that forces proponents of the conceivability of p-zombies to basically use the "god did it" explanation. — RogueAI

When a modest little argument becomes a devastating wedge, it's a thing of beauty. It's unfortunate that there isn't enough interest in philosophy of mind on this site to follow Chalmers' artistry. But there isn't.

I wonder how they argue p-zombies could develop a language that has referents to mental states. — RogueAI

They don't. The hallmark of metaphysical possibility is that you can have God create the situation however you like. God made the p-zombies that way.

There isn't a big difference between metaphysical and logical possibility. Remember, logical possibility just means you haven't conjured a contradiction.

You responded to a post I made three years ago. I'm not too interested in explaining Chalmers' agenda. If you're satisfied with your conclusion, that's fine with me. Bon voyage. :grin:

I encourage you to really investigate what "conceivable" actually is meant in this context. It's actually trickier than just saying "I'm completely ignorant about it". — flannel jesus

Ok.

I'd encourage you to read his own words.

Not really. Shias get on with Sunnis fine in some contexts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They don't in Pakistan. That's interesting that they do elsewhere.

That's not what other people mean by "conceivable". Not in this context anyway. — flannel jesus

It's what David Chalmers meant by it.

The possibility of p-zombies is a much more rigorous question than just analysing your own ignorance of consciousness. — flannel jesus

It's metaphysical possibility we're considering. That boils down to conceivibility. If I couldn't conceive of Deckard being an p-zombie, then I wouldn't say I don't know if he is. I would say he couldn't be.

Since I say I don't know, that shows it's conceivable, and therefore metaphysically possible.

I don't believe it's ever implied that they're not truly conscious or don't experience qualia. — flannel jesus

I don't know if they're conscious or not. That's the point.

I don't think that's clear at all — flannel jesus

Didn't you watch Bladerunner? :grin:

. A deal isn't good for Iran because Israel is a good wedge issue for Iran that helps keep the Gulf-US relation on the rocks and helps them with public support "on the Arab street." — Count Timothy von Icarus

But it's along the lines of blasphemy for Shiites to support Sunnis, so the support isn't about ideology at all. It's just about regional strategy, right? That's just cold blooded.

On meat, fish, nuts, berries, tubers, fungi and leaves. Whatever they could get. That's never been a huge amount for the majority of people; nor is it now. — Vera Mont

Not according to scientists. "Ethnographic comparisons with contemporary groups of Hunter Gatherers broadly imply a high reliance on animal protein supplemented with a wide range of available plant foods." -- here. We aren't as bad as our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, who appear to have been almost carnivorous and cannibalistic at times. Early H. Sapiens were still heavily reliant on meat, though. The fact that whole species of megafauna disappeared when humans showed up in North America and Australia suggests that humans were apex predators.

That's easily checked https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/172345/nutrients — Vera Mont

Yes. Our bodies break fats down into a simple carbohydrate: glucose.

But that's how I see it, which may be somewhat peculiar. — Manuel

I totally agree, though.

That's more true of the present generations. — Vera Mont

Bread allowed us to get away from meat, yes. Archeological finds tell us that pre-agriculture hominins were heavily dependent on meat.

Meat doesn't have any carbohydrates. — Vera Mont

Of course it does. It's in the fat.

I think that has seriosly been taken place for well over 150 years. — ssu

Maybe. I was thinking about the robotic equipment that fills American factories now. No need for human labor.

Do you agree with my prediction? If you do, to what extent can previous moral developments be attributed to economic and technological changes? — Judaka

Maybe. Aristotle said slavery was a necessary evil. Automation has been slowly taking the place of human labor for at least 50 years, making it easier to leave it behind.

Our ancestors ate huge amounts of meat. It's speculated that the human brain, which is a large obligate glucose consumer, drove the human appetite.

Isn't Hamas Sunni? Why is Iran supporting them?

I think the whole area is going to dry up in the next century anyway. They can all move together to Norway or wherever. — frank

They won't be able to move to the Netherlands, though. That whole place is going to be under water.

Letting everyone from Gaza in indiscriminately would absolutely result in a terrible catastrophy. — flannel jesus

I think the whole area is going to dry up in the next century anyway. They can all move together to Norway or wherever.

To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to. — BitconnectCarlos

That's true. It just seems like a zombie walk. They can try to destroy Hamas, but they probably won't succeed.