Michael Stuart Kelly

Chicken chicken chicken

Recommended Posts

General:

"Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?" Yes.

The child did not kill my countrymen. If the child did kill my countrymen, killing the child would be right, but eating the child would be wrong.

Dropping a weapon that killed 100,000 of our enemies who would not surrender and were committed to killing us is right.

Dropping weapons on Dresden that killed more than 100,000 of our enemies who were committed to killing us is right.

Finally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove that nuclear war is winnable, since we won that war.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General; From what I have read about the end of the Japanese War some in the military were even resisting the Emperor. The use of both weapons was necessary. A blockade would have resulted in more deaths of civilians because the military would have horded the food. The military had the guns and ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General:

"Is eating a child wrong and dropping an atomic bomb on a city and killing 100,000 people right?" Yes.

The child did not kill my countrymen. If the child did kill my countrymen, killing the child would be right, but eating the child would be wrong.

Dropping a weapon that killed 100,000 of our enemies who would not surrender and were committed to killing us is right.

Dropping weapons on Dresden that killed more than 100,000 of our enemies who were committed to killing us is right.

Finally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove that nuclear war is winnable, since we won that war.

Adam

You conveniently lump civilians in with 'enemies', this makes murdering much easier to swallow. The world has not seen a nuclear war yet - one in which both sides are sending nuclear missiles at each other. Pray that we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General; From what I have read about the end of the Japanese War some in the military were even resisting the Emperor. The use of both weapons was necessary. A blockade would have resulted in more deaths of civilians because the military would have horded the food. The military had the guns and ammo.

Why not have a blockade that lets food go into the country? Why would there be a shortage of food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If those bombs hadn't fallen on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I probably wouldn't have existed. No doubt some will argue that this is a strong argument against the bombing, but you can imagine that I beg to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If those bombs hadn't fallen on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I probably wouldn't have existed. No doubt some will argue that this is a strong argument against the bombing, but you can imagine that I beg to disagree.

Really, how so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General:

War is about killing many more of the enemy in the shortest amount of time and about breaking all their "things" that keep their society functioning. I believe Israel had about a kill ratio of 100 to 1, 200 to 1 would have been much better.

Civilians are the 'enemies' and the ratio is 6 to 7 support personnel to put one soldier in the field, therefore, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki had munitions factories strategically secreted amongst the "civilian" populations, you wipe everything off the face of the earth in that locality if you have the capacity.

Same as in Dresden, but you are comfortable with Dresden because the fire bombs were:

1) smaller

2) prettier when they exploded

3) non-nuclear

4) _______________________

Wars cannot be waged with balance and proportionate responses, that is a super bowl or sporting event.

"The real problem is that once fights get started they quickly get out of control. This applies equally to flame wars and world wars." That is why you end them, if you can, quickly by overwhelming force, if you have it.

"Why not have a blockade that lets food go into the country? Why would there be a shortage of food?" Yes, and disease, and internal disruptions.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... since Hiroshima and Nagasaki had munitions factories strategically secreted amongst the "civilian" populations, you wipe everything off the face of the earth in that locality if you have the capacity.

Same as in Dresden, but you are comfortable with Dresden because the fire bombs were:

Nowadays wars are fought with 'surgical strikes' more frequently so it is "improving" with technology.

I am not anymore comfortable with the Dresden bombings.

The only way I will accept that the bombings were "necessary" is in the historical sense that it was an necessary evolutionary step that man had to go through, much like an alcoholic has to hit rock bottom before he can get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General:

Completely agree with the following:

The only way I will accept that the bombings were "necessary" is in the historical sense that it was an necessary evolutionary step that man had to go through, much like an alcoholic has to hit rock bottom before he can get better.

But as anyone from A/A will attest, it is one day at a time and people, places and things.

The problem with the comparison is the alcoholic bottoming out usually has damage limited to friends, business, family, whereas bottoming out would be a mutual nuclear would, I think you would agree, the damage could be potentially global, but I understand your point.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The war had the inertia of a falling hammer and only the Japanese themselves had the power to stop that hammer--by surrendering.

--Brant

This reminds me of the bully in the playground who sits on you until you say 'uncle'. The US could have rendered the Japanese military machine useless without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians even if the emperor didn't say 'uncle'. a blockade could have been in place without starving millions of civilians. The real problem is that once fights get started they quickly get out of control. This applies equally to flame wars and world wars.

The US was a "bully" in WWII? And Japan?

There is the broader question of why we got into the war with Japan in the first place.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General; From what I have read about the end of the Japanese War some in the military were even resisting the Emperor. The use of both weapons was necessary. A blockade would have resulted in more deaths of civilians because the military would have horded the food. The military had the guns and ammo.

Why not have a blockade that lets food go into the country? Why would there be a shortage of food?

The purpose of the blockade would have been to force surrender. You are trying to use starvation as a weapon. You are trying to win a war by killing people--any people. I consider that that would have been grossly immoral, even evil, because there was a more effective, less costly method available--the one that was used. War is not a game. War per se is evil in itself, with failure to defend oneself and one's country the greater evil.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US was a "bully" in WWII? And Japan?

There is the broader question of why we got into the war with Japan in the first place.

--Brant

it's an analogy Brant. Anyway I know why the US entered the war, my question is how far does one retaliate even if one was attacked first? A good example is 9/11. Was invading Iraq a proper response to that or was it over-reacting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
War per se is evil in itself, with failure to defend oneself and one's country the greater evil.

--Brant

My point is that much of what goes under the name 'defense' is actually offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... since Hiroshima and Nagasaki had munitions factories strategically secreted amongst the "civilian" populations, you wipe everything off the face of the earth in that locality if you have the capacity.

Same as in Dresden, but you are comfortable with Dresden because the fire bombs were:

Nowadays wars are fought with 'surgical strikes' more frequently so it is "improving" with technology.

I am not anymore comfortable with the Dresden bombings.

The only way I will accept that the bombings were "necessary" is in the historical sense that it was an necessary evolutionary step that man had to go through, much like an alcoholic has to hit rock bottom before he can get better.

I have never been happy with the firebombings of German cities, especially Dresden with the war all but won. I've never been comfortable with the air war generally against Japan, including the fire-bombing of Tokyo, March 1945. When I said I could have been a crew-member on the Enola Gay, I was speaking of the time, place and circumstance. Eisenhower, though, thought it shouldn't have been done. That there had been no need to drop that "horrible" weapon. The end-game of the war with Japan was fought with no imagination. However, another way could have produced even more dreadful results. We'll never know. The leadership in Japan might have interpreted it as weakness. The atomic bombings were a logical extension of the firebombings and without those firebombings the use of the atomic weapons--the US only had the two that were used--would have been ineffective and gratuitous to ending the war.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US was a "bully" in WWII? And Japan?

There is the broader question of why we got into the war with Japan in the first place.

--Brant

it's an analogy Brant. Anyway I know why the US entered the war, my question is how far does one retaliate even if one was attacked first? A good example is 9/11. Was invading Iraq a proper response to that or was it over-reacting?

The Iraqi war was a disaster for the US. It was all about oil. The US didn't want the dictator to get his hands on any more revenue and wanted more of Iraqi oil to enter world markets. If it really had been about weapons of mass destruction we would have pulled out as soon as we didn't find them. There was a much better case for invading Iran--or even Saudi Arabia. Bush was a horrible President. Obama will also be very bad, I'm afraid.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US was a "bully" in WWII? And Japan?

There is the broader question of why we got into the war with Japan in the first place.

--Brant

it's an analogy Brant. Anyway I know why the US entered the war, my question is how far does one retaliate even if one was attacked first? A good example is 9/11. Was invading Iraq a proper response to that or was it over-reacting?

It would have been better if I had used the word "how" instead of "why."

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God knows I translated enough Power Point documents that ended up, after a lot of blah blah blah, having the same cognitive import as "chicken." It is very funny to see that verbalized and made concrete.

Exactly. The appendix slide in response to the last question sent it over the top. After over 22 years in corporate America it really hit the spot.

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God knows I translated enough Power Point documents that ended up, after a lot of blah blah blah, having the same cognitive import as "chicken." It is very funny to see that verbalized and made concrete.

Exactly. The appendix slide in response to the last question sent it over the top. After over 22 years in corporate America it really hit the spot.

Judith

22 years in corporate America? I've spent time there, but also 25 years in academia. We suffer from PowerPoint poisoning far more in academia than in the corporate world.

Bill P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That chicken shit was lame and made even more lame by the laugh track. I did not find it funny at all, but of course, I am the chart monkey in the office making decks for a living. I take my craft very seriously.

Monkey, Monkey, Monkey!

Now that's funny!

Here is how not to use Powerpoint. I couldn't find the one Edward Tufte uses for the Gettysburg address, which is a very funny satire of Powerpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagxPlVqrtM

Kat

Professional PowerPoint Arteeeeeste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't find the one Edward Tufte uses for the Gettysburg address, which is a very funny satire of Powerpoint.

The Gettysburg address PPT is hilarious, and can be found at:

http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/index.htm

My favorite is the "Organizational overview" slide...

Bill P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitten!

That was funny. The Gettysburg thing too.

:)

I don't think the Chicken ppt presentation had canned laugh tracks, though. According to the blurb on YouTube it was:

Presented at the AAAS humor session, February 16, 2007.

AAAS is the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I think this was people actually laughing. Also, I don't know of many laugh tracks that have that much coughing. As one blogger said:

At first, I didn’t think it would be that funny but I found myself laughing outloud in no time. If you have had to sit through a few days of dry scientific talks then you will appreciate the humor in this video.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...