Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[RandFan]

The German bombing of Britain and the British bombing of Germany were both intentional killing of civilians.

Yes.

They were meant to break the spirit of the people.

Yes.

No "reasonable" German complained and when Britain got the chance to retaliate, no reasonable Brit complained. I guess your stance is that no one in Germany or England was reasonable at that time.

Assumes the lack of complaining is equivalent to moral acceptance. That is a non-sequitur. It also assumes that reasonable people, by and large, would never do something immoral in extreme circumstances in the interest of self preservation. That is also demonstrably wrong.

The Geneva Convention was not the moral zeitgeist you mistake it for. It was an ideal people were striving for. If it havd been the zeitgeist of the time, they wouldn't have had to write it down and try make everyone live up to it.

This is another non-sequitur. If prohibition to murder was the moral zeitgeist of today we wouldn't need to write it down and try to make people live up to it.

The moral zeitgeist was that in war everyone associated with the other side was fair game. The Geneva convention was trying to change that but it was definitely not the zeitgeist yet and probably still isn't now.

This is wrong on many levels.

Ethical and legal standards are indicative of the moral standards of the time.

You have obviously not read much on this. Richard Feynman who worked on the bomb mentioned this as well. He stated that once Germany capitulated there was no questioning of what they were doing, or very little. He makes the point that in the frenzy to build the bomb they lost focus of what their purpose was.

Read Freeman Dyson's words on the subject. His job during the war was to make bombing as devastating as possible to German cities. He even states that there was a competition of sorts between Britain and the US to see who could create the most, and largest, firestorms with the Brits being at a disadvantage because of the type of construction used in Germany compared to Japan.

You have not read that Einstein and others formed a group in opposition to the bomb and sent letters to FDR. In any event, the views of some scientists hardly obviates my proposition. I don't hold that no reasonable person can be contrarian. This is not what the "reasonable person" standard holds.

Pondering turtle asked: "So attacking civilians to damage the economic power, is acceptable..."

To which you replied: "'Acceptable'? Please to explain where I said anything is 'acceptable'?"

Is this a joke? Please to tell me how my words designate anything as "acceptable"?

 

[SteveGrenard]

You have obviously not read much on this. Richard Feynman who worked on the bomb mentioned this as well. He stated that once Germany capitulated there was no questioning of what they were doing, or very little. He makes the point that in the frenzy to build the bomb they lost focus of what their purpose was.

Read Freeman Dyson's words on the subject. His job during the war was to make bombing as devastating as possible to German cities. He even states that there was a competition of sorts between Britain and the US to see who could create the most, and largest, firestorms with the Brits being at a disadvantage because of the type of construction used in Germany compared to Japan.

So dropping the bomb on Germany was alright given the atrocities Germany comitted but not so Japan? Is that what I am getting here?

How soon we forget:

R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[8] Among the most infamous incidents in Southeast Asia were the Manila massacre, which resulted in the deaths of 100,000 civilians in the Phillipines and the Sook Ching massacre, in which between 25,000 and 50,000 ethnic Chinese in Singapore were taken to beaches and massacred.
In China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians as a direct result of the Japanese invasion.[9] The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanking Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred as many as 430,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.[10] Herbert Bix, citing the works of Mitsuyoshi Himeta and Akira Fujiwara, claims that the "Three Alls Policy" (Sankō Sakusen) a scorched earth strategy used by Japanese forces in China in 1942-45, and sanctioned by Hirohito himself, was in itself responsible for the deaths of 2.7 million Chinese civilians. The mystery behind Hirohito's role is explained in the authoritative book by David Bergamini, who translated war diaries and depositions from the tribunals from the original Japanese, and interviewed sources directly.Similar crimes such as Changjiao massacre did occur from time to time.[citation needed]

With more on slave labor, comfort women, human experimentation, etc at:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

If I didn't know they were Japanese I wouldda thought they were Nazis. Oh wait a minute, maybe they were.

 

[qayak]

Yes.
Assumes the lack of complaining is equivalent to moral acceptance.

Your opinion makes an assumption on what you believe not on any evidence.

[/QUOTE] This is another non-sequitur. If prohibition to murder was the moral zeitgeist of today we wouldn't need to write it down and try to make people live up to it.

Completely different. You can see how this is the zeitgeist simply because most people follow it. Which is the definition of zeitgeist by the way.

In WWII, everyone "broke" your so called moral zeitgeist. They did in all the wars before and most of the wars after. That isn't a zeitgeist, it is an ideal that sounds good in theory but is not practically applied yet.

Ethical and legal standards are indicative of the moral standards of the time.

They can be but not necessarily. Passing a law outlawing slavery is not the same as having changed the moral zeitgeist. That takes time. In order to be considered the new zeitgeist, most people must follow it most of the time. That didn't happen with civilian bombing in WWII.

You have not read that Einstein and others formed a group in opposition to the bomb and sent letters to FDR. In any event, the views of some scientists hardly obviates my proposition. I don't hold that no reasonable person can be contrarian. This is not what the "reasonable person" standard holds.

You are trying to claim that a small group of scientists who understood the devastation potential of the new bomb are the ones who set the moral zeitgeist. You are wrong.

Is this a joke? Please to tell me how my words designate anything as "acceptable"?

That's what I said, "equivocation."

 

[qayak]

Face up to it, qayak, no matter how many tantrums you throw on a bulletin board, the world will not change itself to suit your whims. Too bad.

Randfan,

Your argument is in serious trouble, Gurdur has joined your team!

 

[RandFan]

Your opinion makes an assumption on what you believe not on any evidence.

No.

Completely different. You can see how this is the zeitgeist simply because most people follow it. Which is the definition of zeitgeist by the way.

I don't think most people were killing innocent civilians prior to war. In any event, no that is not the definition of zeitgeist.

In WWII, everyone "broke" your so called moral zeitgeist. They did in all the wars before and most of the wars after. That isn't a zeitgeist, it is an ideal that sounds good in theory but is not practically applied yet.

No, the leaders "broke" the zeitgeist much as Bush is breaking it today.

They can be but not necessarily. Passing a law outlawing slavery is not the same as having changed the moral zeitgeist. That takes time. In order to be considered the new zeitgeist, most people must follow it most of the time. That didn't happen with civilian bombing in WWII.

There was no vote as to how to prosecute the war. The leaders made the decisions.

You are trying to claim that a small group of scientists who understood the devastation potential of the new bomb are the ones who set the moral zeitgeist. You are wrong.

You are the one trying to find meaning from a small group of people. My example only belies your proposition about the beliefs of those who made the bomb.

That's what I said, "equivocation."

Would you please knock this off? What the hell are you talking about? Would you please be direct and explain what you mean? I can I equivicate by simply stating that I don't hold a position I never held? You are not making any sense and it is really pissing me off.

I don't ever remember you arguing or discussing in bad faith before. If you are not sincere then I would rather put you on ignore. Are you trolling?

 

[qayak]

I don't think most people were killing innocent civilians prior to war. In any event, no that is not the definition of zeitgeist.

Nice try. You equate people believing it is immoral to kill their friends and neighbours under normal societal conditions with people thinking it is immoral to kill the people of other nations and other races during a time of war.

This is a major fallacy on your part. The evidence shows that people at that time believed it was morally okay to kill the innocent civilians of other nations and other races during a time of war. Unless of course, you can show that they didn't knwo that dropping 279 tons of high explosives and 41 tons of incendiary devices on the residents of a foreign city would not result in any deaths. That might be tough though, especially for "reasonable" people to believe.

No, the leaders "broke" the zeitgeist much as Bush is breaking it today.

That wouldn't hold up for any soldier, in any war crime trial, anywhere. A lot have tried to blame their leaders.

Besides, the citizens of the US elected Bush back for a second term. They did specifically endorse his actions. Considering it is a democracy with government by the people, I would say it is a strong indicator that the zeitgeist hasn't changed much at all.

You also seem to be claiming that the people did not follow these leaders because they believed in what they were doing. This would be like claiming the average reasonable German did not know what was going on in the concentration camps and if they had, they would have been against it. That is a mistake, because the German people did know and they supported it almost universally.

You are the one trying to find meaning from a small group of people. My example only belies your proposition about the beliefs of those who made the bomb.

Not at all. You are claiming that a few scientists in America were speaking for the vast majority of German and Britiah people. (If this were true, why do you suppose the bomb was finished and then used. . . twice?) On the other hand, I am looking at the actions of those people and saying they are the ones who set the moral zeitgeist for their time, not a few scientists.

You seem to have this picture of people as being all good, all the time. They aren't. As good as they can be, they can be just as evil. The only redeeming thing is that, on the whole, they tend toward good which is what allows the zeitgeit to shift the way we would like it to over a period of time.

 

[RandFan]

Nice try. You equate people believing it is immoral to kill their friends and neighbours under normal societal conditions with people thinking it is immoral to kill the people of other nations and other races during a time of war.

No, I equate people believing it is immoral to kill innocent civilians.

This is a major fallacy on your part.

And that fallacy would be?

The evidence shows that people at that time believed it was morally okay to kill the innocent civilians of other nations and other races during a time of war. Unless of course, you can show that they didn't knwo that dropping 279 tons of high explosives and 41 tons of incendiary devices on the residents of a foreign city would not result in any deaths. That might be tough though, especially for "reasonable" people to believe.

Please to demonstrate that people believed that dropping incendiary devices on innocent civilians was moral?

You seem to think that since A.) it happened and B.) there was no uproar that people believed that it was ok. That is not a valid argument.

That wouldn't hold up for any soldier, in any war crime trial, anywhere. A lot have tried to blame their leaders.

"Soldier"? We are talking about American civilians who didn't carry out any orders.

Besides, the citizens of the US elected Bush back for a second term. They did specifically endorse his actions. Considering it is a democracy with government by the people, I would say it is a strong indicator that the zeitgeist hasn't changed much at all.

Many did not fully understand the extent of Bush's actions. Now they do. Now his polls are in the toilet with is a very strong indicator that the zeitgeist has changed.

You also seem to be claiming that the people did not follow these leaders because they believed in what they were doing. This would be like claiming the average reasonable German did not know what was going on in the concentration camps and if they had, they would have been against it. That is a mistake, because the German people did know and they supported it almost universally.

"Supported it almost universally"? Proof please? Those who opposed Hitler at the beginning were hauled away and put in concentration camps.

You are claiming that a few scientists in America were speaking for the vast majority of German and Britiah people.

Proof please?

You seem to have this picture of people as being all good, all the time.

No, not at all. Only that they hold to various degrees moral concepts. If you took the average person during WWII, sat him or her down for coffee or tea and asked them anonymously if it would be ok to specifically target and kill women and children in the hopes of winning the war I have no doubt that the average person would have said no. That had been the zeitgeist for a long time. In fact, it was a hallmark of civilized warfare. Professional soldiers would fight soldiers and NOT sack and plunder villages.

 

[robinson]

"civilized warfare"

BWHA! That is right up there with "peaceful violence".

 

[RandFan]

"civilized warfare"

BWHA! That is right up there with "peaceful violence".

I'll grant you that the term is problematic but I don't think there is much argument that warfare changed after humans became more and more civilized. Would you not agree that civilization has had an effect on warfare?

Professional soldiers.
Rules of conduct.
No military conscription.
No children soldiers.

Any effect?

 

[Alareth]

If you don't think a person's actions can have both civil and criminal ramifications, talk with O.J. Simpson next time you see him.

I feel that having a criminal and civil trial for the same event violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter when it comes to Double Jeopardy.

 

[qayak]

No, I equate people believing it is immoral to kill innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't show that. It is just something you wish was true.

And that fallacy would be?

Already explained, you even responded to it.

Please to demonstrate that people believed that dropping incendiary devices on innocent civilians was moral?

Because that is what was done in Germany and Japan and people fully supported the bombing og both those countries during WWII.

You seem to think that since A.) it happened and B.) there was no uproar that people believed that it was ok. That is not a valid argument.

It is 100% valid and the fact that even after, when it became completely obvious what was done and the damage it had, people still justified and mostly supported the action. And as a result it was repeated in other wars.

"Soldier"? We are talking about American civilians who didn't carry out any orders.

You cannot claim that you are innocent of a crime, no matter who you are, just because your leader ordered it. If the leaders of Exxon ordered the captain to dump his cargo into Prince William Sound would he have been innocent of any wrongdoing?

Many did not fully understand the extent of Bush's actions. Now they do. Now his polls are in the toilet with is a very strong indicator that the zeitgeist has changed.

Ignorance is no excuse. Even if Bush was winning in Iraq and his popularity high, his actions would still be immoral. The zeitgeist hasn't changed. His polls are low because he is losing not because of what he did.

"Supported it almost universally"? Proof please? Those who opposed Hitler at the beginning were hauled away and put in concentration camps.

No they weren't. They were killed. It was the Jews and other races that were put in the camps.

Proof please?

Talk about dishonesty in argument! You are the one that made the claim two posts ago. Go read.

In fact, it was a hallmark of civilized warfare. Professional soldiers would fight soldiers and NOT sack and plunder villages.

Proof please.

 

[robinson]

I'll grant you that the term is problematic but I don't think there is much argument that warfare changed after humans became more and more civilized.

This is a subject that could be an entire thread. I imagine it would fit under "Social issues". The term "warfare" is interesting, and not without a great deal of controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

Want to start a topic about War? (probably already is one, we could invade it, , pun intended).

Would you not agree that civilization has had an effect on warfare?

Professional soldiers.
Rules of conduct.
No military conscription.
No children soldiers.

Any effect?

The term civilization is also going to be an issue. The most civil warfare is probably economic warfare, or what we call business or trade. The Courts are also a place of civil warfare.

When I think of rules of conduct, I consider the wars fought between European Kingdoms and countries, that had all kinds of connection with each other. This led to agreed upon rules and such, based on the reality that the winner might also end up the loser, and the roles could change. And that you might become allies with a former enemy.

A small inbred group of conflicts, sometimes against related parties, would lead to such arrangements, most of which benefited economic interest. Better communications, and modern weapons, also lead to "civilized" battles.

But to tell you flat out, I never really thought about it that much. How this relates to a stand off over taxes, we may never know.

Speaking of, did you hear the latest?

 

[gnome]

When I think of rules of conduct, I consider the wars fought between European Kingdoms and countries, that had all kinds of connection with each other. This led to agreed upon rules and such, based on the reality that the winner might also end up the loser, and the roles could change. And that you might become allies with a former enemy.

In addition, even if there is no reversal, unless you plan genocide, the lands you defeat must be governable afterwards.

 

[shecky]

Would you not agree that civilization has had an effect on warfare?

Professional soldiers.
Rules of conduct.
No military conscription.
No children soldiers.

Any effect?

Very interesting question. Civilization could certainly have had an effect on warfare. Could have made warfare much more destructive and brutal.

 

[RandFan]

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't show that. It is just something you wish was true.

What evidence? Sorry but you are wrong.

Already explained, you even responded to it.

This is not responsive.

Because that is what was done in Germany and Japan and people fully supported the bombing og both those countries during WWII.

This is not proof. I've made an argument and you have not responded.

It is 100% valid and the fact that even after, when it became completely obvious what was done and the damage it had, people still justified and mostly supported the action. And as a result it was repeated in other wars.

Sorry, no. Your argument is spurious. Action or inaction is not proof.

You cannot claim that you are innocent of a crime, no matter who you are, just because your leader ordered it. If the leaders of Exxon ordered the captain to dump his cargo into Prince William Sound would he have been innocent of any wrongdoing?

Apples and oranges. One more time, the civlians didn't carry out any orders.

No they weren't. They were killed. It was the Jews and other races that were put in the camps.

No but even if you are right it just proves my contention. In any event, most Jews were killed.

Talk about dishonesty in argument! You are the one that made the claim two posts ago. Go read.

Proof please?

 

[qayak]

What evidence? Sorry but you are wrong.

You keep claiming this and yet you cannot show one shred of evidence to support it nor can you counter the evidence I give.

This is not proof. I've made an argument and you have not responded.

You have not made an argument at all. You have stated an opinion with nothing to back it up and one that flies in the face of all observable evidence.

If it is your argument then provide some evidence.

Sorry, no. Your argument is spurious. Action or inaction is not proof.

Only in your little fantasyland. Action and inaction are very compelling evidence.

Apples and oranges. One more time, the civlians didn't carry out any orders.

WTF are you talking about? You have made several claims and not one of them stands up to even the most elementary thinking. You keep moving the goal posts which is why I have claimed you equivocate. You claimed it was the leaders who broke the laws when they ordered the firebombing of civilian targets. I stated that claiming to have been ordered to firebomb Dresden or any other city is not a defence when the act is illegal. This was to demonstrate that the people who carried it out were not against it. I also pointed out that there was no public outcry to indicate that civilians were against it as you claimed.

The point in all this is that YOUR CLAIM is not a claim. It is your opinion based on complete ignorance of the events.

No but even if you are right it just proves my contention. In any event, most Jews were killed.

My being right proves your point!

Proof please?

You made this statement at 8:17 this morning: "You have not read that Einstein and others formed a group in opposition to the bomb and sent letters to FDR."

That you pretend you didn't make it is dishonest. That you claim it doesn't mean what you said it meant at the time, is an equivocation. This is a pathetic excuse for debate technique and really beneath any honest person. I have to wonder why you use it so often?

 

[RandFan]

You keep claiming this and yet you cannot show one shred of evidence to support it nor can you counter the evidence I give.

Right back at you.

You have not made an argument at all. You have stated an opinion with nothing to back it up and one that flies in the face of all observable evidence.

Right back at you.

WTF are you talking about? You have made several claims and not one of them stands up to even the most elementary thinking.

This is simply your assertion.

You made this statement at 8:17 this morning: "You have not read that Einstein and others formed a group in opposition to the bomb and sent letters to FDR."

Yes, and I stand by this.

qayak: Makes a claim about scientists.
RandFan: Provides an example to belie your claim (my example was correct btw).

That you pretend you didn't make it is dishonest. That you claim it doesn't mean what you said it meant at the time, is an equivocation. This is a pathetic excuse for debate technique and really beneath any honest person. I have to wonder why you use it so often?

Not a clue dude.

You are all over the map on this one. You are losing it.

 

[RandFan]

My being right proves your point!

Duh!

qayak: That Germans did not oppose Hitler's policy proved they thought it was moral.
RandFan: They had reason not to oppose, they could have been put in jail.
qayak: They were not put in jail they were shot.

RandFan's claim: Germans had a reason not to oppose the leaders.

YES YOU BEING RIGHT PROVES MY POINT!

DUH!

 

[qayak]

Duh!

qayak: That Germans did not oppose Hitler's policy proved they thought it was moral.
RandFan: They had reason not to oppose, they could have been put in jail.
qayak: They were not put in jail they were shot.

RandFan's claim: Germans had a reason not to oppose the leaders.

YES YOU BEING RIGHT PROVES MY POINT!

DUH!

You are dishonest to take my words out of context. You stated that the people who opposed Hitler at first were put into concentration camps.

This was not true. They were killed in purges. Concentration camps came later.

All of this was over before the bombings carried out by Germany against other countries and so it had nothing to do with how normal German people of the day saw these bombings. The fact is, they backed Hitler in his murder of opponents, in his aggression against other countries and in his final solution to the jewish problem.

Once again you equivocate by claiming a different meaning for statements you made earlier. To add to this, you take my words out of context and claim they support your point. Very dishonest of you.

 

[qayak]

Right back at you.

Right back at you.

Do you think you can get beyond the two year old toddler level of debate you have become famous for.

qayak: Makes a claim about scientists.
RandFan: Provides an example to belie your claim (my example was correct btw).

Once again you twist words. Go back and look. You made the claim. I gave specific examples of scientists who were there at the time that said the complete opposite to what you claimed.

You then gave an example of a couple of American scientists who wrote a letter to an American president and claimed they were an indicator of the moral zeitgeist fo the German people of the time.

Not a clue dude.

See, honesty isn't so hard.

You are all over the map on this one. You are losing it.

No, I am just responding to everything you bring up. You are the one leading this discussion. You move goal posts, muddy the waters, toss out red herrings, in hopes of claiming a victory. I just point out the folley of your strategy.