Author Topic: New Orleans refugeees  (Read 15646 times)

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2005, 11:19:22 AM »
Quote
I think Joe put it pretty well (okay, I did read one of his posts, lol). I'm not distinguishing the BIG E from the little e. Because I see they are all tied up within the context of evolution (i.e. the big bang). This idea IS being forced down people's throats -- it's in every science textbook that I've ever seen. Now, I don't have a problem with presenting this as a theory -- but they don't write it that way in a textbook -- they write it as fact. Even though the odds of it actually happening are great enough that it SHOULD cause a scientist to question it on every step!

The first thing Randy, is you have to distinguish between the Big Bang and Evolution.  The Big Bang is a theory on how the universe (planets, suns, galaxies) came about because of a primordial explosion and that the universe is constantly expanding.  All Evolution is trying to do is explain how our diverse, sophisticated biological landscape happened since biological history shows that a long long time ago, cyano-bacteria and chloroflagellates (living floaties) were the only thing around.  Why do we now have Duckbill Platypus and Elephants.  These are two very different ideas.  

The second thing is Scientist are the first ones to point out that not EVERYTHING is worked out, YET.  That is why they call it a Theory, not a law, not a principle.  More often than not, people use the fact that Scientist are trying to be forthcoming on the nebulous areas of the Theory and use that to discredit the entire premise, which is both shortsighted and idiotic.  It is presented in all textbooks, because Evolution is a very valuable tool and, so far, the best scientific answer there is when a student asks, "where did Elephants come from?"      

Quote
scientists began accepting his premise before even having proof that it was right. I don't know whether you call that rationale thinking or not

Scientist NEVER just accept a premise, they think up new hypotheses for experimentation based on a concept and after evaluating the results, determine if the hypothesis is true and ultimately whether the theory is valid.  They do this over and over ad nauseam.  This has been on-going even before the time of Darwin (you're correct in that).  If any scientist just accepted the premise without investigation, he would be ridiculed across the entire profession.

 
Quote
there are also a great number of presumptions. And those presumptions aren't even presented as presumptions -- they are often presented as fact.

Which presumptions do you speak of that are always presented as fact?

Joe,

Quote
Skander: I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not from a reputable scientific text, I can tell you that. The words "I think" in one of your quotes have NO BUSINESS in any sort of scientific discussion. As I've said before, semantics are important when discussing science. No true scientist would make such a mistake.

Also, whoever is talking about the "Theory of Gravity" is a fool. Newton's *LAW* of Universal Gravitation establishes gravity as FACT (as we know it). It is *NOT* the THEORY of Universal Gravitation. Darwin's and Einstein's work are referred to as THEORY, but Newton's is *NOT*. (I can't speak to Gregor Mendel's work; biology is your field, not mine.) Again, this makes me question your sources.

Go ahead and come up with sources of your own, I did mention in my post that you should look up the definitions of Scientific Law and Scientific Theory.  We can even go to the public library and read about them in Science textbooks if you want.  

Biology IS my field and I can speak for Mendel's Theory of Inheritance.  I believe that my physical characteristics are due to the equal sharing of chromosomes between my two parents at conception, and that there are dominant, recessive, and co-dominant traits that lead to my appearance, even if that entire premise is only a THEORY, because you cannot paint such a complicated complex system with one stroke of a paint brush (which essentially what a Law does).  

Many scientific establishments with more stringent criteria about what constitutes enough evidence for a concept to become a Law of Nature have placed the word Theory on Gravitation.  We all know that while in school they might call them the Newtonian "Laws" of Physics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity has a slight problem with those so-called "Laws".  In fact, the only true Laws of Nature that in all my years have never been called anything different and have never been disputed in any way, shape, or form:

1) Law of Conservation of Mass
2) Law of Conservation of Energy.  

   
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2005, 12:25:54 PM »
Joe,

Quote
The words "I think" in one of your quotes have NO BUSINESS in any sort of scientific discussion.

Also forgot to mention:

In the context of those words, I think they have every business in this sort of scientific discussion, if you had quoted the sentence where those words came from it was.

"We cannot expect to find 'laws' of complex systems, and I think that the attempt to do so can lead to serious error."

I think this sentence is very valid in this discussion and I think some of Randy's views about Evolution that are in serious error are exactly what the author of this is talking about.  



 
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Guest_Randy

  • Guest
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2005, 01:39:54 PM »
Umm, when I was in grade school -- the Big Bang, evolution was taught as ONE theory that was all tied together.  And it wasn't taught as theory either.

Skander, the simple fact that these theories WERE taught as fact, totally disagree with your concepts of science (and the search for facts).  

The Big Bang is a great example of what I have been trying to say -- when I was in school -- this WAS taught as one theory relating together.  It wasn't taught as "this is one possibility" -- however, that's exactly what it is.  They didn't try to help children realize that there's a difference between theory and law -- they simply presented it in a way in which it would be best accepted.  That disagrees with the approach that scientists are to take when it comes to science -- to continue to strive for the truth.  

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2005, 03:01:34 PM »
So our chief concern about this, then, is to keep our options open?

Humans exploit religious fervor as readily as they do the innate greed that also exists in the heart of humanity. When you hear people thanking their God for saving them from death in a catastrophe while so many others died, yet not questioning the logical implication that their God caused the calamity in the first place, can this hypocrisy be explained? Maybe only 'good' souls get to die in a cataclysm, while evil people are allowed to propagate? Makes more sense, considering.

You all might have noticed that religious conflicts have hindered the development of humanity much more then aided it. This is just crazy planning, but let's assume that God gave Man the option of choice in how humanity should honor Him.

Oops.

It would seem that by doing so, He also gave Man the option of screwing up his afterlife in the process, because I do not think God ever said he favored killing anyone as a means to ensure entrance to his kingdom. That was Man's option of choice, and by letting Man chose.......well......what is the basis of Darwin's theory everyone is discussing? Survival of the fittest? Giving Man options certainly weeds out the stupid quickly.

But as to this discussion, it is much easier to fathom evolution. Things came together and blended and somehow life formed in the right environment and evolved over the eons to the point where we sit on our back porches swatting mosquitoes as we observe the bees pollinating our roses. Great.

In the creationist's world, this action by God certainly answered a ton of questions posed by the human race over time, as humans had more time, that is, to think about such things. It was never written down for centuries. No one knew how to write. So it was reported by……humans to other humans. THIS is NOT an ideal way for information to be maintained in its original sanctity of accuracy. People have a tendency to add and delete things to fit their audience and their own biases. That choice option again. Understandable, but hardly factual after a few millennium of repeating the same stories until someone who COULD write actually did.

However, it never answers the one question that really matters, does it? Why? Why on earth (so to speak) would God bother? This plain we inhabit is just a testing ground? We souls have to show our unquestioned belief in a higher entity for…..glory in the afterlife?

Can't we just skip this part and go straight there?

I mean, where is the perfection in this system that has God's flawless logic ingrained in it? It sort of makes you think we were just planned out as little playthings on a giant game board, because I really can not fathom any real reason for us to exist in that scenario. God gives us life only to constantly test us in our faith by throwing war, pestilence, natural catastrophes, and Rush Limbaugh in our way to weed out the souls who fall in disgrace and do not thank him for it?

Souls can die after three days of life or live to be over a hundred. Which one has better odds of meeting those high standards of a pure life?

So again, the arcane logic of His putting us on this plain instead of some other system, and in the fashion in which He did it leads to one conclusion only, if you want to think about it at all. He HAD to use something like evolution to ensure his divine plan would work.

We have to die, you see, to achieve it. Otherwise, as stated, let's just skip this part.

And it would help if we could evolve a bit each generation to adapt religious thinking on how best to live life on this plain so God will notice 'we' Christians are better then 'those' Muslims. Like that kind of issue really matters at all, under this state of affairs.

Personally, I find being a game piece on a giant cosmic playing board somewhat appalling.  
 
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2005, 03:30:27 PM »
Goodness, leave it to JoMal to utterly depress the crap outta me.   :mellow:

Quote
That was Man's option of choice, and by letting Man chose.......well......what is the basis of Darwin's theory everyone is discussing? Survival of the fittest? Giving Man options certainly weeds out the stupid quickly.

Rather than survival of the fittest, I like to call it survival of the lucky.  If you happen to have a certain biological characteristic that gives you and others who share that quality a better chance to survive, you will live to reproduce giving your qualities a chance to propagate.  

This is even more apparent in artifical selection.  We've seen across hundreds of years amongst plant and animal breeders, selectively choosing the Husky with exactly the right-shape ears, or the sweetest-tasting corn.  Their had to be those proto-type individuals in the beginning of each evolutionary process that lucked into a very useful genetic mutation.    

Quote
Can't we just skip this part and go straight there?

Where would be your sense of accomplishment....okay...How would God know whether he'd succeeded in creating people to worship him while giving them every choice not to.  "going straight there" would be what he did with the angels.  Theologically speaking.  

Quote
Souls can die after three days of life or live to be over a hundred. Which one has better odds of meeting those high standards of a pure life?

This part is a bit confusing.  Should I take your use of the word "Soul" here to mean you do believe in an afterlife or a higher power.  Just curious. :D  
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

rickortreat

  • Guest
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2005, 03:38:43 PM »
How's this for a hypothetical, working theory about life:

We are spirits in the process of developing our concious minds.  Our ability to choose, our ability to think, to remember, to percieve to become more aware of our own true nature.

That which created us, above all supports free will, and allows us to screw up as much as we want, and pay the price for it.

I see no evidence of his/her/it's active hand in the world.  Injustice of all kinds prevails in the world.  And, I'm not talking about storms like Katrina.  Katrina occured according to the laws of physics.  The world is constantly bombarded by energy from the sun, which it dissipates through kinetic action, wind, water currents and storms.  Eathquakes too, are part of the process of the earth.  It isn't perfect, nothing in the physical universe is pemanent or stable, all things are subject to decay and change.

No, I'm talking about man's injustice to man, Stalin murdering millions, Hitler doing the same.  The same wealthy families controlling the world's economy,  causing wars and starvatrion, supporting evil men, anything as long as it futhers their ability to gain control.  America is being destroyed from the inside out, as they take away our freedoms, our property rights, and our self-determination.  Ingonrance about basic economic theory is so lacking the talking heads on CNBC talk about the hurricane having a postive effect on the economy, and no one even calls to tell them they are idiots!

If there was a god and he was concerned about fair play, he wouldn't allow any of this to happen.  So if he does exist, he's pretty much hands-off in terms of how the world develops.

The law of opposition: all things are kept in a natural balance.  If a species becomes too successful, it poisons it's environment and dies out.  Most of the time species are balanced between plant eaters and predators.  The only creature not oppossed is man, since he is able to understand and overcome obstacles.  But man doesn't regulate himself properly.  He consumes his environment poisons it, fight against himself and drowns in sense pleasure, not realizing that such things are illusion.  

A truly self regulating species would really make progress, never going overboard with one method of growth, but adapting on the fly, not making the same mistakes over and over again, rememebering the past and using it to inform the future.

Oh, and you can see evidence of this when contrasting the lower forms with the higher ones.  The higher up the evolutionary ladder you go, you observe greater choice exhibited by some species, whereas others rely totally on instinct.  Man is the least constrained by instinct, his survival is primarily based on his ability to make proper choices.  But even lower down the ladder you obseve predators making choices learning the best way to hunt and in some cases, working together in groups to achieve aims. Even lower forms like ants and bees live in collective societies, able to survive together, when on their own they would perish.

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #81 on: September 12, 2005, 03:59:47 PM »
Quote
Rather than survival of the fittest, I like to call it survival of the lucky.  If you happen to have a certain biological characteristic that gives you and others who share that quality a better chance to survive, you will live to reproduce giving your qualities a chance to propagate.  



 
Yeah, when change comes, be ready.

Which, unfortunately, does not take into consideration the time needed to do so, as the residents of New Orleans who needed to regrow gills overnight found out. Or the time the dinosaurs, those mythical creatures, lacked when that alledged meteor struck Earth 65 million years ago while they were munching dandelions in a meadow that turned into a glacier before they could finish chewing.

Yes, luck certainly can be a factor in who walks out of those natural disasters to produce the next generation.

Wasn't an earlier discussion here over the intelligence of the individuals who stayed behind in New Orleans after they were warned to leave? Sure, some had no choice (OO....OO, natural selection!!!!!), while others DID have a choice. (Darwins theory????? Maybe they thought they were really good waders?) God's choice? Let's see how you handle THIS one while not using my name in vain.

Quote
Where would be your sense of accomplishment....okay...How would God know whether he'd succeeded in creating people to worship him while giving them every choice not to.  "going straight there" would be what he did with the angels.  Theologically speaking.
 

Aah, Skandery, you got my point.

We are all pawns to a powerful being who needs to be worshipped by lesser creatures to feel like, well, a God. Yes, THAT should make us all feel better about our situation on this plain. But doen't it make you feel just a bit curious as to why he is bothering?

Hold it!!! I feel something trying to move my game piece, and not in a positive direction either.

Quote
This part is a bit confusing.  Should I take your use of the word "Soul" here to mean you do believe in an afterlife or a higher power.  Just curious. :D

Well, to 'just' satisfy your curiousity on the point, I used the word "soul" to convey a religious concept of an afterlife connected to a higher power.  What I thought you might question was the use of the term "soul" in the sense that souls die, which is the mistake I noticed when I read your post.  
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #82 on: September 12, 2005, 04:42:33 PM »
Quote
We are all pawns to a powerful being who needs to be worshipped by lesser creatures to feel like, well, a God. Yes, THAT should make us all feel better about our situation on this plain. But doen't it make you feel just a bit curious as to why he is bothering?

The question "Why" is beyond the infintessimally feeble limitations of my human mind.  But here's a wild stab in the dark totally biased by limited scope of motivation and philosophical prudence:  HIS sense of accomplishment.

Quote
Hold it!!! I feel something trying to move my game piece, and not in a positive direction either.

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

Quote
Well, to 'just' satisfy your curiousity on the point, I used the word "soul" to convey a religious concept of an afterlife connected to a higher power. What I thought you might question was the use of the term "soul" in the sense that souls die, which is the mistake I noticed when I read your post.

Nice one JoMaL......ahh but to learn how to dodge like the great ones.  B)  
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #83 on: September 12, 2005, 04:56:36 PM »
Rick,

Quote
If there was a god and he was concerned about fair play, he wouldn't allow any of this to happen. So if he does exist, he's pretty much hands-off in terms of how the world develops.

You're theory assumes that evil exists in our world.  

Have you ever heard the "Illogical Triangular Concept of Theology".

Take the following to be fact:

1)  God is all-knowing
2)  God is all-powerful
3)  God is all-loving

4)  Evil Exists

The fact that evil exists means one of the above statements is NOT TRUE.  So, logically, you are left with the following statements.

1)  God could stop the evil and cares to, but doesn't know about it.
2)  God knows about the evil and wants to help, but he can't
3)  God knows about the evil and can stop it, but he just doesn't care.

Here's my personal world view, evil DOES NOT exist.  What we perceive to be evil is in the grand scheme of things (that only God can understand) the greater good.  For example the baby who dies at 3 months old in its sleep might have grown up and contracted a viral disease that would have killed it slowly and painfully across a decade.  Complete conjecture and no basis in science but I sleep easier in the faith that whatever higher power is out there knows what is best for me and all of us better than I do.    
 
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #84 on: September 12, 2005, 05:49:57 PM »
Rick and Skandery.

Well, evil most certainly DOES exist, so the question should be.....what purpose does it serve?

From a strictly nonsecular point of view, evil serves as a test. See Job.

 
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

rickortreat

  • Guest
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #85 on: September 12, 2005, 06:53:11 PM »
Evil, just what is evil really?  There is misfortune and suffering of course, but I think pain is a teacher: if it hurts, don't do it again!

I don't really believe in evil when it comes to men.  What I do belive is that men do things to each other which violate the do unto others precept.  

I think there are men, as I alluded to in another post, who manipulate everything they can in order to achieve their own selfish ends.  Essentially they are acting within the precept of free will, but they have gamed the system so they win no matter what.  To me, that IS cheating.  If you can't compete and win, then you should loose.  That's natures' way and that is fair.

But what we call evil is really selfish interest imposed upon others.  And, more often than not, that occures because people are too stupid to protect themselves, and allow things to happen.  The evil in this country came about when the money power manipulated events so as to make reasonable people belive that a central bank would help matters, when it was the manipulation of the money supply by these same men that caused the problem in the first place!

So before we talk about evil, we need a definition of what evil really is.

But lets not say that it's somehow the greater good.  Some people benefitted greatly from the crash of the stock market in 1929.  But in terms of most people's lives it was the worst disaster ever, and it was caused by man interfereing with free markets and at first issuing excess credit and then taking it away, making it imposssible for people who had borrowed to pay their loans.  Evil?  In my opionion yes, but they got away with it, and the sons and daughters of the rockefellers, morgans  and vanderbuilts still run America behind the scenes, and sometimes right in front.  

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #86 on: September 12, 2005, 06:58:52 PM »
Quote
Here's my personal world view, evil DOES NOT exist.  What we perceive to be evil is in the grand scheme of things (that only God can understand) the greater good.  For example the baby who dies at 3 months old in its sleep might have grown up and contracted a viral disease that would have killed it slowly and painfully across a decade.  Complete conjecture and no basis in science but I sleep easier in the faith that whatever higher power is out there knows what is best for me and all of us better than I do.
There must have been a shit load of evil do'ers in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Twin Towers, Cambodia, Early Western Hemphishere (European Fucks!), New Orleans, Galvistan, Iraq, USSR not to mention all those evil fucken oven baked jews!

Jesus H. Fucken Christ!  What a great job God is doing of preventing suffering and evil on his petrie dish!
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #87 on: September 12, 2005, 07:03:22 PM »
Quote
I don't really believe in evil when it comes to men.
Rick,

If you really think that then look out because you're a prime candidate for "natural selection", in this case de-selection.

On this earth, ONLY MAN is capable of evil.  To think otherwise is utter stupidity IMO.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #88 on: September 12, 2005, 07:22:22 PM »
Quote
Quote
Here's my personal world view, evil DOES NOT exist.  What we perceive to be evil is in the grand scheme of things (that only God can understand) the greater good.  For example the baby who dies at 3 months old in its sleep might have grown up and contracted a viral disease that would have killed it slowly and painfully across a decade.  Complete conjecture and no basis in science but I sleep easier in the faith that whatever higher power is out there knows what is best for me and all of us better than I do.
There must have been a shit load of evil do'ers in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Twin Towers, Cambodia, Early Western Hemphishere (European Fucks!), New Orleans, Galvistan, Iraq, USSR not to mention all those evil fucken oven baked jews!

Jesus H. Fucken Christ!  What a great job God is doing of preventing suffering and evil on his petrie dish!
WOW -

I notice your fixation on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the context suggesting whether the people affected were deserving of their fate. Since the invasion of Japan did not happen because of those bombings, and the subsequent loss of life for both the Japanese and Allied forces never occurred. (and a weary America probably did not anticipate that invasion with much joy either), all I suggest for you to do is to include the following in any future lists on this subject.

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

Because by not including Nanking, you are certainly condoning what the Japanese did there by only mentioning the American solution to Japanese horrors.

And by your silence, implying it was a harsh treatment of the innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while Japan gave great thought to prevent any suffering and evil acts with their invasion of China.

Perhaps you might also study the even earlier "Western Hemphishere"
Aztec culture regarding the sunrise as well. At least ask their neighbors how many evil doers were sacrificed so the Aztec sun god would rise every day.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2005, 07:23:30 PM by JoMal »
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
New Orleans refugeees
« Reply #89 on: September 12, 2005, 07:38:23 PM »
Quote
Quote
Quote
Here's my personal world view, evil DOES NOT exist.  What we perceive to be evil is in the grand scheme of things (that only God can understand) the greater good.  For example the baby who dies at 3 months old in its sleep might have grown up and contracted a viral disease that would have killed it slowly and painfully across a decade.  Complete conjecture and no basis in science but I sleep easier in the faith that whatever higher power is out there knows what is best for me and all of us better than I do.
There must have been a shit load of evil do'ers in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Twin Towers, Cambodia, Early Western Hemphishere (European Fucks!), New Orleans, Galvistan, Iraq, USSR not to mention all those evil fucken oven baked jews!

Jesus H. Fucken Christ!  What a great job God is doing of preventing suffering and evil on his petrie dish!
WOW -

I notice your fixation on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the context suggesting whether the people affected were deserving of their fate. Since the invasion of Japan did not happen because of those bombings, and the subsequent loss of life for both the Japanese and Allied forces never occurred. (and a weary America probably did not anticipate that invasion with much joy either), all I suggest for you to do is to include the following in any future lists on this subject.

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

Because by not including Nanking, you are certainly condoning what the Japanese did there by only mentioning the American solution to Japanese horrors.

And by your silence, implying it was a harsh treatment of the innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while Japan gave great thought to prevent any suffering and evil acts with their invasion of China.

Perhaps you might also study the even earlier "Western Hemphishere"
Aztec culture regarding the sunrise as well. At least ask their neighbors how many evil doers were sacrificed so the Aztec sun god would rise every day.
JoMal,

WWII is one of my favorite subjects, I know all about the casualty predictions.  Funny things, just as important to the US was the threat that the USSR might get there first, not to mention we wanted to let the "Reds" know we had the bomb.

But I will check out your link, I enjoy WWII info.

Much like the people of China, the Jap civilians paid the price for their leaders and their military.  There were innocents on all sides.  Spare me the "by your silence" crap, save that cheese for Randy.

FYI, fuck the Aztec, the history of my people was burdened by them as well.  Yet nothing comes close the POS's from Europe when it comes to my history.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"