|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on May 24, 2019 10:32:43 GMT
Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor the fire bombing of Dresden ended wars. They were pure displays of power to the rest of the world. Whenever someone starts talking of "the greater good", critical thinking is required. They are mostly ignorant fools.
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on May 24, 2019 11:56:19 GMT
Get a life, for Christ’s sake... It’s just a fucking TV show.
Too bad they couldn’t have shown Cersei’s rubble-mangled corpse being thrown to dogs in the street to be devoured... That would’ve been great.
No funeral, no memorial, for that evil, brother-fucking bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on May 24, 2019 12:06:11 GMT
Get a life, for Christ’s sake... It’s just a fucking TV show. Says every idiot on the planet. Fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on May 24, 2019 12:13:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 28, 2019 8:21:18 GMT
Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor the fire bombing of Dresden ended wars. They were pure displays of power to the rest of the world. Whenever someone starts talking of "the greater good", critical thinking is required. They are mostly ignorant fools.
Emperor Hirohito explicitly mentioned atomic bomb when he made the case for surrender so I'm not sure I agree. Dresden is an entire different situation. In any case, Peter Dinklage comparison doesn't make any sense because the allies demanded unconditional surrender before dropping the bombs. Only when they didn't get a positive answer, was the bomb dropped. Daenerys heard the bells and knew she had won. She choose to burn the city anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on May 28, 2019 8:40:12 GMT
Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor the fire bombing of Dresden ended wars. They were pure displays of power to the rest of the world. Whenever someone starts talking of "the greater good", critical thinking is required. They are mostly ignorant fools.
Emperor Hirohito explicitly mentioned atomic bomb when he made the case for surrender so I'm not sure I agree. Dresden is an entire different situation. In any case, Peter Dinklage comparison doesn't make any sense because the allies demanded unconditional surrender before dropping the bombs. Only when they didn't get a positive answer, was the bomb dropped. Daenerys heard the bells and knew she had won. She choose to burn the city anyway. I remember reading convincing arguments as to why the atomic bombs did not make the difference we like to think they did. It's an interesting subject and I'll probably dig a little more. Dresden was definitely not instrumental in ending the war against Hitler. I suppose both were done to show Stalin what he would have to face more than for tactical purposes. As as you say, Daenerys went further than that as she did not even express such intentions. Her purpose appears to have been pure obliteration of what she rejected. Dinklage talking of "doing things for the greater good" in such a relation and failing to note that Daenerys' endeavour was never justified in the first place is utter disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by jon snow loves sansa on May 28, 2019 21:34:30 GMT
Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor the fire bombing of Dresden ended wars. They were pure displays of power to the rest of the world. Whenever someone starts talking of "the greater good", critical thinking is required. They are mostly ignorant fools.
even kit spoke out and said of dany actions and her fans that she did crucify people, she did burn people and signs were there and you all cheered for her, i think peter trying to appeal to danys fan base , trying to excuse why he or his character followed her , he advised her after all and why he turned on her but to say for the greater good? whos? like you said dany was only looking out for her own good she wanted the iron throne, all peter has to do is watch the scene when jon had the face off with her , shes going on and on how big the iron throne is like nothing ever happened ...
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 29, 2019 9:15:53 GMT
Emperor Hirohito explicitly mentioned atomic bomb when he made the case for surrender so I'm not sure I agree. Dresden is an entire different situation. In any case, Peter Dinklage comparison doesn't make any sense because the allies demanded unconditional surrender before dropping the bombs. Only when they didn't get a positive answer, was the bomb dropped. Daenerys heard the bells and knew she had won. She choose to burn the city anyway. I remember reading convincing arguments as to why the atomic bombs did not make the difference we like to think they did. It's an interesting subject and I'll probably dig a little more. Dresden was definitely not instrumental in ending the war against Hitler. I suppose both were done to show Stalin what he would have to face more than for tactical purposes. As as you say, Daenerys went further than that as she did not even express such intentions. Her purpose appears to have been pure obliteration of what she rejected. Dinklage talking of "doing things for the greater good" in such a relation and failing to note that Daenerys' endeavour was never justified in the first place is utter disgrace. There is all kinds of talk about how the bombings weren't necessary but hindsight is 20/20. All it matters is, the Allies presented Japan an ultimatum and surrender only came after two A-bombs were dropped. If they were ready to surrender, they surely took their time. There were also officials who wanted to continue the war even after the bombings and even attempted a coup so they could continue to fight.
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on May 30, 2019 6:08:30 GMT
I remember reading convincing arguments as to why the atomic bombs did not make the difference we like to think they did. It's an interesting subject and I'll probably dig a little more. Dresden was definitely not instrumental in ending the war against Hitler. I suppose both were done to show Stalin what he would have to face more than for tactical purposes. As as you say, Daenerys went further than that as she did not even express such intentions. Her purpose appears to have been pure obliteration of what she rejected. Dinklage talking of "doing things for the greater good" in such a relation and failing to note that Daenerys' endeavour was never justified in the first place is utter disgrace. There is all kinds of talk about how the bombings weren't necessary but hindsight is 20/20. All it matters is, the Allies presented Japan an ultimatum and surrender only came after two A-bombs were dropped. If they were ready to surrender, they surely took their time. There were also officials who wanted to continue the war even after the bombings and even attempted a coup so they could continue to fight. The military that launched the coup did it against there god-emperor, not just some ordinary leader, but the head of state and faith. This means that continuing fighting meant more to them than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on May 30, 2019 6:14:24 GMT
Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor the fire bombing of Dresden ended wars. They were pure displays of power to the rest of the world. Whenever someone starts talking of "the greater good", critical thinking is required. They are mostly ignorant fools.
Dinklage is off his rocker in his comparison. "Whenever someone starts talking of "the greater good", critical thinking is required. They are mostly ignorant fools." Except, leaders do have to make such decisions, whether its in war, dealing with a plague, natural disaster, or man made disaster. You are right to be critical of utilitarian ethics but I bet you have used them because pretty much every ethics system has at some point has. They are likely the oldest form of ethics our leaders ever had. Are you watching Chernoybl (sp) on HBO?
|
|