Well, better read more closely then before replying :)
> I'm here for a broader audience to read. Do you care about my opinion?
If I didn't care about your opinion, I wouldn't answer -- I'm using human logic, not ET-logic.
> But I was replying and rejecting the calculation because the calculation doesn't matter, at least in my opinion.
Understood. Unfortunately, you got confused about who you were replying to; it wasn't me who argued the calculation mattered. I actually argued the calculation was a retroactive justification, not the actual one. I can see you got lost here. Maybe for the benefit of, you know, your "broader audience" you could have replied to that other commenter.
> Nope. I know what you're doing because it's a common pattern and the same tropes are repeated.
This thing you're doing is really bizarre, claiming to know my thoughts. I find it fascinating. Do you always debate like this?
> Even in this very article you're defending the Soviets illegally partitioning and invading Poland alongside the Nazis as "nuanced".
Nope. I was explaining the nuances of a situation which had more angles than what you implied. You were asking me to read on Molotov-Ribbentrop, yet you don't seem much well read on the subject if you ignore these nuances...
Have you read the Smelser & Davies book I mentioned?
> I don't know where you hear America "won" World War II.
I don't know how you can ignore this widespread take.
> I think people who repeat obviously untrue things, like suggesting the US would have dropped atomic bombs on Japan just to test them after Japan surrendered, don't debate in good faith and are also ill-informed.
"Obviously untrue" is begging the question; I mean, it's precisely what we're debating! In your adult life you'll sometimes face people who will argue that something you believe in is false or untrue, and this doesn't automatically make them bad faith arguers or ill-informed.
I consider someone to be arguing in bad faith when they feign ignorance, put words in other people's mouths, argue against strawmen, or consistently use cheap rhetorical tricks. Not by mistake, or a one-off, but consistently. Like you're doing now.
> But at the end of the day, the broader actions are what matter, not the nuance. I can't tell if you are familiar with Molotov-Ribbentrop because your previous comments seem to be aghast that I suggested the Soviets, who helped kick off the war, deserved what happened to them.
Both matter: broader actions and nuance. Being aghast at someone who claims 40 million people deserved to die has nothing to do with Molotov-Ribbentrop or any pact. Again... I'm aghast but not in defense of the Soviets, just at your callousness.
> Nuance right? Or does that only count when it's the Soviets?
No, nuances also apply here as well. It doesn't count only when it's the Soviets. There were nuances to the reasons for dropping the Bomb as well. Is this another of your "common tropes" you're constantly fighting against? Please, I urge you to engage with the positions that are actually stated, not with some imaginary enemy you've constructed.
> Sure. I declare we are civilized because we bombed Japan and turned them into a peaceful democracy.
Ok, this is a straightforward, honest position. You think dropping the Bomb was ok because it won the war. Also you make some non sequitur about the Bomb turning Japan into a peaceful democracy (completely bizarre logic, it doesn't follow that it was the bomb). You've repeatedly ignored arguments by me, and others here, that argued that it wasn't necessarily the Bomb that won the war, but whatever. I understand this is your position; I think it's wrong.
> There's nothing we need to take for granted about the Japanese. They were rampaging, murdering lunatics. Korea, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, and more suffered under their brutal regime of violence and repression.
Do you understand the expression "let's take for granted"? It seems you're hell-bent on arguing where there's no argument.
> Nope, I'm pretty aware. My audience isn't you, it's other readers who happen to stumble upon your argument. If they think I sound overly-Patriotic because I reject your claims, so be it. My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it.
My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it either. But, I posit, by sounding jingoistic you're not doing yourself any favors.
> By the way, you said you're not American. What country are you from?
Why does it matter? I'm South American. I'm not from: Russia, China, Japan, Venezuela, North Korea or any country deemed a rogue state or hostile actor by the US. I don't believe in American exceptionalism or their Manifest Destiny. People are entitled to dissenting opinions about the US, right? (I hope, at least!)
