dimreepr
-
Posts
13463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dimreepr
-
-
Why focus on these two cities, and not the dozens of ones bombed earlier in the war, by both sides? The "novelty" of nuclear bombs was a matter of destructive power, not the act of bombing cities.
That wasn’t my intention when I started this thread but I can’t decide the direction/focus of the discussion.
0 -
As I get older, I am having philosophical problems with the idea of a general population being 'innocent', extant of its national forces.
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”
But when that stone can kill untold numbers shouldn’t he who thinks ,or pretends, he is without sin, be restrained?
0 -
You've got to take into consideration the speed of information and sources available at that time. Perhaps the full consequences were not known about Hiroshima when Nagasaki was bombed. It's easy to judge with our near-instant modern viewpoint.
Whilst I agree instant communication (for all) is a modern phenomenon. The location of the 2nd drop could be established almost instantly to the relevant authorities along with threats; the wider populace could have been informed by other means and even if a further demonstration was needed, innocents wouldn’t have had to suffer.
0 -
Part of the answer is that the Japanese authorities tied to pretend that the first bomb hadn't happened.
If the second bomb fell in unoccupied forest then that would have been much easier to "hush up".
(I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same thing as the Japanese govt did- I don't blame them, but it did lend support to bombing a second city.)
All that was needed to demonstrate repeatability was to communicate the location of the 2nd (to all), a few minutes before (whatever the target), and just threaten that Nagasaki, or other, would be next.
0 -
Same. I edited my last post before seeing this question.
But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2nd was to demonstrate that the 1st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told?
0 -
And Nagasaki?
0 -
A city is a military target; ask the people in London or Dresden.
London and Dresden seem, to me at least, to be pseudo-military targets in the absence of a decisive way to strike real military targets but when you have a weapon like a nuke any target is just a way to demonstrate its power.
0 -
Who said their only purpose is revenge?
Only me as far as I know.
Admittedly the original design was not due to revenge but a sincere need to beat the enemy to it. Why was it used on a city rather than a military base? And whilst a dubious argument could be made for the first drop I can think of no other reason to drop the 2nd on a city rather than a military target.
0 -
They only work as a deterrent because of the revenge factor.
I'm not suggesting we can, at present, eliminate all such weapons but surely there’s room to reduce the numbers by at least a factor of ten.
0 -
Since they’re only purpose is revenge, why do we need so many?
0 -
Good post +1
It seems to me that a potential pitfall is somewhat similar to the OP’s conclusion “You are already obsolete, have a nice day.” not that we’ll become obsolete obviously ridicules, but more that we may lose our sense of purpose at least in part.
Even if we can overcome the, seemingly, insurmountable problem that money not only equals power but also bragging rights.
A job, for most, fills a great deal of our time and while we dream of retirement and a chance to relax, put our feet up and just chill. What, after all, is life without contrast and purpose?
0 -
Thought this was pretty cool.
It reminds me of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”; the animated part where the phallus was devoured after its seductive dance, I was actually disappointed at the successful mating.
0 -
Since robots are only superior in repetitive basic tasks, the haphazard nature of human talents is clearly superior since that nature includes the invention of robots.
0 -
I can't determine whether it's safe. I usually check for safety and trustworthiness in the MyWOT comments section.
Remember that we should be able to participate without following links.
Oh please, I made this statement in post #28:
“Of the 600,000 or so food products currently available in the US, apparently, roughly 80% contains added sugar”
You’re reply in post #29 seemed to argue that point, so I provided a link to support my claim in post #30 (clear for all to see in the 2nd section 3rd bullet point is the above quote) did I really need to re-quote or have you just run out of ideas?
0 -
In the USA, nicer grocers have vegetable racks for about one-fifth the store, plus a frozen veggies isle. Walmart and Target have little beyond the frozen veggies, but they supply more than food.
0 -
So if there are only processed foods available in the US and contain either too much fats or sugars, or worse both, then you indeed have a point.
Of the 600,000 or so food products currently available in the US, apparently, roughly 80% contains added sugar.
0 -
Of course children die from obesity, but that's very rare. Deaths from obesity about equal deaths of children under 5 from starvation, thus more life-years, if not more people overall.
The lack of citations aside, are you really trying to argue, that, because starvation kills more children than obesity, we should ignore the obesity problem?
Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem
If obesity is so easily remedied why does bariatric surgery so often fail?
Maybe someone has done you a disservice, MonDie, but the minus one speaks volumes.
-1 -
Your telegraph article said, worldwide, more than three million lives per year. The World Food Programme article says 3.1 million children per year. If you do the math from the CNN article, it's apparently double that. Maybe they're defining "child" differently. Either way I sunk your battleship.
Nope that’s a miss please try again, maybe with a citation that actually supports your claim.
So far I have provided 13 links in support of my position (not all as dubious as the 4 you’ve picked out) you’ve provided 2 that only support a part of your claim (the only part of your claim BTW that I agree with).
If you want to sink a battleship you need to work much harder.
0 -
I have no doubts that starvation kills children but that’s only one side of your claim.
“Obesity only kills the aged”
I also need a citation for this claim, along with another that supports:
“More live-years are lost.”
0 -
Aside from the quality of your sources, obesity only kills the aged. Starvation kills children. More life-years are lost.
Are you sure about that?
I look forward to reading your citations.
edit. whatever the source.
0 -
Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem
On top of the advertising are the outright lies, like promoting lean products as healthy; when a product that contains half the fat, in order to make it palatable, also contains twice the sugar.
Also the label, due to lobbying, displays a percentage of recommended daily intake for everything other than sugar (ergo their trying to hoodwink).
0 -
Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem
So it’s the addicts fault? Their moral fortitude is the problem rather than the advertising designed to get them hooked early and once hooked surround them with more advertising and product placement. In a free bar, they can't escape, how many alcoholics do you think would stay sober?
A majority of Africa tends to disagree with you, at least those who survived last starvation wave.http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3630642.ece
It's all in the dosage. (Same goes for oxygen, 20-21% is good, but both too high or too low can be dangerous).
We need sugar, and sugar is an essential part in our metabolism. Sugar (glucose) is vital to provide energy to our cells.
But too much of it, and we risk diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc.
Yes, I know that processed foods contain unnecessary amounts of sugar - it is added for taste (test groups will simply appreciate the food with sugar more than the food without), and sometimes as a preservative.
But we're not discussing either of those two points. We're discussing whether it is 8 times more addictive than cocaine. And I am not convinced yet that somethibg that is essential to our existance, and which we need on a continuous basis just to survive can be called addictive.
Sugars, just like some (all?) drugs trigger the reward system in our brains, and eating/drinking it makes us happy. I am simplifying things here, because I cannot be bothered to up the terminology. The main problem I have with this thread is that as we evolved all these reward systems were purposely set up to be triggered by sugars. It's the other drugs that sort of cheat our reward systems, and are addictive as a result. But we're supposed to feel happy eating sugars. Only since we started making large amounts of cheap processed food have we run into problems, because suddenly foods that shouldn't contain sugars start triggering this reward system... but that does not mean we can call sugars addictive.
Googling around for addiction and sugars, I do find some other sources, most of them connect the fact that our reward systems are triggered with sugar use... but I haven't found any credible source that really calls it addictive.
[edit] I noticed too late that dimreepr and Fuzzwood also posted. It took me a while (>1 hr) to write this post in between other tasks... I'm afraid I ignored their contributions in this reply.
It maybe unclear, that sugar is addictive, in your terms but it does seem a reasonable explanation for the obesity epidemic.
http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134365654_sample_535837.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272523109000471
0 -
Do folks at least agree regarding the negative health affects of sugar, the evidence for which is consistent and rapidly accumulating? It's added to the oddest of foods, in places it should not be (at least in processed and fast foods), and it's making us sick in ways that go far beyond mere obesity and its related consequences.
On reflection/hindsight I realise the topic title was a mistake (my apologies), since my intention has been neatly captioned by iNow (thank you), a more appropriate title maybe “More people die from obesity than starvation”.
I struggle to understand why people are willing to allow industry to buy rewrites to important government documents like the McGovern report or be allowed to self regulate when, we all know, nothing will change (other than more child targeted adverts)?
0 -
Do nuclear weapons really keep us safe?
in Politics
Posted
Because the bomb exploded where the enemy said it would.
Didn't they have radio?
Good post Ten oz another +1.