3841
3842

No contest. (imgur.com)

shenanigansenOwl Turd が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 268
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]blanketswithsmallpox 326ポイント327ポイント  (118子コメント)

Doesn't Logic do all of the big bomb dropping though?

[–]ThatParanoidPenguin 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, his verses are straight fire.

[–]thezerbler 206ポイント207ポイント  (98子コメント)

Logic's bombs destroy the mind. Emotion's bombs destroy the soul, or in this case, the japanese.

[–]drewzyfbaby 232ポイント233ポイント  (85子コメント)

the bombings Hiroshima and Nagasaki were most definitely not emotional decisions... what

[–]Jiggy724 182ポイント183ポイント  (51子コメント)

Pretty absurd that someone seems to think those weren't extremely calculated decisions.

[–]Noodletron 84ポイント85ポイント  (4子コメント)

Harry Truman was just in a really bad mood that day. Read a book geez Louise.

[–]zappa325 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

He only had vegetables for breakfast, and didn't have the suger to boost his happiness up.

[–]rzpieces 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's why the pastor tells us to feed our kids chocolate for breakfast. It stops them from bombing countries like grumpy Mr. Truman

[–]MrUppercut 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Someone definitely got fired that day.

[–]Teive 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Manhattan Projects (the graphic novel series) says it wasn't even Truman's decision! That's a book!

[–]Phylar 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

Oh they were very calculated. They also held the pissed off emotions of a few million. Both logic and emotion are often at play, especially during conflict. Logic is often a means towards an emotional end. You did this, how can I do something to make that better?

Probably preaching to the choir though.

[–]USAOne 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

Was the purpose not to save hundreds of thousands of lives invading Japan? Think there was a good mix of logic and emotion in those bombings.

[–]psicopbester 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

That is just one of the many theories that exist on that subject. Others are that they had to justify spending an unheard of amount of money on the Manhattan Project. That they had to use it to stop the Russians from invading Japan. That they wanted to use it to flex on Russia.

There are a lot of possible reasons and many, many books on the subject.

[–]USAOne 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The original target was Berlin, but Germany surrendered months before weapon deployment.

Japan was the secondary target while the British wanted the third target to be Russia.

[–]BagelWarlock 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Pretty much nobody is aware of this. The bombs were undoubtedly horrible but an invasion of Japan would have resulted in FAR more death. The Japanese had begun a program of resistance to the last man and had been arming every civilian in any manner possible, such as pitchforks since they didn't have enough guns/ammo.

Somehow the narrative that the USA was just pissed and wanted Japan to suffer because of Pearl Harbor is what most people believe.

[–]blanketswithsmallpox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, everyone on Reddit has heard of Operation Downfall. It's posted as a TIL once a month.

[–]USAOne 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Even Spock would agree to drop those weapons.

[–]Baron164 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... thousand...

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]sylos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Millions. Not hundreds of thousands.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]Painted_Sky 8ポイント9ポイント  (15子コメント)

      Some say the bombs were also a symbol of the Allied might, as a message to the rest of the (future) opposition. Maybe not logical nor emotional, just plain muscle flexing.

      [–]chrishasfreetime 37ポイント38ポイント  (7子コメント)

      That would make it a logic play then, right? It's a tactical (logical) move to show your might to fend off future threats.

      [–]HopermanTheManOfFeel 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

      A logical dick measuring contest?

      [–]chrishasfreetime 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

      "Mess with me, get fucked by me"

      [–]ankensam 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Oh hello mister Lyndon B Johnson.

      [–]bangle12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Lyndon B Johnson as plumber

      [–]NichySteves 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

      If you can logically explain emotion, does that take the emotion out of the equation? I'm not picking a side, just an interesting thought.

      [–]chrishasfreetime 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Well it certainly would provide rationale for the emotion, and could make you feel more certain about taking action - but at the end of the day, emotion makes you want to do something (motivates) whereas logic dictates what should be done. You could get am emotional kick from doing the logical thing, though!

      [–]cannibaloxfords 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      And this is why logic gets a prenuptial agreement when marrying emotion

      [–]the_pedigree 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I see you don't understand what logic is.

      [–]AdeonWriter 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

      So basically we were thinking with our war penis.

      [–]MemoryLapse 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      They had a rather large panel of folks called the target committee. It's pretty rough to keep a project going for three years based on raw emotion, anyway, especially with how many resources the Manhattan Project used.

      [–]Airleagan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It was an added bonus to show it off to the Russians but the bombs without a doubt saved both Japanese and American lives. If operation downfall happened the death tolls would have skyrocketed

      [–]DMPDrugs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      das racist

      [–]WackyWarrior -3ポイント-2ポイント  (16子コメント)

      A think it is a bit of both. The US was using a wildly successful campaign of fire bombs in many Japanese cities. We could have just continued to do that until they surrendered. Instead we got impatient and dropped the biggest bombs we could think of, twice.

      [–]Dogfish_in_Paris 18ポイント19ポイント  (5子コメント)

      If Japan didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb went off, what makes you think they would have surrendered from fire bombs?

      [–]Jiggy724 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I still don't see how any of that is based in emotional decision making.

      [–]Sammy123476 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

      I wouldn't say it was impatience. We had won the war in Europe and were tryong to figure out how to actually take the main island of Japan. The alternative to the atomic bomb was a full scale invasion, which the Japanese were later found to have been telling even schoolchildren to take something sharp and stab any Allied soldiers. Rather than fighting them to the last man, woman and child, we made a show of terrible strength to get them to surrender. We killed thousands to try to avoid killing millions.

      [–]WackyWarrior 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

      I always thought this argument is a cop out and I still think so today. It's almost required to think like this because the alternative is to think that there could have been another way. If there were another way then maybe we didn't have to use the only atomic bombs in history.

      I think the only positive that came out of using them was that the aftermath was so horrible that they were never used on live targets during the Cold War.

      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]moto455 15ポイント16ポイント  (18子コメント)

          If we hadn't dropped the bombs, that would have meant a full on invasion style attack on mainland Japan. That would have lead to many times more casualties on both sides. Dropping the bombs meant less people died

          [–]WithinTheGiant 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Which is... logical.

          [–]BreaksFull 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Logical insanity, that's the most apt term I've heard for it.

          [–]theShatteredOne 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I don't know what wasn't sane about it. I mean if you want to have an overall discussion about sanity and war sure, but dropping those bombs stopped that particular part of the war in its tracks and saved thousands of lives more than were lost. At the time it was the only winning move.

          If we had kept using nuclear weapons after we saw their effects, that would have been insane.

          [–]BreaksFull 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Logical answers to insane questions, it was described. Deciding on killing hundreds of thousands of people to save a million is sort of an insane question for people, impossible to wrap your mind around the gravity of it. So it was a completely logical and rational answer, it was just to an insane question.

          [–]FuckyesMcHellyeah 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Logical.

          [–]occupythekitchen 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Emotion is looking back on it and think it was wrong logic is saying it was a needed evil.

          That is not to say if Franklin Roosevelt had lived he would have used it the same as Eisenhower or if at all. Either way 100k civilians is a small drop in the bucket of the casualties of ww2 Russia alone lost 30m + people

          [–]Sound12Sea 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Eisenhower didn't make that call. Truman did.

          [–]psicopbester 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          As if FDR had not wanted to use them. The Manhattan Project had a cost to the American people that was unheard of prior to this. There is a major theory that the bomb was used just to justify the price. The thing is that this is a complicated discussion. People have written 700 page books on just the question of why. We can't express any truth in a few sentences.

          [–]psicopbester 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          As if FDR had not wanted to use them. The Manhattan Project had a cost to the American people that was unheard of prior to this. There is a major theory that the bomb was used just to justify the price. The thing is that this is a complicated discussion. People have written 700 page books on just the question of why. We can't express any truth in a few sentences.

          [–]Kilazur 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I've always said it: atomic bombing is the humane solution.

          [–]Reachforthesky2012 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Basically, terrorism is ok as long as you can actually win.

          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

            [–]cocoram 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Oh but they were! That's why having a woman in the oval office would be catastrophic, just imagine when she's on her period!

            /s... parroting that stupid fucking argument that seems to always come up somewhere.

            [–]BarefootNBuzzin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Somewhere....in the sticks? Ive never heard anyone say that seriously.

            [–]Hurikane211 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Well...the entire reasoning behind dropping the bomb was to scare the Japanese into submission because the Allies were worried that if we tried to launch a ground war there, the Japanese would fight "until the last man, woman and child" were all dead. So I wouldn't say emotion played no part in it

            コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

              [–]MostlyUselessFacts 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

              Lolololol. Bombing Japan was an emotional decision? Since when?

              [–]dackots 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSe83qc8Ngg

              [–]ss4444gogeta 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              but seoul is in south korea, not japan

              [–]lastsecondmagic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Bosh! Flimshaw!

              コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                [–]hansblitz 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

                Dresden might have been emotion, however the atomic bombs seemed cold logic.

                [–]ClouSIN 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                Cold logic deemed our world not worth saving. Cold logic, however, does not account for the power of free will. It's up to each of us to prove this is a world worth saving. That our lives... our lives are worth living.

                [–]psicopbester 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                That was logic over taking emotion. If emotion was key then they would have had empathy and saved those people. They let them die in order to keep the secret. How is that not super logical?

                [–]Xardrix 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Exactly. America didn't nuke Japan twice based on emotion. We nuked them because of logic. Our representatives decided that hundreds of thousands of japanese civilian lives outweighed the millions of additional lives that would have been lost by not dropping the bombs. That said... great comic!

                [–]DotGaming 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                That's very debatable. There is a growing concencus that the US knew Japan was about to surrender, especially because of the soviet union declaring war on them.

                It was more of an experiment, or a show of power, but it's hard to justify it solely through utilitarian arguments.

                [–]CaDoran 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                Logic tells you how

                [–]kenmaclean 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                and also gives some pretty good pointers on the when as well. Ethics is part of logic. emotion is a bypass of that logic. there have been no nukes dropped because of emotion.

                [–]SamJacksonPLD 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                I always figured fear was a motivating factor in these bombings as you knew the level of casualties involved if you didn't use them. Fear of an enemy that would never stop fighting you until you wiped ever member of their nation off the planet if you couldn't strong arm a peace.

                [–]kenmaclean 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                in t he bombings it was an equation of lives lost. more die in the war than die in those two bombings that end the war. it was logical, cold, calculated. no emotions in it.

                [–]SamJacksonPLD 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                If there were no emotions involved then the loss of life while hiding a super weapon to attack the Russians with wouldn't matter since lives would be viewed as meaningless. I can't agree that the decision to save lives, and drop our only super weapons on a small nation was devoid of emotion because the desire to keep casualties low is an emotion. There isn't a single machine man in that war room who operates by logic alone. We are humans, and if it was pure logic we wouldn't have warned them to get out. We would have killed them wholesale without concern.

                コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                  [–]srv656s 138ポイント139ポイント  (37子コメント)

                  To me, the Nazis of WWII are the some of the most interesting people to study because they used logic to do some of the most terrible things. There was definitely some emotion involved, but what people don't realize is that they were not stupid people that did the horrible killings. The Einsatzgruppen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen) was largely made up of very smart and educated peoples who came to a logical conclusion (in their mind) that the world needed purging of certain people. They carried out mass shootings of civilians that boggle the mind when you think about the incredible amount of work involved with exterminating entire villages.

                  [–]CJGibson 66ポイント67ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Yeah but they relied on the emotions of the general public to be able to get away with it.

                  [–]srv656s 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Yes, for sure. Not arguing that point at all.

                  [–]Sghettis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  They used twusted logic to manipulate the public emotions

                  [–]justinsayin 25ポイント26ポイント  (30子コメント)

                  Yes. Logically there is an ideal human, so we should husband the species in that direction by any means necessary, including mass culling of rejects, just like we do with animal and plant breeding.

                  Emotionally, in 2016, we don't do this to human beings or their children. There is no logic to it at all, but I don't want to live in the logical world of the Nazis.

                  [–]srv656s 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  I'm not saying it's a good thing, at all. Just find it very interesting that some of the most intelligent and highly educated people in a very advanced culture could come to such horrible conclusions. Often times, we think of people that came before us less sophisticated or less intelligent, but these people are very close to us in many more ways that people are typically willing to admit. We see the tutsis and hutus massacre each other in Rawanda and we just think it's because they're uneducated backwards savages. The fact that a western democracy could go the route of Nazi Germany is something that is more surprising I guess. We often think education will solve many of these kinds of problems, but that wasn't the issue with Germany.

                  [–]TNine227 5ポイント6ポイント  (15子コメント)

                  Being logical doesn't mean ignoring morality.

                  [–]justinsayin 5ポイント6ポイント  (14子コメント)

                  Purely logical, yes, it would mean ignoring morality.

                  [–]TNine227 7ポイント8ポイント  (11子コメント)

                  You can't logically determine what to do depending on your own beliefs?

                  Why is it logical to create a more perfect human, but not logical to not want to kill innocent people? Why is one motivation logical and the other not?

                  [–]Ozymandias195 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

                  I suppose you can operate in a different framework but I would think that strictly logically speaking we are just animals and morality doesn't exist. Our goal as animals should be the survival of our species in which case eugenics would make perfect logical sense. In reality, most people naturally experience an aversion to things like that and we have to take into account our emotional reactions that are illogical but not wrong, but moreso right if we want to believe that there is something more to ourselves in the face of logic telling us there isn't. I think that got a bit too philosophical for what I was aiming for but does that make sense?

                  [–]TNine227 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  Our goal as animals should be the survival of our species

                  Why? Why is that our purpose?

                  [–]Ozymandias195 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  I mean strictly logically speaking I don't see how there could be any other purpose. You can't logically prove God exists, so we are left to logically observe our natural world and see that other animals primary goal is survival, so isn't ours?

                  [–]TNine227 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  Why does there have to be a purpose?

                  [–]Ozymandias195 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  I suppose there doesn't have to be but then you are a nihilist and why should morality matter to you anyway?

                  [–]Poobslag 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Your username is too perfect for this comment for anybody who is familiar with Ozymandias's role in the Watchmen comics -- Without giving away too many plot points, he's certainly the type to understand a line between logic and emotion, and to make a purely logical decision which foregoes morality.

                  [–]Ozymandias195 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Haha I love watchmen and Ozzy is my favorite character for that reason. I think life and morality is all about juggling utilitarianism vs individual liberty and happiness

                  [–]Poobslag 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Yeah it's a phenomenal comic! I saw the movie twice and then borrowed the comic from my friend, and read the comic twice. They're both so great.

                  I don't know if I'd describe Night Owl as my "favorite character" but I suppose I relate to him the most. I understand the cold rationality of Ozzy's character and the morality of Rorschach's character, but I don't care enough about those things to want to burn bridges over em.

                  [–]Xandralis 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Logic is just a tool. What you're talking about is (one manifestation of) utilitarian ethics, which is differentiated from other forms of ethics not by it's use of logic, but by it's assumed values.

                  [–]aizxy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Well "logically" there is no such thing as an ideal human and logic doesn't compel us to drive the species in any direction. Certain philosophies would dictate that but logic has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

                  [–]mindrover 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  I don't think the Nazis' argument is really that logical. They have a logical explanation for what they did, but it is all based on one very emotional premise: the existence of an ideal human race. In other words, the idea that certain people have certain traits that make them better than people without those traits.

                  Logic cannot tell us that one person is "better" than another person. In fact, the very existence of "good" is a subject of much philosophical debate. If you feel that something is good, does that make it so, or is there actually an objective way to define it? If there is an objective definition of good and evil, we certainly haven't found it yet.

                  Without a firm objective definition of good, any argument based on the premise that one person is better than another is fundamentally based on an individual's emotional judgment of what is good, and therefore cannot be purely logical.

                  [–]justinsayin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  idea that certain people have certain traits that make them better than people without those traits

                  Logic and science can certainly tell you which people will naturally never lose their eyesight, which people naturally have teeth that don't get cavities, which people have stronger immune systems, etc, etc, etc. Combine all of those dozens of measurable things into one person and you've got a better human.

                  [–]dablya 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  What does the ideal human look like?

                  [–]PM_me_cyborgs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  To me: healthy, physically fit and powerful, intelligent.

                  [–]dablya 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  To me...

                  I'll rephrase. What does a logically ideal human look like?

                  [–]Daharon 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  "my race is better than theirs because... we're just better" is not logical reasoning.

                  [–]TheMarlBroMan 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Ironically we already have gene therapy available for certain medical issues and it works. Nazis would be proud of us. Well except for the whole not white blonde hair blue eyes for everyone homogeny thing. Oh and the Jews.

                  [–]FuguofAnotherWorld 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  I refuse to feel bad about using awesome technologies to save lives just because the Nazis' particular brand of crazy had vaguely similar goals.

                  [–]TheMarlBroMan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Did you take that as me feeling bad? I was just pointing out the obvious irony of a life saving/changing technology being something the nazi pursued.

                  [–]G4bbs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I'm sorry there's no ideal human at all. We have no idea of what ramifications a paring might have in hundreds of years. The diversity in the human race is a big part of what makes us capable of what we're capable of. Plants and animals are bred for a single purpose; humans are capable of so much more.

                  [–]BrancoXIII 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I always liked the revelation that many of the people who carried out those deeds had an appreciation of Beethoven.

                  [–]zeekar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Sure. The atrocities committed when the intelligentsia finally got to be in charge for a change are a part of the reason that being smart is so out of fashion in the US. :\

                  [–]Shitforballs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  There's a misunderstanding here, the Einsatzgruppen based their beliefs and actions on a logic which only rationalized an emotional response. This is not logic, it is the backwards justification your mind gives you to justify an irrational belief.

                  [–]Philitian 67ポイント68ポイント  (15子コメント)

                  I was always taught that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were logically ethical because it may have saved more lives than it killed, as the Japanese refused to surrender until a land invasion.

                  I mean, there was some revenge emotion attached to that after Pearl Harbor and all, but no history teacher ever painted it to me as "America strikes back."

                  [–]TruthfulOtter 40ポイント41ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Yeah, kind of irks me that he's clearly referencing something he doesn't know enough about. The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis and willing to fight to the death of the very last man/woman/child as long as they had a chance of doing damage back. Once they realized that they could be annihilated without retaliation on their part, they gave it up.

                  [–]tomjoadsghost 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  They weren't going to unconditionally surrender. They were asking for negotiations. There's really no reason that all those lives were worth an unconditional surrender.

                  [–]Xavs42 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Exactly. Land invasions tend to be risky with an army willing to defend its home to the death. That, and people assume they were really horrible bombings.

                  I mean they were, but it was nothing compared to the bombing of Tokyo, where the US used napalm and (now illegal iirc) white phosphorus on a city with a large civilian population and structures mostly made out of wood and paper. Created a firestorm, supposedly turned the roads into tar traps and boiled small canals that people were trying to hide in.

                  [–]no-soup-4-You 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  People from that era see the nuclear bomb as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They thought there was no end in sight for the war. The Japanese were making it seem like you literally had to kill them all to win.

                  [–]CallMeBigPapaya 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  You can always argue whether it was justified in that situation, but it's harder to argue that, in a vacuum, killing 1 person to save 100 is illogical.

                  [–]Sghettis 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  1 against 100 is just numbers, that's pure logic.

                  [–]USAOne 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  It really was 210,000 lives vs 1,000,000 lives lost in an invasion.

                  [–]USAOne 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Japan has much to thank for those attacks as anyone. It was so violent that it caused the entire culture to change for the better. After the surrender the US aided the Japanese immediately and helped rebuild the nation. Japan accomplished more in surrender than they ever would have through conquest.

                  [–]baronfebdasch 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Japan was nearing surrender anyway. The books were not to force Japan into submission, it was a warning shot for the Soviet Union. The first was to show the power of the weapon. The second was to prove that the first was not a fluke and we could make and use more.

                  Japan's airforce had been decimated. Major cities already were demolished using conventional airstrikes. If leveling Hiroshima was required to end the war, a nuke was not necessary to do so.

                  The post hoc rationalization of preventing more deaths in the long run is if you only think the bomb was used to stop the Japanese.

                  [–]Meta_Digital 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  What you're referring to is utilitarian ethics, which is concerned with minimizing the most harm to the most number of people. Within that framework, one might argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ethical action.

                  Of course, that's only if you treat that as an isolated incident.

                  One might also say that the bombs were a result of an unethical decision; putting a trade embargo on Japan and cutting them off from oil. Imagine if a foreign nation cut the US from all foreign energy. Traditionally, such an embargo is identical to a declaration of war. Had the US not done that, a response like Pearl Harbor might not have happened, and things might have played out very differently.

                  The idea that dropping two nukes on two heavily populated cities was ethical because it prevented further harm is nothing less than post hoc rationalization, and that's a lot scarier than any of the reasoning that led us there because it means that the perpetrators don't have to feel guilt for the suffering they caused, which means we might find ourselves committing the same atrocities again in the future.

                  [–]justinsayin 30ポイント31ポイント  (15子コメント)

                  Not using the atomic bomb would have forced the U.S. to launch a full invasion of Japan’s home islands, and this would have killed far more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

                  It’s impossible to know how many people would have perished if allied forces invaded Japan. However, given the stiff resistance U.S. and allied forces faced during the island-hopping campaign of the Pacific War, it would have been many, many times greater than the 200,000+ people that died from the atomic bombings.

                  In fact, the casualties from the U.S. strategic conventional bombing campaign greatly eclipsed the number of individuals who died from the atomic bombings. The March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo alone killed some 120,000 Japanese. A ground invasion would have resulted in nearly immeasurable more casualties. As one scholar who studied the U.S. invasion plan, Operation Downfall, notes: “depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.”

                  That was a logical decision for Truman, not an emotional one.

                  [–]SkaterMan 28ポイント29ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  except the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were the rational decision

                  [–]Crispy_Meat 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  This is literally the basis for EVERY comic this guy makes. Like it almost seems a farce of itself:

                  Logic and emotions are anthropomorphized with "emotion" somehow casting a dark, comedic "punchline". While everyone nods and agrees while saying "ugh 'adulting'!"

                  [–]keyonte0 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Not every one. He doesn't post the rest of the comics he makes to reddit for whatever reason.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                    [–]AmericanSamoa6666 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    I feel this comic would have been better if they didn't have the last panel.

                    [–]omooba 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    I like how unemotional emotion is

                    [–]Skibbles85 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    These comics are the fucking same every day.

                    [–]Spambop 45ポイント46ポイント  (36子コメント)

                    I can't quite put my finger on it, but the fact that Shen always draws little people with their names on their chests makes these comics somewhat... lazy? Easy? What's the word?

                    [–]pickle_lady 126ポイント127ポイント  (4子コメント)

                    I think it's called his style.

                    [–]derek_92 43ポイント44ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    STYLE!

                    [–]RatZFisterectomy 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    I think it's a valid premise to run with, but I get tired of it very quickly. People relate better to characters than metaphors, and imo characters lead to more engaging situations. Making comics in abstractions allows you to make bigger points you couldn't otherwise make, but, beyond the point you're making, the comic doesn't have that much power.

                    EDIT: One point for it being lazy/easy is that the setup is, "Hey logic, emotion. Which one of you is scarier?" Which sounds pretty contrived. Like, you wouldn't really say that except as a springboard to make some kind of point. This comic of Shen's starts with an engaging active moment with stakes and then develops a twist. Even though he's still using personified character names, he's doing it in a more creative way, so you barely even notice it. And hey, this is just my taste! Way more people love these comics than dislove them.

                    [–]hopefulbagon 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    But it's shen so he deserves his own series on adult swim /s

                    [–]SomeOrdinaryCanadian 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    It's a visualization of things that are hard to visualize otherwise.

                    [–]shenanigansenOwl Turd[S] 72ポイント73ポイント  (23子コメント)

                    I do that so that the comic is understandable to people who have never seen any other comics that I've made -- somebody who doesn't know that I often do personification, or have drawn emotion and logic that way before.

                    Is there a better way to do it? I guess maybe emotion could have a heart on its chest, and logic could have a symbol like this (http://bsccongress.com/im3/network-clip-art.png) but simplified.

                    [–]pods_and_cigarettes 52ポイント53ポイント  (3子コメント)

                    FWIW, I think using labels is fine. It's a comic...

                    And, by the way, your comics are great.

                    [–]Sisko-ire 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Ignore em man. Your comics go down well cause randomers can find one and click with it instantly.

                    [–]rust2bridges 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    I dunno, personification of abstract ideas is difficult without context. It's not like you run a syndicated comic that have characters with established backstories where you can afford to be subtle. And with things like logic and emotion, there's no easily recognizable symbol or attributes that would make someone instantly know what you're getting at.

                    If you think of a better way to do it without having to invent deep lore for your webtoons, I'd love to see it. It'd be kind of neat to see you do a comic with plot and full characters that you run alongside of your current schtick, but I have no idea what your readers respond best to.

                    edit: I just reread the comic and you do give context by calling them logic and emotion. Sooo I guess just disregard this comment. You could look at Inside Out and draw inspiration from how they characterized emotions?

                    [–]MarikBentusi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Personally I think being obvious about who is Emotion and who is Logic works well in this case. I mean, it's basically just a three-panel joke with an extra reaction face panel, so setting up the personification of something abstract needs to happen quickly and clearly. Especially since in this strip Logic gets emotional/fired up whereas Emotion is unfeeling and talks matter-of-factly. That could really make the viewer second-guess their assumptions if they had any doubt.

                    You could always go with the good ol' "floating brain = logic, floating heart = emotion", but that may come at the cost of expressive body language, and even in a cutesy comic style may still come off as inherently grotesque, which may lessen the juxtaposition effect of cutesy characters talking about horrible stuff.

                    [–]Bluthiest 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Your comics are great, and they have the desired effect when someone looks at them out of context. Putting the words on the character works for you. Keep it up!

                    One possible thing you could do is title the comics "Logic vs Emotion" with a fun little header indicating which one is which, as well as using the heart logo and/or question mark/mathematical sign logo. Kind of like "love is..." Except sixteen million times less crappy.

                    Props.

                    [–]MokshaMilkshake 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    You inspired me to start drawing again, which has helped my depression more than any pill could. Thank you for your art and humor. Ignore the haters. You're my hero.

                    [–]QuigTech 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Would you mind doing that to one of your comics just for fun? I really enjoy the comics.

                    That logic idea is kinda awesome.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

                      [–]Ghede 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Like those one panel political cartoons.

                      'Thanks for helpfully labeling that baby with a face that is a caricature of a prominent politician with their name. No it's a very nice drawing, so I don't see why you've gone and done that. I get that it's supposed to symbolize that they whine a lot, but did you also have to label the piece '____ is a crybaby?' How stupid do you t... oh yeah. No, I understand why you do it."

                      At least he doesn't label every possible prop with it's own separatesymbolism. THE FLOWER SYMBOLIZES GRIEF, AND THE GLASSES ARE REASON.

                      [–]TheHitchHiker517 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      I understand what you mean.

                      This is often a discussion with political cartoons; should they be stylized and subtle (and thus sometimes hard to grasp) or have everything marked so it's easy to understand?

                      [–]Tonkarz -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      "Hamfisted"? "Overwrought"? "In your face"? "Low-brow"?

                      EDIT: "Artificial"? "Arbitrary"?

                      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                        [–]Sumit316 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Logic - Everything is going to be fine.

                        Emotions - HELLO...... Aren't you forgetting something.

                        Goddammit Emotions! Every single time.

                        [–]Tonkarz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Getting a bit emotional there, logic. Also, emotion seems a bit robotic.

                        [–]webauteur 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I'm currently reading Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung. He makes the same point.

                        [–]YeOldePoop 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Emotion tells Logic to create bombs out of good inventions, Logic does it, Emotion uses them.

                        [–]chrishasfreetime 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Emotion is often the root of motivation. Logic tends to be ignored when emotion goes against it.

                        [–]Gentlescholar_AMA 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Nietzsche argued that it was only through logic that men could do great evil. The heart knows where wrong and right truly lie, and feels a pain when wronging except in the throws of passion.

                        It is logic though that allows you to twist and warp your mind into believing something like a race or a people are inferior, or that the world would be better off exterminating the enemy. It requires analysis, and figures,and rationale to get there. Measuring of heads and statistics if you will.

                        [–]dave2daresqu 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Present emotions. Show possibility of rationality. Rationality overruled by emotions/unable to handle emotion. End of comic.

                        [–]dwmfives 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        What happened to your right shoe in the frame where you and logic are cowering together? By reddit logic, losing your shoe indicates you died.

                        [–]L1cketyspl1t 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Hey, fix that for ya

                        [–]StateAutomata 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        The scary part is the Green one.

                        [–]msiekkinen 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        But... they're emotionally reacting to emotion.

                        [–]Meta_Digital 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        The final frame should have had logic say, "And I found a way to justify what you did."

                        Then the author could have been afraid of both.

                        [–]helix400 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

                        [–]RyanBlack 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        ITT: Pseudo-intellectuals everywhere.

                        [–]JewishPrudence 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I like how Logic looks malevolent in the 2nd panel and terrified in the last panel while Emotion is always completely stone-faced.

                        [–]batiwa -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Emotion dropped the bomb

                        コメントをもっと表示する (20 返事)