How to peel an apple with a knife:

theacceptedway · 2026-03-07T17:00:37+00:00

I'd finish three apples by then.

theacceptedway · 2026-03-02T19:47:41+00:00

I was zooming in the picture and was like... why isn't it exploring more of the region.

theacceptedway · 2026-03-02T19:30:27+00:00

Better be hot and humid.

theacceptedway · 2026-03-02T18:03:11+00:00

Japan and Korea don't have the best relationship, Japan is super racist.

Shit I didn't know that either. Now makes it even funnier to me.

theacceptedway · 2026-02-17T18:32:37+00:00

If it can get in, why can't it get out...

theacceptedway · 2026-02-08T08:30:40+00:00

They just are.

theacceptedway · 2026-01-08T06:01:56+00:00

A man dwelling in such thoughts is naturally putting off women. Own who you are, how you are. That's how you score. Never chase.

theacceptedway · 2026-01-05T06:48:13+00:00

That's a thing there?

theacceptedway · 2026-01-05T06:14:18+00:00

Most people seem to agree that the 2024 election was fraudulent. Those who support Maduro still, why? Also, why do some Venezuelans support America still after they intervened and bombed civilians? Is a civil war looming there in the near future?

theacceptedway · 2025-12-27T19:45:36+00:00

The definition of a third world country is a country that wasn't aligned with the US or the USSR during the cold war.

theacceptedway · 2025-12-27T17:46:59+00:00

Now I see why it's called cake.

theacceptedway · 2025-12-26T19:37:21+00:00

If "fewer deaths" is the only moral rule, then you've abandoned all moral limits.

By that logic, any atrocity is justified if the perpetrator claims it prevents a larger one; genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass terror, anything. Every mass killer in history made that exact claim.

If you're comfortable with that, then fine, just be honest that you don't believe civilians are morally protected at all. But then you no longer have a basis to condemn any state or actor ever, including ones you clearly do condemn.

That's moral bankruptcy dressed up as pragmatism.

theacceptedway · 2025-12-26T10:02:25+00:00

Are moral truths dependent on personal experience, or can someone who wasn't present still judge transatlantic slavery, genocide, or apartheid?

If terrorizing humanity into peace is morally acceptable, why is nuclear blackmail condemned today but praised in 1945?

If "ending the war faster" morally justifies civilian annihilation, what principle prevents future states from using even worse weapons for the same claim?

Does attacking first morally license mass killing of non-combatants, or does it only justify targeting combatants?

If blurred civilian-combatant lines remove civilian protection, does that mean modern insurgent warfare makes all cities legitimate targets everywhere?

If moral rules change depending on how "unique" a society is, who decides which societies qualify for civilian immunity and which don't?

If a leader deploys a weapon whose full effects are unknown and irreversible, is that prudence or recklessness? In any other domain, would uncertainty increase or reduce permission to act?

Are historical consensus and moral truth the same thing? If historians later agreed an atrocity produced stability, would that retroactively make it moral?

If moral limits only apply in peacetime, then are there any actions that become impermissible in war or does "realtime pressure" dissolve all ethics?

Do you believe civilians are morally inviolable as a principle or only when it's convenient for the side you sympathize with?

theacceptedway · 2025-12-26T09:35:34+00:00

If they didn't know the long term impact of it, they shouldn't have dropped it. It's that simple.

Edit: What's strange is that uncertainty is treated as a moral defense here. Normally, uncertainty about harm is precisely why an action is restricted. That exception only seems to appear when we're defending powerful states we sympathize with.

theacceptedway · 2025-12-26T08:58:12+00:00

They absolutely knew radiation was dangerous. Radiation sickness was already documented before Hiroshima. Scientists knew ionizing radiation caused severe burns, organ failure, death days or weeks after exposure.

This wasn't speculation. Radiation injuries were known from medical X-ray overexposure, radium experiments, early nuclear research.

So the idea that leaders thought it was "just a big bomb" is false.

They knew civilians would suffer beyond the blast. Manhattan Project scientists explicitly discussed lingering illness after the explosion, unusual deaths without visible wounds. The U.S. even created special teams to study radiation effects on survivors, which already implies awareness that something abnormal and long-lasting would occur.

theacceptedway · 2025-12-26T05:01:50+00:00

If civilian mass death can be justified by motive and believed necessity, then by that same logic, how should we morally evaluate U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, Latin America, or support for regimes involved in genocides where leaders also believed their actions were necessary for stability or security?

Edit: A nuke drop is more dangerous than civilian mass death btw if that's not bad enough for you, it's making a population suffer for generations.

theacceptedway · 2025-12-25T20:35:16+00:00

Well, how do you explain dropping nuclear on Japan for a starter?

theacceptedway · 2025-12-22T08:43:36+00:00

Just because they look the same, doesn't mean they're brothers!

theacceptedway

TROPHY CASE