Crime

Well that settles the matter.

There was absolutly no reason for the allies to be so hasty in dropping the bomb. There were other options available to secure Japan's surrender that were neglected. For instance, they could have made a stronger attempt to induce the Japanese to surrender, they were aware of the fact that the main reason Japan refused to give up was over concerns that by unconditionally surrendering the Imperial dynasty would have been destroyed. The allies also had every intention of keeping the emperor in place in order to govern the Japanese people during occupation. Why they dropped the bombs instead of attempting to coax a surrender is impossible to determine but several theories have sprung up such as revenge (just look at the above quote by Truman), intimidating the Russians so they would be easier to deal with in Europe, and ending the war quickly so the Russians can not occupy Japan and attempt to turn her communist. Had the Allies shown a little more restraint instead of going straight for the throat it would be easier to support the bombing.

Steve Levitt uses doubtful methodology.

People cause their own actions.
Inequality correlates with crime. Poverty very plausibly makes crime easier and other ways of making money harder. And childhood poverty harms brain development, in particular decision-making. But I do insist on being persnickety about this: short of very serious brain damage, one's actions are chosen, so no, environmental factors do not cause crime.

The two competing scenarios are:

1. MJ was guilty of pedophilia.
2. MJ's accusers were guilty of extortion.

I find '2' more likely. It seems highly plausible, having run the Neverland Ranch for that long, and being such an eccentric person in both behavior and appearance, that such an accusation would occur. Given that the parents of the kid MJ was accused of molesting had a track-record of lying, this really seems to confirm this scenario. Ultimately, the court not only failed to find any conclusive evidence against him, but the jury said that they "confidently came to their verdict". I can't rule out the possibility he was guilty, but the evidence strongly points towards his innocence. Furthermore, as a matter of principle, I believe people should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. I've seen first hand that self-described "good people" can talk themselves into a lie that benefits them, even if it costs another person their time, money, and reputation. The principle of presuming innocence serves to fight that injustice.

I'm not a historian so I won't comment as to whether the bombs saved lives. I do believe however, that you're too hasty and enthusiastic in reaching the conclusion that no Japanese person was innocent. Do you think, had you or I been born in the 1920s in Japan, that we could have gone against the flow? Do you think we would have - on moral grounds - refused to join our country's army and have had the strength to face the consequences of taking that stance? By your own words you don't seem to give a fuck about "people who I have never met who would probably kill me given the chance". Most people born into a bad regime could be pushed into bad behavior, and the people who died were not intrinsically better or worse than ordinary people like me and you. Maybe the bombs were necessary, but it was a tragedy, and it is of the utmost arrogance to say that the people who died were not innocent, as if we, with our privileged lives, not only get to live those privileged lives, but also get to claim the moral high-ground over the dead.

Most people who get killed in wars are not evil people - they're just terribly unlucky people born at the wrong time and wrong place. Most of the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just ordinary civilians living under a regime they did not choose. Now, there is ignorance in pacifism - yes, some wars are justified, as is the loss of civilian life. But there is an even less thoughtful ignorance in the belief that an entire country is comprised of evil people.

"They should all burn in hell"? While I don't consider myself a Christian, I still consider it a red flag when someone says something that seems to entirely disregard the compassion that Jesus espoused.

God no.
First of all the evidence is against it.
Second of all, video games are a fictional representation of violence -- are you a serial killer if you read Macbeth? Sometimes the people who are interested in fictional representations of violence have what I'd call a writerly imagination... they want to look at human nature at the extremes. I know people like that and they're actually intensely non-violent. It's not actually a wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Whether or not you think abortion is murder is irrevalent. The point was if prostitutes, crackheads, and people who are unmarried or not in good relationships, and unstable financially are allowed to have children, it is assumed they will raise unstable, unhappy children who will grow up and be attracted to the crime element. I don't know of specific numbers in reducing crime rates, but it seems reasonable to allow those people the right to have abortions. There are enough unwanted children in the world already.

It's a worry. God forbid.

But he's also the most powerful man in the world, and I'm sure he and his wife haven't forgotten that he's black, so he's probably quite well taken care of.

"Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it."

I agree it's difficult, but not so much because it horrifies me, but more because the moral equation is complicated. At one level, if the bomb saved lives, the moral framework of utilitarianism provides a basis for a decision. The problem is, this doesn't distinguish between civilian and military lives. If people choose to be in the military, and they understand the risk it entails, then presumably their lives are more expendable than civilians, who have not willingly accepted that risk. But how much more expendable? This is not clear to me. And of course during WWII they had a draft (which weakens the distinction between civilian and military lives), the morality of which is a separate question, but which in fact affects the answer to this question.

I've been told that the bombs saved lives. We did kill more people in urban firebombings than in the nuclear attacks. But I have my doubts that exterminating a city can be justifiable.

Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it.