6 ms·

In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army. Talking of

In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army. Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice) "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown, unimportant, or not worth mentioning"

_djo_ 15y ago
I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.
- ifearthenight 15y ago
  Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad. Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to get me riled up! One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of anything?
  - oelewapperke 15y ago
    Cute how people react these days. Strategy, which in the end is what currently (mostly) keeps the world at peace, is discarded. And what is to take it's stead ? Politically motivated assigning of blame. In reality the America-Japan situation is morally much more complex than given credit here. America used, with reluctance, weapons it developed from a blueprint stolen from enemy forces that intended to use it against New York (ie. from Hitler). And they used it against a country that had invaded half of East-Asia, and was running genocides, rape campaigns, and all sorts of fun stuff all over the place. Does "the end justify the means" is an interesting discussion, but it is not even considered here : all that matters is showing one's political colors. American government bad ! And while the Japanese government was far worse, let's just not mention that. Let's also neglect the reasons things were done, and let's not go anywhere near the result of those actions. After all, while the act itself is definitely in the "not OK" department, you can hardly feel sorry for the enemy in this case. The reasons the action was taken are at the very least very serious reasons, worthy of extensive discussion in any judgement. And the result of those actions ... well, frankly, look at what happened ! What could possibly have been a better (realistic) outcome ? And being against nuclear weapons is very stupid considering that it is well documented that those weapons were indeed what kept the Soviets from attacking America. Without nuclear weapons, WWIII would have followed WWII after a decade and a half at most, probably less. That much is a certainty given historical evidence released at the fall of the Soviet union ... But of course we can't have the American government, now totally different from what it was in 1945, escape blame for an absolute moral standard, can we ? After all, that's the important part. Blame. Here's what I want to say : if you judge with absolute moral standards, we all deserve the death penalty. Laws, even moral laws, while useful as a baseline, are a very bad idea when people use them in absolute terms without context. So don't.
  - _djo_ 15y ago
    I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion, it's just that I disagree that the phrase you highlighted was more biased in favour of the US than your suggested edit. In both it is clear that the USAAF dropped the bomb. The answer to your question is yes, inanimate objects can be responsible for outcomes. On a philosophical level, a rock that comes loose from a cliff face and kills someone driving on the road below is responsible for his death even though there was clearly no intention involved. In terms of language, it's also common for an inanimate object to be the subject even if it was not the responsible party, i.e. 'the car hit the boy', 'the plane crashed into the tower', 'the house was destroyed by a bomb', etc. In none of those cases was the primary subject the entity which decided to cause the action.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  it's a small nitpick, sure, but he(?) is right - it does change the partiality of the sentence. i didn't notice when i read the text; now that it has been pointed out to me, i find it interesting. thanks, iftn.
  - _djo_ 15y ago
    I would argue that while I believe his correction did not change the partiality, a change to the active voice would have been more effective in highlighting the responsibility of the USAAF in destroying Hiroshima. With that said, there is no contention that the US did not bomb Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon. Would anybody reading any of these suggested phrases really be more or less likely to view the US as being responsible for it?

_djo_ 15y ago

I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.

ifearthenight 15y ago
Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad. Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to get me riled up! One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of anything?
- oelewapperke 15y ago
  Cute how people react these days. Strategy, which in the end is what currently (mostly) keeps the world at peace, is discarded. And what is to take it's stead ? Politically motivated assigning of blame. In reality the America-Japan situation is morally much more complex than given credit here. America used, with reluctance, weapons it developed from a blueprint stolen from enemy forces that intended to use it against New York (ie. from Hitler). And they used it against a country that had invaded half of East-Asia, and was running genocides, rape campaigns, and all sorts of fun stuff all over the place. Does "the end justify the means" is an interesting discussion, but it is not even considered here : all that matters is showing one's political colors. American government bad ! And while the Japanese government was far worse, let's just not mention that. Let's also neglect the reasons things were done, and let's not go anywhere near the result of those actions. After all, while the act itself is definitely in the "not OK" department, you can hardly feel sorry for the enemy in this case. The reasons the action was taken are at the very least very serious reasons, worthy of extensive discussion in any judgement. And the result of those actions ... well, frankly, look at what happened ! What could possibly have been a better (realistic) outcome ? And being against nuclear weapons is very stupid considering that it is well documented that those weapons were indeed what kept the Soviets from attacking America. Without nuclear weapons, WWIII would have followed WWII after a decade and a half at most, probably less. That much is a certainty given historical evidence released at the fall of the Soviet union ... But of course we can't have the American government, now totally different from what it was in 1945, escape blame for an absolute moral standard, can we ? After all, that's the important part. Blame. Here's what I want to say : if you judge with absolute moral standards, we all deserve the death penalty. Laws, even moral laws, while useful as a baseline, are a very bad idea when people use them in absolute terms without context. So don't.
- _djo_ 15y ago
  I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion, it's just that I disagree that the phrase you highlighted was more biased in favour of the US than your suggested edit. In both it is clear that the USAAF dropped the bomb. The answer to your question is yes, inanimate objects can be responsible for outcomes. On a philosophical level, a rock that comes loose from a cliff face and kills someone driving on the road below is responsible for his death even though there was clearly no intention involved. In terms of language, it's also common for an inanimate object to be the subject even if it was not the responsible party, i.e. 'the car hit the boy', 'the plane crashed into the tower', 'the house was destroyed by a bomb', etc. In none of those cases was the primary subject the entity which decided to cause the action.
andrewcooke 15y ago
it's a small nitpick, sure, but he(?) is right - it does change the partiality of the sentence. i didn't notice when i read the text; now that it has been pointed out to me, i find it interesting. thanks, iftn.
- _djo_ 15y ago
  I would argue that while I believe his correction did not change the partiality, a change to the active voice would have been more effective in highlighting the responsibility of the USAAF in destroying Hiroshima. With that said, there is no contention that the US did not bomb Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon. Would anybody reading any of these suggested phrases really be more or less likely to view the US as being responsible for it?