And we can look up what the commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor said prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor as well.

Words versus Actions, history versus revisions of history.

The Japanese had already done a test run of such an attack on the United States. It remains the only Japanese attack on the Continental 48. They used submarine based aircraft to try to firebomb Oregon's forests (To start a major forest fire which would require a lot of personnel to stop) and used artillery on the same sub to shell the local military outpost in the area.

While the two attacks failed to do any real harm, the attack was not stopped, was able to show the strengths of the submarine, and was a good long distance endurance test of their new submarines. Despite the forest not igniting and the base being missed by all shells the Japanese considered it a very successful test and started gathering the materials for the strike.

Hmmm another good example is what the Japanese commander in the Phillipines ordered to have done, and what was actually done with the prisoners on the Bataan Death March.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > Many people suffer from conditions such as depression and
> many people also make full recoveries. Someone's previous
> problems may not in any way hinder them or affect their thought
> or decision making processes.

Thats a complete load of shit. All politicians should be under full disclosure when it comes to their mental health -- it may not hinder them right away, but it may well come back. Sure, no one should be discriminated against it -- thatd be abusrdly awful -- but it still should be known.

Hypothetical situation:

Two politicians are running in your district.  One is fully mentally competent.  The other suffers from depression.
What will you do with that information, aside from using it to influence who you vote for?

> [...] Just make up any scenario, other than voting, in which you would want to know about someone's mental health and what it would influence you to do as a result. <

Apparently I'd ask them valid questions regarding their illness and treatment, then be quickly arrested for "trolling".

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Vote Harrington, for another ten glorious years of Totalitarian Government. |
|                                           ...or else!                                                     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

America did win WWII for without us the the rest were doomed.  The Russians would have been able to stop the Germans but they would not have won.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Information like that should be disclosed so that:
A) People working around this politician can see if he/she is falling off the tracks and do something about it.
B) Nothing comes out of the closet later on.
C) It promotes the idea that anyone can be targeted by a mental disorder.

I definitely see your point though...i wonder what a survey of the general population would think...

Hmm... interesting, but:

Regarding A: That's fixed by the politician having a trusted "circle" with the people that work within the group, rather than releasing information to the general public.

B: What's the harm in something coming out of the closet if it isn't that he will be tossed out of office as a result?  (If he's tossed out of office as a result, it proves there would be discrimination)

C: Ooooh, good one.  I've got nothing here. 

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
Valid questions?
1: What questions. <

These questions:
  1) Do you have a mental illness.
  2) Do you accept treatment for this illness.
  3) Does this mean we can trust your decision making and judgement?
  4) Does this mean you should hold the position you hold?
  5) Does this mean you can handle the position you hold?

> 2: Why?  What purpose would they serve other than to influence your vote? <

  It is not just the answers that would influence my vote, but how the answers were given, if answers were given, the manner in which answers were given, would all play their part in my final decision regarding wether or not I would trust this man to do this job.

> It's a simple problem: Yes, we should know about mental illnesses.  But the issue is that if you say you will not discriminate against someone with mental illnesses, then you should not need to know about said mental illnesses unless you can find another justification for it. <

  Sir Winston Churchill (if you do not know, Sir Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain during World War Two) suffered from depression, badly. He called it his "Black Dog". After the war his dog ultimately finished him off.
  Sir Winston Churchill was honest about his condition, he would not hide it from others, and (most importantly) would not hide it from himself, he was honest (almost brutally so) with himself, meaning that he would always tackle it head on.
In my book that is a man I could trust more than most "normal" people as that is a man that is clearly under no illusions, and is not in the habit of self deception.
  This may sound like 20/20 hindsight, but I would have voted for Churchill.

> Think of it like this: We lived in some world where technology allowed the dissemination of race to be possible.  When candidates go on TV, give speeches, etc., they all look like the same race.

Unless you can answer the question I posed above, what you are doing is equivalent to someone saying "I want to know what race this guy is!  Honest, I wouldn't vote for or against someone just because of their race!  I just want to know!"  In short, either:
A: You're lying, or
B: You're telling the truth, but other people who will discriminate would discriminate, and that becomes a more serious issue than letting you know just for the sake of knowing. <

  Race is not the same as mental stability and trustworthiness. You race does not dictate wether or not you can trust yourself to get the job done, let alone wther or not anyone else can trust you.

> "Hmm... if I do this, I could end up isolating 15% of the voting base... but I get Fokker's vote, so I'm doing it!" <

If only!

> Yes, but that's a shift from the advocacy this argument is indicting.  Skoe said that there should NOT be discrimination based upon mental stability in choosing politicians, in exchange for that knowledge being public.  My argument was that the discrimination would inevitably occur. <

  Discrimination inevitably occurs anyway, but not so much in the UK I think. For example, we never made anyone quit his job just because he chose to doink his sexy secretary rather than his frumpy wife (yes, we did know).
  We only discriminate agains people who deserve it, like the tit who swore on his job that Iraqi WMDs were real.

  Or maybe this is all down to my own unique thought processes? Maybe I am the only voter on earth who considers what actually matters?