EPTEDIT: Except regarding this particular topic.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 41
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Xusneb
Canada612 Posts
EDIT: Except regarding this particular topic. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
And you don't think they did likewise to the people they were acting upon? You don't think a bulk of the American forces were drafted civilians that never had any intention of going to war and wanted themselves to go back to their families and eat? I'm amazed at the audacity of some of hte people to claim that America wasn't prioritizing their own citizens first. The Japanese made it clear to America (whether they would stick to it is questionable) that they would fight to the death. If we invaded, not only would we have sent hundreds of thousands to their death, but they STILL would have had to engage women and children. Women and children as young as 11 were being trained to fight off an invasion. What ignorance amongst you people somehow think they wouldn't have died? You think it's better that a child be stabbed to death rather than burned? Probably you're right. But when you weigh in the fact most of them died instantly and it saved potentially a million American lives - then it's instantly fully justified. The problem is that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb, not that America dropped a second. What should be questioned is the justification the Japanese government had in not surrendering, which is obviously none, not that the Americans dropped them in the first place. | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
But there's a reason why it hasn't been used since. Nothing justifies a "legitimate" use of it. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24767 Posts
On December 11 2008 12:13 jjun212 wrote: I don't know But there's a reason why it hasn't been used since. Nothing justifies a "legitimate" use of it. I really don't think this is why lol | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On December 11 2008 09:57 rei wrote: NrG.ZaM in debates one fallacy is enough render an argument useless. If you submited to the first one you don't need to read the rest. your argument on the second fallacy is based on your example of being hungry, and your two choices are eat or not to eat, and you are comparing it to nuke or not to nuke. Here you have committed two fallacies 1) irrelevant Conclusion( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ) eat or not eat has nothing to do with the argument in justifying nukeing of japan 2) Converse Fallacy of Accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident ) You are arguing from a special case(eat or not eat) to a general rule (every case has only 2 choice) and finally you said "nuke or invade are really the only good choices" without any premise nor evidence. And thank you for pointing out my mistakes in wording of the third fallacy, i have fixed it. But the important thing is the logic stays unchallenged (yet). Fact: you are dismissing my 3rd argument on my lack of attention on words, in the same time attempt to re-word Kwark's conclusion so that it is more logical to his premise. hypocrisy if you want to really drop the rock on the argument after it fell down the well, you can argue that the argument of justifying nuking of japan by the amount of lives it saved is the very essence of hypocrisy. -if no nuke was drop and no invasion took place no more life would have been lost, war ends with a peace treaty both side must honor. (derive only from logic of which decision saves most lives, this is not my opinion) base on the argument's method of deciding, they should have chosen this option which saves the most lives. The fact that the argument supports nuking while in the same time justify it with the amount of lives it saved, yet not even consider the option ( literally not even remotely imaginable as a possible option) that saves the most lives. That my friends is the very essence of hypocrisy. PS. if you can actually argue to the logic instead of argue to the person then you can earn some respect. making insults while arguing with someone will only make you look weak in logic. In case you are wondering, they also have a fallacy for that, it's call "Ad hominem" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ) One down, next, who else wants to defend the argument of justifying the nuking of japan because it saved lives? and please attack my logic but not the person that's making the logic PPS. My opinion on this matter is Why do we need to justify for something we did? We are arrogant enough to not care what the rest of the world thinks about us, if you don't like it go fuck yourselves. We nuke japan simply because we can, isn't that good enough reason? We are the United fucking States mother fuckers, we doesn't need you biatches to agree with who we nuke, go fuck yourselves if you don't like it why don't you do something about it ehhhh? oh wait, you can't because our guns are bigger than yours! morons. fucking fucktards if Iraq doesn't have oil we would have nuked them too, and if north korea can't nuke back we would have nuked them to stone ages long fucking ass time ago. Oh and fucking Russia go fuck yourselves WE WON the cold world, in your fucking face biatch! And fuck every country in Europe fucking insignificant all talk no walk biatches. We would have said fuck you to China too if not for the fact that they hold over 10% of our national debt. if you sMEll LLLLLLLLLLLL what my sarcasm is cooking -_^ You're bragging about being a teacher and this is the way you act? That last part of your post is just plain rude, no one who acts like that should be allowed to teach the youth of a nation. Acting like that sets a horrible example and only furthers the negative stereotypes about Americans that many here and elsewhere love to believe. EDIT: And yes I realize that you claim that you were being sarcastic, but regardless that's still very inappropriate behavior, especially for a teacher. You do seem to have a well enough understanding of a basic Intro to Logic course (however there is more to logic than simply pointing out basic fallacies), but like someone else has said, you're really picking and choosing what you respond to. As much as you're harping about the rules of debate, you should know that doing that doesn't help you very much in a debate either. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is: if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved. This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities. second fallacy committed here is "False Dilemma" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htm In this argument there are only 2 choices, nuke or invade, where not invading japan is not consider an option. Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess. There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies. You are making three points here: 1. That it is not established that using nukes as they were used would result in less casualties (or American casualties). 2. That there are other options 3. Not sure about your third point. Seems redundant to the first one. Anyway, I'll start by responding to the first: 1. Looking at the history of the war and the way in which the Japanese conducted themselves, the fact that they were conserving kamikazes and moving underground I think it's very reasonable that at the time American leadership believed that proceeding with what actually happened with respect to nukes would minimize American casualties and/or total casualties/deaths. The Japanese were known to be training civilians, massively conscripting and conserving their kamikaze force. The usual quoted number is 1 million American casualties, by the way. If that's not acceptable as its methodology is not given, you can consider how many planes and army units the Japanese had at their disposal for the defence of Japan, and consider the likely casualties as when compared to previous battles. ie if fighting 4 divisions brought about 20 000 American casualties, and we can conclude from 1945 data that the Japanese had at 120 divisions, then we can guess at what American planners must have considered their casualties to be. There are of course kamikazes/suicide ships/etc to be factored in, but I'm pretty sure the data comes out for a very large estimated American casualties. 2. The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and/or total casulaties/deaths. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
On December 11 2008 12:26 Orlandu wrote: You're bragging about being a teacher and this is the way you act? That last part of your post is just plain rude, no one who acts like that should be allowed to teach the youth of a nation. Acting like that sets a horrible example and only furthers the negative stereotypes about Americans that many here and elsewhere love to believe. EDIT: And yes I realize that you claim that you were being sarcastic, but regardless that's still very inappropriate behavior, especially for a teacher. Seriously, your post doesn't have a point and it makes no sense... It was simply a sarcastic hyperbole of what a worst American thinks. It has nothing to do with being a teacher... This is just a personal attack that is uncalled for... [...]you're really picking and choosing what you respond to[...] That's what a debate is all about... | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
Here's the XKCD answer... + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/internet_argument.png) ![[image loading]](http://craphound.com/images/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg) | ||
|
micronesia
United States24767 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
On December 11 2008 11:40 NrG.ZaM wrote: So you're 100% certain that without any type of attack, there would be a peace treaty? If not, then your argument isn't any better off than what you're arguing against, since it isn't provable that an invasion would cause more deaths than the nukes did, and you disregard that with the lack of evidence. You have missed understood my argument. I am not arguing for signing peace treaty. I am not arguing to disprove your argument because I already did it in my first post. Here i am making a new argument. I am arguing the conflicting nature of your argument(nuking japan to save lives) is hypocrisy. I am making an argument that all of you who think nuking japan saved lives are hypocrites. Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty in theory causes no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #2, #5 and #6) In my first argument I destroyed your argument of nuking of japan is justified by # of life it saved with your multiple fallacies.( you need to prove to me that these are in fact not fallacies, otherwise your argument is "destroyed") in my second argument I flame all you biatches for being hypocrite by thinking you can justify nuking of japan. (you need to find fallacies in the argument to destroy me) NrG.ZaM you have not disprove any of the fallacies in your argument, nor did you list any fallacy on my argument. The evidence i used are the fallacies you have committed, which i quoted. By pointing out Fallacies of your argument I add something to the side of "can't justify nuking of japan" | ||
|
Kuja900
United States3564 Posts
| ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On December 11 2008 12:26 Orlandu wrote: You're bragging about being a teacher and this is the way you act? That last part of your post is just plain rude, no one who acts like that should be allowed to teach the youth of a nation. Acting like that sets a horrible example and only furthers the negative stereotypes about Americans that many here and elsewhere love to believe. EDIT: And yes I realize that you claim that you were being sarcastic, but regardless that's still very inappropriate behavior, especially for a teacher. Oh man, it must have been hard to learn anything if you got offended by sarcasm. In my opinion, witty use of sarcasm is one of the key indicators of intelligence - Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut, for example. | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On December 11 2008 13:27 BalliSLife wrote: how come nobody talks about the iraqi civilians deaths caused by american troops? The topic is Hiroshima. | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
omg, let's make the internet explode!~!~! | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
Did you hear he recently withdrew himself from the Tibet/China debate? | ||
| ||
