EPTNuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 44
| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 12 2008 13:43 rei wrote: Alright since you put it nicely first you defend the first fallacy by providing methods on how the number of casualties was derive. I am not going to dispute these numbers( i would if it is a real debate), because I agree we will lose a lot more lives if we did not nuke and invaded. on the second fallacy defense, you said "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" Here you did not support your claim with evidence, I don't see any statistical comparison of other options. You said "as being viewed as less effective" you must provide what options and who discounted them as being less effective. you have committed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to masses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority all i need is one fallacy to stick and your argument is destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy gogo cz, you need it, your next post better not have any fallacies, hopefully you don't try and use fallacy to defend another fallacy. my opinion on this issue + Show Spoiler + Some one asked me my standing on this issue since I had only been pointing out logical faults in others arguments. I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done to win the war effectively knowing it is not moral. I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives, My insult to all your ignorant illogical hypocrites who still thinks you need to justify nuking of japan by the number of lives it saved. (Damn right I proved you all hypocrites, the true hurts) + Show Spoiler + 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 aims to stop the war which leads to 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 #1, #2, #5 and #6) Nuking of japan is a valuable lesson for mankind, we paid many lives for this lesson so that people will remember never to repeat history. And if you are trying to justify nuking of Japan with the righteousness of it saved people you have wasted all those lives we paid for the lesson, because the next nuke which starts WW3 will be also justifiable. Well I can't think of any options that are better than nuking Japan in terms of lives lost, American casualties, and overall justice. I'm honestly not sure who it is on in order to support this: me to discount every other possibility, or you to show a possibility that is more just than the one taken. With respect to your rebuttal, you are basically saying that there was a 3rd option and that was to sign a cease-fire. This unfortunately leaves Japan with the same war leadership, supposing they even choose to accept the treaty, and it seems very reasonable to conclude that they will cause another aggressive war in the future based on their past actions and the fact that they are very honor-centered. Or in the terms of your argument, your third value "3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death." is unsupported and seems incorrect when you take into account the honor-worship of the society and the history of the people being left in charge. edit: I also never appealed to authority or the masses. I just didn't cite my arguments with statistical backing. Appealing to authority would be saying "A famous historian believes what I do, he's very smart, therefore my argument is valid" and appealing to the masses would be "Almost everyone agrees with me, or anyone who has studied it agrees with me, therefore my argument is valid." | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
For example, here's a perfectly valid argument: 1. If 1+1=2 is true, then I am a genius and have a 10" dick. 2. 1+1=2 is true 3. Therefore I am a genius and have a 10" dick. There are no fallacies in this argument. The reason the argument isn't compelling is because the first premise is not established or backed up at all, and since it is required to argument requires the premises to be true the conclusion is of equal truth as its premises: ie, unknown, as the premises' truth is unknown. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
seriously, it's pretty clear to anyone logical that you can't justify nuking with the number of lives it saved. I am not trying to win the debate, I have Insulted you logically for being a hypocrite, So please rethink your believes and come up with another argument why Nuking japan is justified. Let's learn something here shall we? Don't tell me you can't think of anything else. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 12 2008 14:19 rei wrote: CZ the 3rd option is merely derive from the very same reasoning you used to support nuking japan will saved lives. You are trying to dispute this based on your expert opinion of a peace treaty will lead to another war between China and Japan? seriously, it's pretty clear to anyone logical that you can't justify nuking with the number of lives it saved. I am not trying to win the debate, I have Insulted you logically for being a hypocrite, So please rethink your believes and come up with another argument why Nuking japan is justified. Let's learn something here shall we? Don't tell me you can't think of anything else. Well I've already mentioned the problem inherent with a peace treaty: You leave the same government in charge. Based on the historical actions of this government and its honor-based motivations it seems reasonable to believe it would continue to be belligerent, IF it even accepted the treaty. The rest of your post is just noise. | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
Oh but you can blow up all his buildings if he doesn't? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
On December 12 2008 14:19 rei wrote: CZ the 3rd option is merely derive from the very same reasoning you used to support nuking japan will saved lives. it is not my personal belif, it is just another option to prove there are more than two choice. You are trying to dispute this based on your expert opinion of a peace treaty will lead to another war between China and Japan. This is going no where, if you are not following the rules of constructing a logical argument then we shall not argue at all. seriously, it's pretty clear to anyone logical that you can't justify nuking with the number of lives it saved. I am not trying to win the debate, I have Insulted you logically for being a hypocrite, So please rethink your believes and come up with another argument why Nuking japan is justified. Let's learn something here shall we? Don't tell me you can't think of anything else. Erm. No, it isn't pretty clear to anyone logical. And stop being such an ass. You're purely trolling here. You're saying the nuke or invade is a false choice and yet you're not presenting an alternative. Peaceful ceasefire? Just not realistic. Japan was militaristic, expansionist and showed a sadistic disregard for the lives of everyone non Japanese. You're acting as if you're somehow better than everyone else in this topic because they disagree with you while basing your argument on some vague suggestion that things would be better if everyone got along. Yeah, being nice to each other > nuking. Well done. You'll get no argument from me there. But assuming everyone can't play nice, which is a very accurate assumption in this scenario, killing 200,000 > killing 1,000,000. The manner of death isn't important, that nukes were used makes no difference. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved. I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it. | ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
On December 12 2008 14:29 bumatlarge wrote: You cant win a game if the other side wont gg :/ Oh but you can blow up all his buildings if he doesn't? lol best post in thread. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote: the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts.. Seriously, stop being an ass. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
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 aims to stop the war which leads to 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 #1, #2, #5 and #6) Kwark that's the argument, read it and don't put words into my mouth, you quote me instead plz. I hasn't get banned yet because I have an argument for calling you guys hypocrites, and appearently the admins agree with me, or i would have been banned long long time ago with this amount of flamming. + Show Spoiler + "Oh, and "it's pretty clear to anyone logical" is an appeal to the masses. You spend all your time filling posts with bullshit about fallacies to try and make yourself look good while doing the same ignorant shit you claim everyone else is. You sir, are provably an idiot." you are not even arguing about rather or not nuking of japan is justified here, you are applying a fallacy on irrelevant issue. It hurts Kwark I know it does when someone proved you are a hypocrite with logic. Unlike online flaming and insulting, something like this really make you think about your beliefs and re-evaluate yourself | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote: dude cz i agree with you that signing of the a peace treaty will not work, that's why they choose to nuke japan. but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved. I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it. Well if you agree that signing a peace treaty won't work because it will lead to more eventual war with the same group in charge of Japan and therefore more death, doesn't nuking Japan lead to less deaths, unless there is a fourth option that is better? | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 12 2008 14:55 rei wrote: 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 aims to stop the war which leads to 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 #1, #2, #5 and #6) Kwark that's the argument, read it and don't put words into my mouth, you quote me instead plz. I hasn't get banned yet because I have an argument for calling you guys hypocrites, and appearently the admins agree with me, or i would have been banned long long time ago with this amount of flamming. + Show Spoiler + "Oh, and "it's pretty clear to anyone logical" is an appeal to the masses. You spend all your time filling posts with bullshit about fallacies to try and make yourself look good while doing the same ignorant shit you claim everyone else is. You sir, are provably an idiot." you are not even arguing about rather or not nuking of japan is justified here, you are applying a fallacy on irrelevant issue. It hurts Kwark I know it does when someone proved you are a hypocrite with logic. Unlike online flaming and insulting, something like this really make you think about your beliefs and re-evaluate yourself I've responded a couple times to this, mainly pointing out that premise #3 is unsupported and likely wrong for reasons I've repeated in my last few posts. Since your argument relies entirely on each premise, it's only as good as the weakest link, which happens to be a completely unsupported and counter-intuitive statement. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
| ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On November 02 2008 14:47 blue_arrow wrote: oh yeah, something I wanted to add: there has been some controversy over the fact that there may have been evidence that Japan would've surrendered before the end of 1945, even if the bombs were not dropped. dude Japanese r proud ppl... and back then (not so sure now..) they thought their emperor was like God... i do NOT think they would have given up that easily...if i was alive back in the days i would have thought nuke would have pissed them off more... | ||
|
KwarK
United States44068 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
On December 12 2008 15:02 cz wrote: Well if you agree that signing a peace treaty won't work because it will lead to more eventual war with the same group in charge of Japan and therefore more death, doesn't nuking Japan lead to less deaths, unless there is a fourth option that is better? No you missed my point, that proposed 3rd option by signing a treaty is to set up a no death situation. Which is theoretical just like the assumption of invading japan cause more lives. The reason it won't work in practice (outside of theorycraft) is not because it won't save lives, it is because (insert whatever theory you have here )WE WANTED VENDETTA.(my opinion) | ||
| ||
