EPT
On December 13 2008 08:40 rei wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I ignore it because it is irrelevant to my argument, which is "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves are hypocrites"
and i'm not arguing about "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves and other viable solutions that creates long term peace and saves lives are hypocrites"
If you are saying nuking of japan is only half your argument then good for you, you are only half a hypocrite.
and i am not insisting you are judging purely on lives saved, i never did say that, quote me if i did. all i said was the people who justify nuking of japan with lives it saved are judging purely on lives saved. it was you who made the connection between yourself and these people
it was you who engage my argument in an attempt to defend your ignorance.and as a result change your position as you are arguing, because you realize that I said is true, and you needed an out so you introduced your second standard, or a second argument which is nuking japan is justify because it creates long term peace.
Your first reply to me.
+ Show Spoiler +
your second reply to me
+ Show Spoiler +
your 3rd reply to me
+ Show Spoiler +
4th
+ Show Spoiler +
5th
+ Show Spoiler +
6th
+ Show Spoiler +
7th (first time you introduce your 2nd argument while claiming you have already put it out there and i just ignored it.)
+ Show Spoiler +
I didn't quote many of your posts intended for pure personal insults, and only quote ones that have an argument. As you can see after Kwark read
+ Show Spoiler +
you shift to the second argument. now you are arguing about nuking is justify by long term peace instead of nuking is justify by saving lives.
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 13 2008 07:54 Kwark wrote:
Rei, you keep ignoring my point about a viable solution that creates a long term peace and saves lives. Assuming that a ceasefire saves lives medium term, which is doubtful as I've already argued, it is still not a viable solution to the war. I'm judging the nuking by two standards, not one, whereas you keep seem to insisting that I'm judging purely on lives saved.
Rei, you keep ignoring my point about a viable solution that creates a long term peace and saves lives. Assuming that a ceasefire saves lives medium term, which is doubtful as I've already argued, it is still not a viable solution to the war. I'm judging the nuking by two standards, not one, whereas you keep seem to insisting that I'm judging purely on lives saved.
I ignore it because it is irrelevant to my argument, which is "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves are hypocrites"
and i'm not arguing about "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves and other viable solutions that creates long term peace and saves lives are hypocrites"
If you are saying nuking of japan is only half your argument then good for you, you are only half a hypocrite.
and i am not insisting you are judging purely on lives saved, i never did say that, quote me if i did. all i said was the people who justify nuking of japan with lives it saved are judging purely on lives saved. it was you who made the connection between yourself and these people
it was you who engage my argument in an attempt to defend your ignorance.and as a result change your position as you are arguing, because you realize that I said is true, and you needed an out so you introduced your second standard, or a second argument which is nuking japan is justify because it creates long term peace.
Your first reply to me.
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote:
Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
your second reply to me
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 13:47 Kwark wrote:
Ceasefire with Japan was impossible. The Japan that committed the rape of Nanking had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. Letting that Japan continue to exist would be comparable to not breaking up Germany after WW1. It was a threat to the world to let it exist. The post war constitution of Japan was profoundly pacifist. Do you honestly believe a peaceful ceasefire in which the officials remained in power would result in the same paradigm shift in Japan?
Ceasefire with Japan was impossible. The Japan that committed the rape of Nanking had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. Letting that Japan continue to exist would be comparable to not breaking up Germany after WW1. It was a threat to the world to let it exist. The post war constitution of Japan was profoundly pacifist. Do you honestly believe a peaceful ceasefire in which the officials remained in power would result in the same paradigm shift in Japan?
your 3rd reply to me
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 14:43 Kwark wrote:
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.
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.
4th
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 14:49 Kwark wrote:
And how the fuck is it hypocritical? If you're in a situation where at least 200,000 people must die but you can choose to increase that significantly then you choose to kill 200,000 to save lives. Simple. Where is the hypocrisy?
And how the fuck is it hypocritical? If you're in a situation where at least 200,000 people must die but you can choose to increase that significantly then you choose to kill 200,000 to save lives. Simple. Where is the hypocrisy?
5th
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 15:07 Kwark wrote:
No. You are still wrong. Of the available choices, of which peace treaty was not one, nuking saved lives. My first priority is a permanent conclusion to the war which invalidates the peace treaty. The second priority is fewest lives killed which invalidates invasion. So of the 3 options we are left with 1. There is still no hypocrisy and you are still being an ass. Please go re-evaluate your life and perhaps start being less of one.
No. You are still wrong. Of the available choices, of which peace treaty was not one, nuking saved lives. My first priority is a permanent conclusion to the war which invalidates the peace treaty. The second priority is fewest lives killed which invalidates invasion. So of the 3 options we are left with 1. There is still no hypocrisy and you are still being an ass. Please go re-evaluate your life and perhaps start being less of one.
6th
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote:
Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
7th (first time you introduce your 2nd argument while claiming you have already put it out there and i just ignored it.)
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote:
And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
I didn't quote many of your posts intended for pure personal insults, and only quote ones that have an argument. As you can see after Kwark read
+ Show Spoiler +
Kwark
in an argument, all premise has to stand along. Take that premise 3 out of context see if it hold true.
Because if you do that and I ask you the question does a peace treaty demonstrate the motive for no more killing? and you have to answer with an Yes or no, you are not allow to clarify your answer to a specific case.
Do you see what i am trying to say here? You seen how lawers do this in the movies, this is what i was trying to get across but you are not seeing it. I have failed you in my last post because I did not construct my words in such a way that you can understand.
now your argument on why my 3rd premise being invalid is because in the special case of japan the peace treaty does not work, which I fucking agreed with you. But it does not removed the fact that you have answered "yes" to my question that validate the stand alone premise.
Oh by the way, when you use japan to even attempt to disapprove a peace treaty in motive wants no more death, you are demonstrating the fallacy of affirming the consequence and ignoratio elenchi and Denying the antecedent
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)
Let me explain if you don't understand,
when you say the propose peace treaty does not work on japan vs usa scenario(which i agree with), therefor ALL motives of a peace treaty is not aimed to stop more death,(my 3rd premise says only about peace treaty, and nothing of japan) you are generalizing and try to make a case against my premise base on one example out of all the other peace treaty signed in history. which does not even directly address to my promise. The easiest fallacy you have made trying to invalidate my 3rd premise is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For those of you who doesn't know what we are talking about and want to learn how to talk someone into realizing they are a hypocrite here is the argument i made. feel free to discover yourselves by clicking this spoiler
+ 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)
After you said this
+ Show Spoiler +
and i totally destroyed your argument with all the fallacies you created, I guess you have nothing else? I think you are ready to submit to the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, tried to deny that to yourself. but at the end the truth hurts does it?
Oh and this is not a trolling attempt, or I would have been banned by any of the admins who's been reading this. if i am really excessive trolling, and flaming massive people to be hypocrites they will know, I see them as equals in logic and they can distinguish me from a troll. My premises are valid and my argument is sound, and they who belief nuking of japan can be justify by the least number of casualties are hypocrite which I logically proved.
in an argument, all premise has to stand along. Take that premise 3 out of context see if it hold true.
Because if you do that and I ask you the question does a peace treaty demonstrate the motive for no more killing? and you have to answer with an Yes or no, you are not allow to clarify your answer to a specific case.
Do you see what i am trying to say here? You seen how lawers do this in the movies, this is what i was trying to get across but you are not seeing it. I have failed you in my last post because I did not construct my words in such a way that you can understand.
now your argument on why my 3rd premise being invalid is because in the special case of japan the peace treaty does not work, which I fucking agreed with you. But it does not removed the fact that you have answered "yes" to my question that validate the stand alone premise.
Oh by the way, when you use japan to even attempt to disapprove a peace treaty in motive wants no more death, you are demonstrating the fallacy of affirming the consequence and ignoratio elenchi and Denying the antecedent
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)
Let me explain if you don't understand,
when you say the propose peace treaty does not work on japan vs usa scenario(which i agree with), therefor ALL motives of a peace treaty is not aimed to stop more death,(my 3rd premise says only about peace treaty, and nothing of japan) you are generalizing and try to make a case against my premise base on one example out of all the other peace treaty signed in history. which does not even directly address to my promise. The easiest fallacy you have made trying to invalidate my 3rd premise is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For those of you who doesn't know what we are talking about and want to learn how to talk someone into realizing they are a hypocrite here is the argument i made. feel free to discover yourselves by clicking this spoiler
+ 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)
After you said this
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote:
Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
and i totally destroyed your argument with all the fallacies you created, I guess you have nothing else? I think you are ready to submit to the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, tried to deny that to yourself. but at the end the truth hurts does it?
Oh and this is not a trolling attempt, or I would have been banned by any of the admins who's been reading this. if i am really excessive trolling, and flaming massive people to be hypocrites they will know, I see them as equals in logic and they can distinguish me from a troll. My premises are valid and my argument is sound, and they who belief nuking of japan can be justify by the least number of casualties are hypocrite which I logically proved.
you shift to the second argument. now you are arguing about nuking is justify by long term peace instead of nuking is justify by saving lives.
I mentioned it every time before the 7th. I just didn't spell it out because I didn't think I had to, I thought simply arguing it clearly would be enough. When I say viable solution to the war I am disqualifying a peace treaty because it is not.
In the first "given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender", ie given that a peace treaty was not an option.
In the second "ceasefire with Japan was impossible".
In the third "peaceful ceasefire, just not realistic".
....
And so forth. I think it reasonably clear in every one of my posts that my priorities are Japanese surrender and minimum lives lost. You are simply choosing to ignore it because it helps your argument to do so. This is not a clever tactic, pretending to be stupid while repeating your original argument like a broken record just makes you seem like an idiot.
The crux of your argument seems to be 'those who justify nuking Japan because it killed less people than invasion, while not actually stating clearly that they're ruling out a variety of other absurd possibilities that would kill even less people on the grounds that they're absurd, are hypocrites. While those who clearly state that they're ruling out the absurd and non viable options and choosing the one of the two remaining options because it kills less lives than the other, which while not being the primary focus (which is realism) is still a consideration.
Basically you're trolling.
