The Moral Argument

[Davian]

I can pray for you. That is what I will do. Goodnight.

Any luck? Or did the prayer not work?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We were attacking them because they attacked us and would have continued until we submitted with many deaths of American's in the process. Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. The bombs were used in self-defense against violence to achieve a political/ideological aim. When the US bombed Japan it was not to further our aims but to keep intact our own against an enemy wishing to over take us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're proving to be as evasive as @anonymous person on this question.

I answered your question, did you forget:

Post #566
↑
Arch asked: This question: Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...

Suppose that you were among the Israelites when Yahweh commanded them to slaughter every man, woman, and child, as is recounted in the Bible. Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in, or would it be "morally commendable" as you have stated in the past?

Looking forward to your evasions, which we all know are coming...

My answer: So we are talking about the Amorites? IF so, yes. If a group of people came up from behind me and my people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled and after seeing all the power of God during the plagues, I would most likely feel it was my moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill me and my children.

You then asked:
So you would take part in a genocide?

I asked: Do you feel it was genocide when the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I asked this to determine what constituted a genocide to you so that I could respond to your accusation of taking part of a genocide. Now would you please answer the question?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I answered your question, did you forget:

Post #566
↑
Arch asked: This question: Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...

Suppose that you were among the Israelites when Yahweh commanded them to slaughter every man, woman, and child, as is recounted in the Bible. Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in, or would it be "morally commendable" as you have stated in the past?

Looking forward to your evasions, which we all know are coming...

My answer: So we are talking about the Amorites? IF so, yes. If a group of people came up from behind me and my people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled and after seeing all the power of God during the plagues, I would most likely feel it was my moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill me and my children.

You then asked:
So you would take part in a genocide?

I asked: Do you feel it was genocide when the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I asked this to determine what constituted a genocide to you so that I could respond to your accusation of taking part of a genocide. Now would you please answer the question?

To be clear, you are saying that you would kill men, women, and children at the behest of Yahweh?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, let´s ignore the non-sequitur in this sentence and accept the conclusion, for argument´s sake:
It turns out the Nazis were moral.
Now how to proceed from this argument from consequence?
I don´t see much point in reverse engineering a philosophical argument from your (or my) preferred conclusion.

How is it a non-sequitur?

 

[Oncedeceived]

To be clear, you are saying that you would kill men, women, and children at the behest of Yahweh?

So you are evading my question?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you are evading my question?

If you answered in the affirmative to my question, then you are in fact admitting that you would kill men, women, and children at the behest of Yahweh. I wanted to be absolutely clear about what responding in the affirmative entails before proceeding. So are you really responding in the affirmative to my question? (Or are you going to later try to slip and slide out of it?)

 

[quatona]

How is it a non-sequitur?

In that the conclusion - as it reads there - doesn´t follow directly from the premise.
But I said, I´d ignore it (i.e.pretend it were a sound argument up to this point).
You don´t want to address the argument I actually made?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evidence that our brain changes its hard wiring when we read something.

Here are some relevant articles to start with:
1.Zatorre RJ, Fields RD, Johansen-Berg H. Plasticity in gray and white: neuroimaging changes in brain structure during learning. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15(4):528-536. doi:10.1038/nn.3045.

2.Schlegel A, Rudelson J, Tse PU. White matter structure changes as adults learn a second language. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012;24(8):1664-1670. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00240.

3.Scholz J, Klein MC, Behrens TEJ, Johansen-Berg H. Training induces changes in white-matter architecture. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(11):1370-1371. doi:10.1038/nn.2412.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you answered in the affirmative to my question, then you are in fact admitting that you would kill men, women, and children at the behest of Yahweh. I wanted to be absolutely clear about what responding in the affirmative entails before proceeding. So are you really responding in the affirmative to my question? (Or are you going to later try to slip and slide out of it?)

It seems to be evasion to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here are some relevant articles to start with:
1.Zatorre RJ, Fields RD, Johansen-Berg H. Plasticity in gray and white: neuroimaging changes in brain structure during learning. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15(4):528-536. doi:10.1038/nn.3045.

2.Schlegel A, Rudelson J, Tse PU. White matter structure changes as adults learn a second language. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012;24(8):1664-1670. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00240.

3.Scholz J, Klein MC, Behrens TEJ, Johansen-Berg H. Training induces changes in white-matter architecture. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(11):1370-1371. doi:10.1038/nn.2412.

Thank you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems to be evasion to me.

Okay, fine, I gave you the chance to clarify, so from now on I will assume that you really meant to respond in the affirmative, in which case it seems clear to me that you are the last person in this thread to lecture anyone about morality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In that the conclusion - as it reads there - doesn´t follow directly from the premise.
But I said, I´d ignore it (i.e.pretend it were a sound argument up to this point).
You don´t want to address the argument I actually made?

You do realize that it is not my argument right? I am not holding the position that the Nazi's were moral in their actions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, fine, I gave you the chance to clarify, so from now on I will assume that you really meant to respond in the affirmative, in which case it seems clear to me that you are the last person in this thread to lecture anyone about morality.

1. I wasn't lecturing anyone.
2. You seem to evade the question so that you can remain in your comfort zone and consider yourself above others.
3. You seem to be a black and white thinker which doesn't allow for much conversation or dialog with others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1. I wasn't lecturing anyone.
2. You seem to evade the question so that you can remain in your comfort zone and consider yourself above others.

You just said that you would kill men, women, and children if Yahweh commanded it, after making a point about the immorality of Nazism.

3. You seem to be a black and white thinker which doesn't allow for much conversation or dialog with others.

I gave you the option of clarifying your position; you declined, repeatedly. So any lack of nuance in your genocide apologetics is your fault, not mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You just said that you would kill men, women, and children if Yahweh commanded it, after making a point about the immorality of Nazism.

I gave you the option of clarifying your position; you declined, repeatedly. So any lack of nuance in your genocide apologetics is your fault, not mine.

This is humorous. You are so evading the question. It is very apparent.

 

[quatona]

You do realize that it is not my argument right?

Yes, but I also realize that you responded to my response to the argument. So should I simply ignore you, or what´s your point in saying this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is humorous. You are so evading the question. It is very apparent.

You asked whether I believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. Obviously this would require its own thread (presumably in the History subforum) to do the topic justice. For the sake of this discussion though, it is not classified as a genocide by the common definition of the term (i.e., "the intent to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group").

 

[Oncedeceived]

You asked whether I believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. Obviously this would require its own thread (presumably in the History subforum) to do the topic justice. For the sake of this discussion though, it is not classified as a genocide by the common definition of the term (i.e., "the intent to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group").

Still evading I see.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Still evading I see.

I just answered your question in no uncertain terms.