Here you are.
Would you have preferred the death of many more American soldiers and goodness knows how many Japanese civilians during a full invasion of the Japanese mainlands. The evidence from the time suggests that the Japanese would not have surrendered easily.
— universeness

You are making the act of killing civilians a matter of preference. You are using a hypothetical as a made up better evil.
We are judging the act ..and you are trying to justified with hypotheticals.
You sound like American cops who violate people's rights in order to keep them safe and .....free.
I can not believe someone can be that stupid...I think you are a troll — Nickolasgaspar

If you interpret my typing above as advocating for war crimes then you simply demonstrate your idiotic thinking. Can you not read the words
'and goodness knows how many Japanese civilians'
did this not give you a clue that I was suggesting that more Japanese civilians would have died due to a full invasion of their mainlands compared to the number that died due to the two bombs.
Remove your BEPO costume, climb out your pram, put your big boy pants on and join the grownups!

Try this for a hypothetical:
Approximately 20 million civilians were killed in the soviet union in WW2 due to CONVENTIONAL WAR.
The Japanese culture of the 1940's was based on fanatical loyalty to the emperor.
Its not a simplistic hypothetical that millions of Japanese civilians would have died its very very likely that such would have been the case. I answered your yes or no question Sherlock are you too scared to answer mine? Don't hide behind your HypAthetical label.

If you interpret my typing above as advocating for war crimes then you simply demonstrate you idiotic thinking. — Nickolasgaspar

-Again crimes are not a matter of preference. It is a crime to nuke civilians and it would be a crime to kill civilians in a full invasion. Put your ducks straight.

his arguments are not better than yours. You both don't have arguments and you retreat in name calling and logical fallacies.
You never address or acknowledge the point made...you tap dance trying to appear as wiseguys....

Now I know you are reversing the bullet (and his linguistic bullet carries way more contempt than yours!) but don't lower yourself to that boring, pseudo-logical, imbecillic, BEPO dimwit talk of that moronic gasbag! A single hole in the bag suffices! Psjsssshshsh.... — Hillary

:rofl: Good advice but I don't mind the sparring with such a poor logician.
Perhaps behind all the rhetoric and snorting, he is actually learning! We can only hope :smile:

who told you that those are the only choices — Nickolasgaspar

Where is your evidence of the alternate choices available at the time BEPO?

this is NOT a historical forum. We are not analyzing the implications and make projections on hypothetical scenarios.
This is a philosophical forum. We reflect on moral evaluations on ACTUAL acts. — Nickolasgaspar

Yeah Sherlock, human history has no relevance to philosophical musings. Another pearl of wisdom from the BEPO school of philosophy.

his arguments are not better than yours. You both don't have arguments and you retreat in name calling and logical fallacies.
You never address or acknowledge the point made...you tap dance trying to appear as wiseguys... — Nickolasgaspar

And you just engage in barefaced dishonesty!

Approximately 20 million civilians were killed in the soviet union in WW2 due to CONVENTIONAL WAR. — universeness

NOT INTERESTED in how many were killed and how they were.
I am only pointing to the idiotic act of bringing it up as a dilemma and using it as a red herring to distract people from the point in question.
Mr Hillary, with his limited abilities thinks that Systematic Knowledge and the methods enabling them are responsible for Nuking people. You come alone and you being you.... tries to find excuses for that act.
So you both...being you...started from point A and ended up making up false dilemma on which crime is preferable, instead of explaining why conflating politics and economic interests with Knowledge is Kindergarten Philosophy

Yeah Sherlock, human history has no relevance to philosophical musings. Another pearl of wisdom from the BEPO school of philosophy. — universeness

Argument from Ambiguity fallacy. Reflecting on the Historical implications of a event is History.
Reflecting on which act of Historical crime is preferable is Garbage Philosophy and its off topic.

NOT INTERESTED in how many were killed and how they were — Nickolasgaspar

Who cares what interests a fake interlocuter like you?
and if you truly don't care about such then you are nasty.

Who cares what interests a fake interlocuter like you?and if you truly don't care about such then you are nasty. — universeness

-They are irrelevant to the topic of discussion...but I guess you are not capable to understand it or your cognitive dissonance is trying to keep you away from it.

Argumen from Ambiguity. Reflecting on the Historical implications of a event is History.
Reflecting on which act of crime is preferable is Garbage Philosophy and its off topic — Nickolasgaspar

Another BEPO bleat from the philosophy of the naive.

You won't going to answer.......aren't you?
You are here to promote your ego...not to learn.

I guess...YOU ARE DONE on this topic too.

They are irrelevant to the topic of discussion...but I guess you are not capable to understand it or your cognitive dissonance is trying to keep you away from it — Nickolasgaspar

You think you decide what's irrelevant to the topic of discussion and I will follow? :rofl:

If you are not willing to address the important arguments and your only goal is to make impressions...then you are done.

You won't going to answer.......aren't you? — Nickolasgaspar

I see you need help again. Are you trying to type: You're not going to answer are you?
How about an answer to my yes/no question sherlock!

I guess...YOU ARE DONE on this topic too — Nickolasgaspar

you are done sir — Nickolasgaspar

Yeah run away gasbag, run and hide in one of your inFerior designs!

You think you decide what's irrelevant to the topic of discussion and I will follow? — universeness

I've repeated the topic over and over again. It was created by your respond to mr Hillary.
Hillary idiotically enough accused science to responsible for a specific GeoPolitical Applications of technology.
You came back with your silly argument "what crime do you prefer".
The answer to that is NONE. This is NOT a Historical course to analyze the possible scenarios.
If you are unable to understand that...then you are way too stupid on this subject to talk to sir.
I am not calling you stupid, we all are stupid in specific topics, but you happen to be on this one and anything that demands critical thinking.

You never address or acknowledge the point made...you tap dance trying to appear as wiseguys.... — Nickolasgaspar

Wiseguys? No way! We're the PantoTap Duo!

Dropping a fission bomb on a city full of citizens is no good!

You came back with your silly argument "what crime do you prefer".
The answer to that is NONE. — Nickolasgaspar

You think that binary choice between two evils as the only choices available are not possible?
That's because you stick your ostrich-sized head in the sand and reject that human beings have had to face such dilemmas in REAL life. Its often called damned if you do damned if you don't. Your philosophical manipulations create your own self awarded license to handwave away such historical realities of the human condition which makes your philosophy completely compromised as it ignores inconvenient truths. Your philosophy is fake.

instead of explaining why conflating politics and economic interests with Knowledge is Kindergarten Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

Politics and economic interests and knowledge, be it scientific, theological, or astrological, can't be logically separated and evaluated according to logic rules. Only in hindsight such separation can be made and history be logically reconstructed, giving a wrong and distorted picture of the actual story that happened.

Oh well, I think he has gone back to digging into the dirt with his hind legs and flicking the dirt backward whilst snorting that Bullnose at my 'Universeness' handle. I am sure he will be back to charge at any red flag he thinks or contrives that I have displayed!

Politics and economic interests and knowledge, be it scientific, theological, or astrological, can't be logically separated and evaluated according to logic rules. — Hillary

:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

oh boy the level in here is way to low to waste any more of my time.

Oh well, I think he has gone back to digging into the dirt with his hind legs and flicking the dirt backward — universeness

A powerful image! Logic-proof! :up: (almost wanted to place a heart emoticon..., oh, what the hell... :heart: ).

I see there are more god-based threads recently posted.
I thought you would have posted by now on
'The wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger'
The OP reads as something you might agree with.
I had a giggle at the thread reference as it was used by Bruce Lee at the start of 'Enter the Dragon.'
I quoted it for a point I was trying to make on a thread a while ago and I got told off by @180 Proof for using quotes from Bruce Lee on TPF :lol:

oh boy the level in here is way to low to waste any more of my time — Nickolasgaspar

Bruce Lee was a great panto philosopher! Looking beyond his finger directly to the opponent. It would indeed be foolish to look at his finger!

What thread?

When I stand on my hands, it's you who is low. :lol:

What thread? — Hillary

I just told you! Its called:

The wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger' — universeness