 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) a (...) Yes ROSCO (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Are you satisfied with the reasoning you presented before in support of that? Has anything about it changed with Dave Eaton's presentation of his rationale? (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I haven't presented any reasoning in support of that before. All my reasoning before has been about whether or not it was terrorism - nothing about morality in there. ROSCO (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Er, yes, there is. Read Dave's statement, to which you replied "Yes," again. You say, thus, that they *are* morally equivalent. The term isn't the problem (it hasn't been for most of the .debaters), it's the semantic baggage that goes with a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tangents (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?)
|
|
(...) morality (...) Lets take it back to another example (and no, it's not an analogy). If an escaped murderer breaks into my house, ties up my family and threatens to kill them, but I manage to evade him & get to where my gun is. What should I do? (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
