Friday, January 20, 2006

Clarifications & Reiteration of Purpose & Methodology: Hiroshima & Nagasaki Debate

Controversy continues over aspects of this debate from four months ago (August and September 2005), with regard to the ethics of the nuclear bombing of Japan. So I offer the following paper (follow the link):

Clarifications and Reiteration of Purpose and Methodology in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Debate (Contra Continued Bogus Charges)

Table of Contents:

Introduction

Attribution of Good Faith and Reasoning Ability to My Opponents / Admission of My Limitations

(Did I Besmirch My Opponents' Character or Act in Ways Which Suggested Pretentiousness, Given My State of Knowledge?)

What I Was Debating (Not Absolutely Everything) / "Arguments" vs. Mere Surveys and Documentation

(Was I Unethical or "Illogical" in Choosing to Narrow the Discussion Down to Certain Particulars / Did I Pretend to be Making "Arguments" When I Was Not In Fact Doing So?)

Supposed Fallacy of Appeal to Authority

(Did My Many Citations of Others Have a Legitimate Rationale, or Are They Strictly an Instance of This Fallacy?)

Utilitarianism?

(Was I Claiming That My Opponents Were Deliberately Arguing on Utilitarian or Pragmatic Grounds?)

No comments: