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?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment