Such standards were put in place BECAUSE of WW2. You put the cart before the horse as usual! — universeness

Irrelevant. We are not chronicling about these rules, we are addressing your immoral statement (justifying the killing civilians over soldiers). plus we judged the Nazis based on some kind of standards...so those standards should apply on anyone.

Learn the uses of an Ad Hominem and then we can talk. I can not address ignorant accusations...its a waste of time.
If you want academic material ...I can provide you...let me know.

Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say. — SpaceDweller

No I am have a superior personality. I don't want followers, I don't want people to believe me on fact value. I want people to educate themselves academically and believe in what is Objectively verified.

Preferably do it by crucifixion so that I can watch crows pecking you during 3-5 day period, which is approx. time that crucified persons spent on the cross, if you didn't know that. — SpaceDweller

- I am far more advanced and civilized than your gods is . I don't do blood sacrifices. I communicate to people and tell them how to build their societies so that they don't benefit and favor psychopathology and bad behavior.
Obviously your god doesn't have a major on Psychology...lol

its not rational or ethical to choose the lives of people who not participate in a war over those who do, independent if you find the act of war to be "criminal".
Again just because life in a society is unfair that doesn't justify a criminal for being unfair to his victims.
You see, I accept your claim (criminal wars) for the shake of the argument and still it doesn't hold up!
Why reasoning is so difficult for you????

My typing on the multiverse posit and the god posit where BOTH personal estimates of MY conviction towards both posits. The god posit...0.1%
The multiverse...>0.1% S — universeness

Ok the word credence isn't mentioned so you changed your statement, cool!
So next time think twice before criticizing other people's use of English.....
Now I guess you don't know that you can express your doubt about god without using numbers....

- This is why we have rules and Laws of WAR. Does the Term "Geneva Convention" rings any bells?
Stop attempting to justify the phenomenon we are trying to regulate through laws — Nickolasgaspar


Again you offer 'no shit Sherlock' comments. — universeness

So you try to justify a war crime by appeal to the nature of war and when I point out that we have standards by which we judge war practices ....your answer is this statement? lol....ok
Pls communicate to others your relation with logic and reasoning...

Which word in 'all war is criminal' did you fail to understand 'Mr English is not my first language?' — universeness

The problem is not with my understanding your statement is just wrong.
Ciminal is a legal term. You don't get to hang it on any irrational human behavior.
Wars are irrational from the aspect of the well being of human societies, but as I said, Wars are fueled and enabled by our Philosophies and conflicting interests and some times huge misunderstanding (like yours in a general level)
Even when a war ise declared unlawful there are rules to be followed .....that you obviously ignore.
The evaluation of "war crimes" is done by those rules.
Bombing innocent civilians is a war crime and your soldier's lives is not an excuse for it.
Making up poetic excuses by stretching the word criminal doesn't help your case.

-"You ask for data I have posted many times. "
-You are shy?Is there a problem to see if your data remain constant throughout the year ? lol

Your Cosmos God assumption is very rational, to be honest! — Hillary

lol.....the same you would think about my Smurf demigod, Lilith, the three little piggies , Casper the ghost etc ....

I answered you fully it's just that your attention span and cognitive ability are limited. — universeness

Yes you did...and that was a really bad answer!

Logic is a totally boring subject — Hillary

I can believe that you hold that opinion...it shows in your reasoning lol

"This is the argument you are using to posit a god called Cosmos which is 'more omnipotent' than omnipotent! In your world infinity + 1 is bigger than infinity?"

Strawman, You are missing the point of what an ad absurdums is and does and this shows that you don't understand it.
The Ad absurdum analogy is designed to be as irrational as the claim it addresses.
So you are really evaluating this Ad Absurdum for what...logic?lol seriously? hahaha
Plus I don't accept omnipotence or any of the omni (and so all modern theologians) because it is a nonsensical concept.
Can your god(of your culture not yours) create a rock that heavy he can not lift it? Can your god create a burrito that hot he can not eat it? etc etc lol

The theistic argument is irrational by default....so I need an irrational analogy to expose the absurdity.
Plus Cosmos as a concept is bigger then our universe and it includes god so you meshed up again in your critique.
I am not sure that you are that bad in reasoning. Your anger for me exposing your weaknesses in your reasoning must be clouding your thinking and that is obvous in your arguments.

so you are accusing the method that is able to provide the credible knowledge, not Humans and their innate drive to discover knowledge and use according to its personal needs.
Are you even reading what you write?

Logically speaking, yes — Hillary

Again you don't understand what logic is....lol
If there were sharp knifes humans would be unable to process their foods and they would have other far more serious problems than the dude who killed his wife.
You can not cherry pick and accuse on the same time.
well you can because ..its you mr Hillary.

-''The truth is you CONFLATED my typings"
-I didn't have to....you did a great job on your own.
If you want to change or clarify what you meant....I will accept it. Just say that this is not what you implied.
So the next time you decide to criticize my English....think twice. After all English is not my first language...I have excuses, you don't

The whole war was caused by political and economical interests and ideas...I don't see you talk shit about philosophy...though.

Jesus, you are a clearvoyant! Im sitting in the front garden of the street. And the SOB is fucking with his camper! And there lies a knife on the table! :lol: — Hillary

Why both of you, instead of acknowledging the argument exposing your irrational position you prefer to ridicule yourselves by acting like clowns?
Science provides us with knowledge on how to produce sharp knifes.
Does this make science responsible for the act moron who chose to cut his wife's throat instead of the bread.????

You demonstrate the musings of a simpleton. Thank goodness we had better minds than dolts like you to decide between the deaths of thousands or the death of millions — universeness

biased personal opinions are not arguments.

War is hell, all war is criminal but defeating your enemy whilst protecting your own is a valid approach. No one can come out of a war with clean hands. Most veterans find it very traumatic to even talk about their experiences. — universeness

- This is why we have rules and Laws of WAR. Does the Term "Geneva Convention" rings any bells?
Stop attempting to justify the phenomenon we are trying to regulate through laws.
Your reasoning could be used by any criminal to defend his crimes "Human nature in unequal and competitive societies becomes a bitch....why trying to regulate it"
How old are you sir???
Did you ever thought taking a course on Logic?
With every comment you dig a deeper hole for you.....you never getting out of there mate.

You can use a knife to gather food or to kill your Dutch neighbor....lol
Science enables technology. Technology is managed by the Market and Governments..not science.
Your brain is dead again mate.

Yes. But the technological means are provided by scientific investigation. — Hillary

Are you still making this silly argument? What men decide to do with our knowledge depends on Pseudo Philosophical establishments...not science.
Get over it mr Hillary.

You are confused. I can not help you if you are not willing to educate yourself.
Fallacy is an argument that proposes a conclusion without epistemic foundations (unsound) but not necessarily wrong.
Since we don't know the truth value of the conclusion, its irrational to use this argument to justify a belief.
An Ad Absurdum can be used by applying a true analogy(an example that matches all the characteristics of the claim) but with a small change. You use a similar assumption that he is forced to reject based on the same reasons you rejected yours. That technique exposes the absurdity of the initial belief in a fallacious argument.

Now later I can help you with the alphabet........

btw mr universeness tap danced and never addressed my answer on his immoral comment about this war crime.

And again, I actually agree. Goddamnit! I actually lost all reason indeed! — Hillary

So one can still get a faint heartbeat in the general area of your brain....that is hopeful! lol ; )

The only thing you offer to teach, comes through demonstration of your own confused contradictory musings and postings. — universeness

-Not true.
I compared your initial claim and your excuse directly. They do not refer to the same statistical figure.
The first one was referring to "credence of the claim" while the second to your personal certainty.
Sorry.

lol....Ad Absurdum isn't always a logical fallacy when the argument includes a true analogy.
In this case, he created a ultimate judge out of thin air, I created one above him. I created an apagogigal argument (επαγωγικό επιχείρημα).

Again, to remind, can use your internet connection to educate yourself...not just for spicy videos and social media....

That's the best you can do? — universeness

I don't have to do anything...Your comments do all the work for me.
I exposed your ignorance on how Statistical Probabilities work.
You are trying to hide the damage your claim did to your credibility and image...but without success.
Look at the positive side...at least you learned how we calculate probabilities....and you learned the use of an Ad Absurdum argument.

You are just a theist role playing. You love it if arguments against atheism are set up! — Hillary

So not being able to reason is not the only issue you have...you can't even read.
The dude accepts an immoral made up god. As a far more moral agent I have the moral ground to judge this imaginary being and I use the Cosmos (existence) to authorize my judgment and punishment of this god.

So when did your divorce with reason happen?

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

Anyone would prefer that over the death of civilians. Don't try to sugarcoat a war crime.
IT was a terrorist act by all standards.
The Japanese would not have surrendered easily because this is what nations do when they are in war. Japan was an imperialistic threat like the US and Russia are till to this day, but the answer is not to bomb cities with civilians in them.

An athiest, who anthropomorphises the Cosmos and even gives it a gender.
You suggest a god called Cosmos! :roll: — universeness

Yes I did! I made up, out of thin air, a god that is more powerful than the made up god of that theist.
The technique is called an Ad Absurdum argument and it is used to expose the absurdity of a claim....but how would you know...right!?

Well, I tried. You obfuscate and employ sophistry, — universeness

So I just copy pasted your initial comment on the "credency of the claim) and compared it to your new "certainty" excuse....but you think you are in a position to accuse people for sophistry and dishonesty????
or is this a public self critique of yours?

-"You are Nickerless gasbag, Mr Minutia, a dishonest pompous ass who tries to hide behind such cry's from his cradle as 'ad hominem."
-Since you are the only one who uses ad hominems....we already know who is the dishonest sophist and who isn't....

Closer than you think. Ischia-Amsterdam. Physics master. Raised in a modern areligeous house. — Hillary

So what went wrong????

I am morally superior to any god who promotes slavery, genocides, gender and social inequality, eternal punishment for finite crimes, who accuses his creations for his screwups for not foreseeing how scarce and competitive environments enable bad behavior, human sacrifice, bigotry.
I am not just far more moral than you made up god, I am also far more educated to know human biology and behavior.
So when the time comes he will be in a big trouble. He will have to give answers for his stupidity, his immorality and his ignorance to me.....

how is this topic relevant to Philosophy of science?

Was that you by any chance???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNvJUUgVgPo

Where are you from Mr Hillary?What is your level of education? Were you raised in a religious house?

-"That's the lol fallacy," bla bla...thus god...right?

Feynman was only joking, surely... Look here Nickolas, humanity has come to the terrible point that personal relations are based on coming to know each other. "I like to know you...". WTF? — Hillary

.......bla bla bla...thus god.....lol

Why Feynman didn't think of that! He wasn't as cleaver as you are.

In the name of science, telescopes are pointed at the sky, smaller and smaller particles with higher an higher energies smashed into each other, and in between these two scales nature is tortured and interrogated with ever increasingly brighter and by now searching lights of the Enlightenment. Because of this seemingly never-ending enterprise (ironically called "progress"), nature gets fucked more and more, and increasingly unbalanced, leading to an armageddon compared to which the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah shrink into insignificance — Hillary

.......bla bla bla bla...thus god ...right? lol

descriptive fallacy???? hahahaha.
-" I'm a mr, my dear Nickolast."
-I don't know that, you were introduced as a 35yo woman.

Now the rest of your comment has nothing to do with your ignorant claim under the the artifact "in the name science". Do you have anything to say for your self....or we can all agree that you are guilty for posting bovine manure in these threads?

and don't whine about for the labels I hung on your. Those are DESCRIPTIVE of your intellectual performance, not ad hominems. PLs think before opening your mouth and making accusations. ITs unacceptable for full grown individual to be unable to distinguish basic concepts.