(September 11, 2012 at 8:42 pm)System of Solace Wrote:(September 11, 2012 at 8:41 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I was also in the shout box debate a little bit. I don't see exactly my position represented by A or B.
It seems immoral to me to have nuked civilians regardless of the consequences of not nuking them. Maybe there would have been more causalities if we haven't bombed them. So be it. At least it would not have been directly caused by us.
Of course. He accused me of supporting US nuking 100%. Which was a total misrepresentation of my argument.
I'm confused. If you're not 100 percent behind it, what percentage are you then? And how exactly would your less-than-100 percent position be different compared to being 100 percent for nuking? What would you have done differently?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
