mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
We're now going to discuss your devotion to illogical conclusions and the fallacious reasoning that you use to arrive at them.
The quoted portion of your last post is a classic example of several obvious fallacies. Let's start with the Strawman. I never said that the Nuremburg defendants were innocent, nor did I even imply such a thing. I said that post war trials cannot be fair. Rather than ask what I meant by that, you immediately start implying that I would like to have seen the Nazis forgiven. That is not my argument at all.
I posit the following: in the wake of a war, no participants (and few onlookers) can remain truly objective. The more gruesome the war, the more vile the atrocities, and the more lengthy the conflict the more true this becomes. People are emotional animals, and as such, we form biases of which we will remain consciously unaware. This was true of the judges in Nuremburg, and would have been true of the Japanese and German judges had they won the war.
Were the Allied trials more fair than those the Axis would have held? Certainly. That does not make them "fair" in the sense of "purely objective." While few trials can really reach such a condition, war trials are particularly prone to subjective judgment.
Your poor discourse, selective acceptance of factual information, and fallacious argumentation force me to tell you to go respond to someone else.
I am done with you.
