From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Iran: Still a Standout
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 15:29:35 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-02-04 15:01, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:02:38 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-04 10:15, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 09:10:54 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-02-04 09:09, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 06:40:06 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-04 05:32, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2025-02-debunks-nuclear-misinformation-iran-earthquake.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Study debunks nuclear test misinformation following 2024 Iran earthquake
>>>>>>>> A new study debunks claims that a magnitude 4.5 earthquake in Iran was a
>>>>>>>> covert nuclear weapons test, as widely alleged on social media and some
>>>>>>>> mainstream news outlets in October 2024, a period of heightened geopolitical
>>>>>>>> tensions in the Middle East."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still the only country (other than Canada ;) that can build nukes and doesn't.
>>>>>>> You think that proving something wasn't a nuke tests proves they DON'T
>>>>>>> build nukes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. It only proves that Iran's detractors continue to spew fake news.
>>>>>> Iran has serious problems that cannot be reasonably addressed because
>>>>>> western opposition intentionally disables meaningful internal discourse.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just as fake to pretend that you can know whether or not Iran is
>>>>> building nuclear weapons.
>>>>
>>>> I believe their Ayatollahs' words more than yours: they're provably human.
>>>>
>>>> Dhu
>>>
>>> While you are just a source of semantic rubbish: your arguments usually
>>> require _Reductio_* which renders them delusional and not just wrong.
>>>
>>> *truth by negation is subject to Russel's paradox.
>> In what sense is my argument here based on "reductio ad absurdum"?
>
> *All* of your arguments are dependant on truth by negation.
Explain how that applies in this case.
And explain how it is the same as "reductio ad absurdum" which is also
what you've said all my arguments use.
:-)