From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Iran: Still a Standout
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:00:53 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-02-04 16:50, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 15:29:35 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> :-)
>
> You entirely abjure the use of constructive argument: I've said nothing ad absurdum.
What are form of rhetoric is referred to as "reductio", doofus?