From: Dhu on Gate <campbell@neotext.ca>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Iran: Still a Standout
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:00:53 -0800, Alan wrote:
> 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?
Truth by negation. Ad absurdum is only proof of it's futility.
Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell