Davin News Server

On 2025-02-04 18:00, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> 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.
You should study this stuff before you start babbling.