3 ms·

> No, they are. Okay good, I'm glad we are agreed. > Some yes, some no. If some are, then "everyone" has to, especially major powers. Just think about it. >

> No, they are. Okay good, I'm glad we are agreed. > Some yes, some no. If some are, then "everyone" has to, especially major powers. Just think about it. > This is a lot of what jcranmer is pointing to. I debunked what he wrote. > the Russian strategy What's that? > Though this is more easily done in an authoritative country. No. It's done more easily in a democracy. An authoritative country never developed nuked and used it on innocent civilians. It was one of those wonderful democracies. Just like a wonderful democracy and our democratic friends overthrew the ukrainian democracy and now another wonderful democracy is invading ukraine. Most of the horror in this world has been done by democracies. Funny how all parties involved in ukraine are democracies... > Not quite true No. Absolutely true. > I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. You wrote "Contagion weapons are the weapons of those with nothing left to lose (which aren't big/rich countries, even in dire circumstances)." And I was pointing out that all "contagion weapons" were created by big/rich countries. I was simply debunking your claim. > But there's got to be a logical reason for well over a century of research in the area and not seeing it used in practice. Has it not been used "in practice". Biological weapons have been used since ancient times. Biological weapons have been used more often than nuclear weapons. The blind and naive were adamant our agencies don't collect data and spy on us. And were absolutely shocked when it was revealed they do. Of course they do. As I said, people who are too naive or too trusting believe otherwise. I guess the third option are state actors or those who brainwashed by the media. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.

godelski 3y ago
> If some are, then "everyone" has to Very clearly false dilemma. > I debunked what he wrote. That's a strong word for what you wrote. > What's that? I'd link it to you, but you said you don't want to read "silly blogs". So I'm not sure how I can communicate anything to you. I don't feel like it'd help. I think we're done here.
- oilchange 3y ago
  > Very clearly false dilemma. No. It's game theory. It's geopolitics. It's why russia, britain, france and china developed nukes. It's why india and pakistan developed it. > That's a strong word for what you wrote. Not strong or weak. Just reality. > I'd link it to you, but you said you don't want to read "silly blogs". No. What I actually wrote: "The ability to think is a far greater tool than reading silly blogs. Take it from someone who has read too many silly blogs and watch too many silly youtube videos." What do you think "take it from someone who has read too many silly blogs" means? You aren't going to link to anything I don't already know. As I said, wishing there was no biological weapons is a noble thought. But believing nobody is working on biological weapons is naive. No serious rational intelligent person could believe it. But like I said, maybe life has made me too cynical. Hey chief, these white men aren't going to take any more of our land. Here's the treaty we signed with them proving that. Hey stalin, germany isn't going to attack us. Look at this non-aggression pact we sign with them.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > You aren't going to link to anything I don't already know. >> no amount of reason will convince someone with an agenda. You're exactly right. You already know.
    - oilchange 3y ago
      > You're exactly right. You already know. So do you. But you've got an agenda and a worldview that prevents you from accepting it. Imagine being naive enough to believe that there isn't chemical nor biological weapons in this world. Believe what you want. This discussion is getting pointless and I'll end it here.

godelski 3y ago

> If some are, then "everyone" has to Very clearly false dilemma. > I debunked what he wrote. That's a strong word for what you wrote. > What's that? I'd link it to you, but you said you don't want to read "silly blogs". So I'm not sure how I can communicate anything to you. I don't feel like it'd help. I think we're done here.

oilchange 3y ago
> Very clearly false dilemma. No. It's game theory. It's geopolitics. It's why russia, britain, france and china developed nukes. It's why india and pakistan developed it. > That's a strong word for what you wrote. Not strong or weak. Just reality. > I'd link it to you, but you said you don't want to read "silly blogs". No. What I actually wrote: "The ability to think is a far greater tool than reading silly blogs. Take it from someone who has read too many silly blogs and watch too many silly youtube videos." What do you think "take it from someone who has read too many silly blogs" means? You aren't going to link to anything I don't already know. As I said, wishing there was no biological weapons is a noble thought. But believing nobody is working on biological weapons is naive. No serious rational intelligent person could believe it. But like I said, maybe life has made me too cynical. Hey chief, these white men aren't going to take any more of our land. Here's the treaty we signed with them proving that. Hey stalin, germany isn't going to attack us. Look at this non-aggression pact we sign with them.
- godelski 3y ago
  > You aren't going to link to anything I don't already know. >> no amount of reason will convince someone with an agenda. You're exactly right. You already know.
  - oilchange 3y ago
    > You're exactly right. You already know. So do you. But you've got an agenda and a worldview that prevents you from accepting it. Imagine being naive enough to believe that there isn't chemical nor biological weapons in this world. Believe what you want. This discussion is getting pointless and I'll end it here.