3 ms·

Sure add US to the list, makes your case even worse. The US is party to many more trade and arms treaties than any other country on earth and has the largest st

Sure add US to the list, makes your case even worse. The US is party to many more trade and arms treaties than any other country on earth and has the largest stockpile of weapons. SA is Saudi Arabia. Regardless I've soundly disproven your theory that treaties lower weapon stockpiles, No one disagrees that war will cause people to increase the arms spending, that’s a given. But it’s also pretty clear that treaties do not necessarily lead to less arms spending. Especially when one of the parties to the treaty is a theocratic dictatorship who has called for the total annihilation and destruction of all western society. Even while Iran was technically agreeing to follow the treaty it was still funding hezb, hamas and propping up Syria, none of those things speak to a country that is interested in peaceful coexistence with it’s regional neighbors. Additionally, SA (Saudi Arabia) expressed strong interest in developing a nuclear program simply because of Iran’s. So allowing Iran to have any sort of nuclear program directly contributes to more nuclear proliferation.

runarberg 1y ago
Saudi Arabia is hardly a member of many international agreements relative to most countries. But you haven’t disproven anything, my hypothesis is about trends over time and probabilities, not absolute. What you have done is pointed to a few possible outliers. The existence of outliers does not disprove a trend. The plural of anecdote is not data. To disprove my hypotheses you’d need to gather the data and show me there is no such correlation. I know the burden of proof is on me, and you have no obligation believe me without the data to show it, which is why I only claimed that the hypotheses passes the sniff test. And from what I have been reading is that experts on the matter tend to agree with me, that Iran is actually more likely to pursue the bomb now that it has been attacked, and it was less likely when the Iran nuclear deal was in effect.
- amendegree 1y ago
  We’re not talking about relative to other countries. We’re talking in absolute terms of the country in question, Iran also isn’t party to many treaties, so really SA is a perfect example. Seeing as you refuse to back up any of your claims with data, we’re not talking real science here but baseless accusations supported by biased bigotry vs anecdotal evidence, I don’t feel the need to disprove anything to a scientific degree, rather, the opposite is true, to prove the hypothesis you need to gather the data and show that it supports you. Until then your opinion is nothing more than that. It’s truly the height of narcissism to make a completely unsupported claim with only your own feelings as the basis for your evidence and hold the fate of one of worlds old people/religions to it.
  - runarberg 1y ago
    The claim I‘m trying to refute is this: mupuff1234 2 days ago > And then you just end up with an Iran with more powerful conventional weapons, so not exactly a major win either. This is a testable hypothesis. I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal. But what is more interesting is if that pattern is more general, and my prediction is that it is. And furthermore, my additional prediction is that Iran will now have more weapons as a result of it being dragged into a war with Israel. Countries at war tend to own more weapons. I was also very clear from the beginning that I was not going to look for that data my self, and my only goal was to show that my hypotheses would pass the sniff test. I‘m not an expert in international relations. Surely any data that I would gather would be flawed, and any analysis I did would be biased. Feel free to prove me wrong with actual data, or cite an expert which already has.
    - amendegree 1y ago
      > I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal. No you haven’t at all. The problem with your opinion is it’s false on its face with regards to Iran: part of the treaty is that Iran is allowed to build more powerful conventional weapons… and guess what: that’s exactly what they did, in addition to also pursuing nuclear arms. They just only had to hide the nuke development, while the more powerful conventional weapons they were able to develop out in the open. 15 years ago they didn’t have weapons capable of reaching France… now they do. All your other equivocation and high minded ideas about what a rogue colonial, genocidal theocracy might do if you offer enough appeasement are moot. Reality shows that’s not what happened. Not to mention the other rogue destabilizing things Iran did in the ensuing years, such as supporting Syria in the genocidial war against their own people as well as supporting the Houthis in terrorizing Yemen into a civil war and using that base to also terrorize SA. The treaty completely failed long before trump pulled out. Any claim to the opposite is ignoring all of reality. I’d also note: I’ve gone back through your comment history… it’s not pretty. You’re willing to give anyone who wants to kill zionists (aka semites aka Jews) as wide a latitude as possible and you make up justification after justification for why it’s ok and really they don’t intend that and really they mean something else, while specifically for one small seaside nation you think has no right to exist, and no matter what they do it’s not ok, and there’s no possible justification for literally anything they do. You also have a very problematic and honestly bigoted view of Jews, where you try to take control of their religion and dictate their core beliefs. It’s really a shame because I never thought of the Icelandic people as so prejudiced. Hopefully this sort of behavior isn’t tolerated much longer here.

runarberg 1y ago

Saudi Arabia is hardly a member of many international agreements relative to most countries. But you haven’t disproven anything, my hypothesis is about trends over time and probabilities, not absolute. What you have done is pointed to a few possible outliers. The existence of outliers does not disprove a trend. The plural of anecdote is not data. To disprove my hypotheses you’d need to gather the data and show me there is no such correlation. I know the burden of proof is on me, and you have no obligation believe me without the data to show it, which is why I only claimed that the hypotheses passes the sniff test. And from what I have been reading is that experts on the matter tend to agree with me, that Iran is actually more likely to pursue the bomb now that it has been attacked, and it was less likely when the Iran nuclear deal was in effect.

amendegree 1y ago
We’re not talking about relative to other countries. We’re talking in absolute terms of the country in question, Iran also isn’t party to many treaties, so really SA is a perfect example. Seeing as you refuse to back up any of your claims with data, we’re not talking real science here but baseless accusations supported by biased bigotry vs anecdotal evidence, I don’t feel the need to disprove anything to a scientific degree, rather, the opposite is true, to prove the hypothesis you need to gather the data and show that it supports you. Until then your opinion is nothing more than that. It’s truly the height of narcissism to make a completely unsupported claim with only your own feelings as the basis for your evidence and hold the fate of one of worlds old people/religions to it.
- runarberg 1y ago
  The claim I‘m trying to refute is this: mupuff1234 2 days ago > And then you just end up with an Iran with more powerful conventional weapons, so not exactly a major win either. This is a testable hypothesis. I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal. But what is more interesting is if that pattern is more general, and my prediction is that it is. And furthermore, my additional prediction is that Iran will now have more weapons as a result of it being dragged into a war with Israel. Countries at war tend to own more weapons. I was also very clear from the beginning that I was not going to look for that data my self, and my only goal was to show that my hypotheses would pass the sniff test. I‘m not an expert in international relations. Surely any data that I would gather would be flawed, and any analysis I did would be biased. Feel free to prove me wrong with actual data, or cite an expert which already has.
  - amendegree 1y ago
    > I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal. No you haven’t at all. The problem with your opinion is it’s false on its face with regards to Iran: part of the treaty is that Iran is allowed to build more powerful conventional weapons… and guess what: that’s exactly what they did, in addition to also pursuing nuclear arms. They just only had to hide the nuke development, while the more powerful conventional weapons they were able to develop out in the open. 15 years ago they didn’t have weapons capable of reaching France… now they do. All your other equivocation and high minded ideas about what a rogue colonial, genocidal theocracy might do if you offer enough appeasement are moot. Reality shows that’s not what happened. Not to mention the other rogue destabilizing things Iran did in the ensuing years, such as supporting Syria in the genocidial war against their own people as well as supporting the Houthis in terrorizing Yemen into a civil war and using that base to also terrorize SA. The treaty completely failed long before trump pulled out. Any claim to the opposite is ignoring all of reality. I’d also note: I’ve gone back through your comment history… it’s not pretty. You’re willing to give anyone who wants to kill zionists (aka semites aka Jews) as wide a latitude as possible and you make up justification after justification for why it’s ok and really they don’t intend that and really they mean something else, while specifically for one small seaside nation you think has no right to exist, and no matter what they do it’s not ok, and there’s no possible justification for literally anything they do. You also have a very problematic and honestly bigoted view of Jews, where you try to take control of their religion and dictate their core beliefs. It’s really a shame because I never thought of the Icelandic people as so prejudiced. Hopefully this sort of behavior isn’t tolerated much longer here.