4 ms·

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 real

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

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.