I realized it was pointless to argue if a public nuclear threat was ‘real’ or empty, since no one can know that until 20+ years from now, and then you would argue that it’s ancient history. So i went back to the root argument and falsified it. In some of my prior edits I have been trying to explain you’ve made a really fragile claim fundamentally. That the whole idea of needing “equal evidence” is only true if both claims are equally probable.
For example, “coin will come up A” and “coin will resolve B” have near equal probability. “UFOs are real” and “UFOs are not real” do not.
Given a prior of “no nuclear war for 65 years”, “a nuclear war will start on the first treaty violation” is similar to the UFO claim in that it is not probable.
So i went back to the root argument and falsified it, which ends the discussion.
What ‘root argument’? And to end the discussion, just leaving this deep comment chain suffices, no need for theatrics.
The first few times I could overlook some oddities, but now my patience is exhausted so I’m putting my foot down and insist you not jump around all over the place.
It at best appears like a bizarre thinking process and at worst as someone side-stepping whatever is inconvenient to them.
The past few especially seem to me like dodging the actual substance.
I realized it was pointless to argue if a public nuclear threat was ‘real’ or empty, since no one can know that until 20+ years from now, and then you would argue that it’s ancient history. So i went back to the root argument and falsified it. In some of my prior edits I have been trying to explain you’ve made a really fragile claim fundamentally. That the whole idea of needing “equal evidence” is only true if both claims are equally probable.
For example, “coin will come up A” and “coin will resolve B” have near equal probability. “UFOs are real” and “UFOs are not real” do not.
Given a prior of “no nuclear war for 65 years”, “a nuclear war will start on the first treaty violation” is similar to the UFO claim in that it is not probable.
What ‘root argument’? And to end the discussion, just leaving this deep comment chain suffices, no need for theatrics.
The first few times I could overlook some oddities, but now my patience is exhausted so I’m putting my foot down and insist you not jump around all over the place.
It at best appears like a bizarre thinking process and at worst as someone side-stepping whatever is inconvenient to them.
The past few especially seem to me like dodging the actual substance.