[GoldCashew]

As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

Tom.... your above statement applies to TFES Wiki, specifically "The Conspiracy" section. The Conspiracy section is an example of something which is not based on evidence but is based on a belief.

[AATW]

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence.

No it isn't. My first link was to a website of stories from people who survived Hiroshima.
And garygreen provided a link about the radioactive effects of the testing done.

You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

As I do with anything I cannot directly experience. Which is a lot of things. With most things that's all we can do.
My belief is based on evidence from other people, as above, not just various governments.

What is your position on nuclear weapons and what is that belief based on?

[Pete Svarrior]

Do I? I mean, I've said on here I'm a Christian. In this country that puts me very much in the minority. So no, not really.
I think I've got a pretty good handle on what things are fringe views, what things are pretty much universally accepted and which are matters of debate.

Christ, where do I start with this trainwreck? Do we do logic first, or facts?

Eh, let's do logic: your response is a complete non sequitur. The fact^* that you can sometimes identify yourself as a minority does not affect your tendency to misrepresent personal opinions as universal. You do it all the time here.

Now, facts: Going by 2019 ONS data, approximately 51% of England and Wales is Christian. The British Social Attitudes survey uses a slightly different methodology, and arrived at 38% Christian for the UK in 2018. There is considerable debate surrounding whether how you ask the question affects the results, and early evidence suggests there might be.

So, let's look back at your position: I think I've got a pretty good handle on what things are fringe views, what things are pretty much universally accepted and which are matters of debate. You took an example which doesn't even apply to the discussion, and you managed to botch it. Your "good handle on things" steered you to believe that you're "very much in the minority", where reality would have steered you towards it being "a matter of debate". You're either in the slim majority, or the second-largest group in the country. In either case: not "very much in the minority".

You really are terrible at gauging these things, and you'd do well to account for your biases. We've done this time and time again - you use your gut feeling to make sweeping statements about "everyone", and then it turns out that even the most cursory look through real data immediately overturns it. It is at that point that you usually argue that you "obviously" didn't mean what you actually said.

what's the problem with Rushy's request for a reasonable, unedited video?

No problem at all.

Excellent! I suppose this is where you take a step back and retract your position that he's just screaming "FAAAAKE" and not explaining what he wants? You know, given that he was pretty clear about what he wants and you see "no problem at all" with it?

I'd wonder why that would tip the balance given that "we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered".

And I'd wonder why you decided to snip the "In general" from the beginning of that sentence; or why you'd ignore the very specific question it's answering; or why you'd pretend there's no more context to the answer, like an entire paragraph eliminating any ambiguity from what's being said.

It's not because it completely destroys your very cool quip, is it? Oh, wait, I know - you were "obviously joking".

Again - you're not THAT stupid. A general hesitance to accept random photos found on the Internet by permanoobs does not preclude one from designing an experiment which heavily relies on photographic or video evidence. In fact, both sides of the FE/RE debate use it regularly. You're not actually confused by this, are you?

As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here

That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion, and it sounds to me like the best step forward would be to disengage. You're convinced you're arguing with someone who's being insincere - what's the point?

in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence

He was mostly provided with hearsay and speculation. You already explained that you only find it "credible" because it supports your preconceived notions. Or, well, you think it's "everyone's" preconceived notions, and you think that somehow changes things.

[AATW]

The fact^* that you can sometimes identify yourself as a minority does not affect your tendency to misrepresent personal opinions as universal. You do it all the time here.

OK, fine. I'll give you this one. If you claim I tend to do something then me providing a counter example doesn't mean you're wrong. I could have a tendency to do something but not always do it. So fine.
But I do think you're wrong, I don't believe I have that tendency.
One thing you have a "strong tendency" for is to claim I do something without providing any examples. Then when asked for an example you fail to provide one. You've given no examples of me doing what you claim despite asserting I "do it all the time". I don't regard me saying that basically everyone believes in kangaroos or nuclear weapons is an example. I mean...they do don't they?

And let me provide some "alternative facts" around Christianity
From https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html

Church attendance has declined from 6,484,300 to 3,081,500 (equivalent to a decline from 11.8% to 5.0% of the population).

I'm not talking about "cultural Christianity", yes a lot of people in this country for historical and cultural reasons identify as Christian, I'm talking about practicing Christians. It's a pretty small minority in this country. So no, I didn't "botch it", you're just not talking about the same thing as I am.

It is at that point that you usually argue that you "obviously" didn't mean what you actually said.

I don't know if it was obvious on this occasion. So fine, I meant practicing Christian. I would have thought from other posts on here over time it would have been obvious I'm not just a cultural Christian. There's a difference between someone who "identifies as" a Christian and actively defends Christian beliefs, as I'm sure you've seen me do on here, and someone who, when asked, will check a box on a form marked "Christian" for various cultural and historic reasons but who hasn't stepped into a church for decades.

I suppose this is where you take a step back and retract your position that he's just screaming "FAAAAKE" and not explaining what he wants?

Can't he do both?
He spent quite a lot of time in this thread screaming "FAAAAKE" before, having been asked what level of evidence he'd accept, outlining something.
But given all the things he has screamed "FAAAAKE" at, including videos, I raise an eyebrow at his claim that the particular video he asks for would be enough to satisfy him.

That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion, and it sounds to me like the best step forward would be to disengage. You're convinced you're arguing with someone who's being insincere - what's the point?

Indeed. And I have pretty much disengaged with him in this thread for that exact reason.

He was mostly provided with hearsay and speculation. You already explained that you only find it "credible" because it supports your preconceived notions. Or, well, you think it's "everyone's" preconceived notions, and you think that somehow changes things.

He was presented with videos, witness evidence and data around radiation. He claimed it was all fake without providing any evidence and the radiation stuff from gary I think he just ignored, unless I've missed something. My stuff about radiation was met with silly claims showing a complete ignorance of the subject.
As I said, with a lot of things you have no direct experience of - and I think we can all agree it's a good thing we don't on this topic - the only basis for forming an opinion is assessing the evidence. The existence of nuclear weapons isn't controversial, if Rushy has evidence that Hiroshima was just "firebombing" or that the videos of other explosions posted here were just "crates of TNT" then he's free to present it.

[Pete Svarrior]

One thing you have a "strong tendency" for is to claim I do something without providing any examples.

Yes, that's a fun trick you use - you demand that others do work for you, or else they're wrong.

I don't regard me saying that basically everyone believes in kangaroos or nuclear weapons is an example. I mean...they do don't they?

Kangaroos - probably. Nukes - absolutely not.

And let me provide some "alternative facts" around Christianity
From https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html

"Alternative facts" is a great way to describe it. You're shown census data and a survey by a reputable academic organisation, and you come back with a YouGov poll (the same source you previously decried untrustworthy when it claimed high numbers of FE believers among the American youth) and some questionable research into church membership and attendance (!= religious beliefs).

I'm talking about practicing Christians.

I see. So, when you said you consider yourself a minority as a Christian, you didn't mean what you said. You were "obviously joking".

I would have thought from other posts on here over time it would have been obvious I'm not just a cultural Christian.

It wasn't even obvious that you'd maintain such an artificial and arbitrary distinction.

There's a difference between someone who "identifies as" a Christian and actively defends Christian beliefs, as I'm sure you've seen me do on here, and someone who, when asked, will check a box on a form marked "Christian" for various cultural and historic reasons but who hasn't stepped into a church for decades.

Yeah, yeah, porridge, sugar, Scotsman. Are you trying to collect all the logical fallacies in this thread? This ain't Pokémon.

Can't he do both?

Of fucking course he can't be simultaneously clearly stating what he wants and not be stating what he wants. Get a grip.

I raise an eyebrow at his claim

OK. Well, since nobody here seems to have reasonable evidence, and is unable to present a better alternative for reasonable standards of evidence... where does this leave us? You think there are no issues with his request, but you keep going "hmmmmmmmmm I wonder if he'd actually accept it 🤔". It's almost as if it was you who's arguing in bad faith, if your endless deflections weren't already proof of that.

That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion, and it sounds to me like the best step forward would be to disengage. You're convinced you're arguing with someone who's being insincere - what's the point?

Indeed. And I have pretty much disengaged with him in this thread for that exact reason.

[

As I said, with a lot of things you have no direct experience of - and I think we can all agree it's a good thing we don't on this topic - the only basis for forming an opinion is assessing the evidence.

Yes. It just needs to be, well, presented first. Again, you agreed that his standard is not unreasonable.

The existence of nuclear weapons isn't controversial

To you, personally, and the people you choose to associate with.

if Rushy has evidence that Hiroshima was just "firebombing" or that the videos of other explosions posted here were just "crates of TNT" then he's free to present it.

You're once again fucking up basic logic. You're the ones who claim that X exists. If you point to something as evidence of X, there should be no credible alternative that explains the same phenomenon. As a result, pointing out that your evidence could point to something else than X is sufficient to render it inconclusive.

[AATW]

One thing you have a "strong tendency" for is to claim I do something without providing any examples.

Yes, that's a fun trick you use - you demand that others do work for you, or else they're wrong.

It's not a trick. If you make an assertion then it's your job to back it up with evidence.
If you say someone tends to do something and does it "all the time" then it should be pretty easy to find an example.

I see. So, when you said you consider yourself a minority as a Christian, you didn't mean what you said. You were "obviously joking".

I was talking about being a practicing church-going Christian, not just someone who considers themselves one culturally. The distinction absolutely isn't artificial. And church attendance is very much a minority sport in this country.

OK. Well, since nobody here seems to have reasonable evidence

Well, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I'd suggest that witness testimony from people who survived the bomb is pretty reasonable, as are the videos of subsequent nuclear tests. And gary has provided some data around the radioactive effects of them. As I said earlier in the thread, the Hiroshima bomb was equivalent to 25,000 tons of TNT. Is it really credible that the US somehow got that amount of TNT to explode? How the shit did they get it there? The Enola Gay was around 30 tonnes. Sure, you can always make an alternative claim, but is it credible? That is also in the eye of the beholder too but I'd suggest that both sides are making a claim:
The mainstream claim is that a nuclear bomb went off in Hiroshima.
Rushy's claim is that it was firebombing.
I'd suggest it's incumbent on both sides to provide evidence for their respective claims. The mainstream evidence is eyewitness testimony and the radiation effects which would not be found in conventional weapons.

Trying to get this vaguely back on what this thread is about:
What is your position on nuclear weapons and what is it based on?

[Pete Svarrior]

What is your position on nuclear weapons and what is it based on?

I'm nowhere near as invested in them as the people here are. I personally have no reason to disbelieve in their existence, but I also wouldn't go crying at someone who'd like to see more evidence, and I guess I'd be mildly curious to see it myself.

My stance is largely based on indifference and the ability to process (at least relatively simple) English.

[RonJ]

The question here is what is ‘evidence’?  How does anyone know that WWII occurred?  There’s plenty of eyewitnesses and a few are still living.  Maybe they aren’t telling the truth.  But if you have thousands of witnesses telling a similar story wouldn’t that increase the odds that what they are saying is accurate?  There were all kinds of physical damage and plenty of photographs to reinforce the stories told by the actual witnesses.  Now look at what happened in Nagasaki, Japan.  Wasn’t there 1000s of witnesses?  Wasn’t there an enormous amount of physical damage?  Ground zero was inland so you couldn’t have had a barge full of TNT floated in and exploded.  We are also talking about damage caused by the equivalent of 21K Tones of TNT and a barge these days only holds about 1.7 K Tones of cargo.  Add to that all the sickness attributed to radiation and that also rules out TNT.  If the Japanese didn’t believe that the Americans had a terrible weapon that could be carried on one aircraft, why would they just give up unconditionally and end a war?  I would say that’s pretty good evidence that nuclear weapons exist.  I’ve maybe had some exposure myself to the results of alleged atomic testing, but I haven’t had any health problems yet, but my sister has.  Will the government compensate her, we don’t know yet.  Would that be considered as evidence?  Anyone can make any kind of controversial statements without evidence and then say, ‘you have the burden of proof and I’m the judge who decides if your proof statements are valid’.  Does that sound reasonable?

[Pete Svarrior]

The question here is what is ‘evidence’?

Conveniently, Rushy already answered it. You could try addressing his position instead of ignoring it.

Anyone can make any kind of controversial statements without evidence and then say, ‘you have the burden of proof and I’m the judge who decides if your proof statements are valid’.  Does that sound reasonable?

Yes, it does. If you're invested in convincing someone they're wrong, you'll probably have to do so on their terms.

[markjo]

"Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

Okay, a bit late, but let me complement you on your quote mining skills.  However, a fission reaction is used to initiate the fusion.

Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout. The fission reactions though, especially the last fission reactions, release a tremendous amount of fission products and fallout.

Also:

The misleading term "hydrogen bomb" was already in wide public use before fission product fallout from the Castle Bravo test in 1954 revealed the extent to which the design relies on fission as well.

[Tom Bishop]

Well, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I'd suggest that witness testimony from people who survived the bomb is pretty reasonable

Actually those testimonies are not reasonable.

There is one on this page who was 50 meters from the hypocenter of the blast and was knocked back 12 feet, shielded and survived the blast with nothing but a wooden house - https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/Introduction.html

On this page there are reports of people hearing multiple explosions - https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/How-done.html

Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358

So now you're denying that radioactive fallout was found downwind of the nuclear bomb test sites?

Who found this? A group organized or funded by the US NAVY?

[markjo]

Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358

So now you're denying that radioactive fallout was found downwind of the nuclear bomb test sites?

Who found this? A group organized or funded by the US NAVY?

Why would the US Navy fund research that would be used as evidence in lawsuits filed by down wind cancer victims against the US government?

Anybody with a decent Geiger counter can probably still find radioactive contamination down wind of the Neva Test Site.

[Tom Bishop]

Why would the US Navy fund research that would be used as evidence in lawsuits filed by down wind cancer victims against the US government?

Anybody with a decent Geiger counter can probably still find radioactive contamination down wind of the Neva Test Site.

Hiroshima survivors did try suing; they were not able to sue the US government directly and the lawsuits didn't go anywhere - https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/hiroshima-nagasaki/give-me-water/chapter13.html

If there was fallout, it could easily be attributed to nuclear waste included in the bombings - https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/Fallout.html

[markjo]

Why would the US Navy fund research that would be used as evidence in lawsuits filed by down wind cancer victims against the US government?

Anybody with a decent Geiger counter can probably still find radioactive contamination down wind of the Neva Test Site.

Hiroshima survivors did try suing; they were not able to sue the US government directly and the lawsuits didn't go anywhere

But people down wind of the Nevada Test site did sue the US government and their lawsuits did get somewhere.
https://www.cancerbenefits.com/cancer-benefit-programs/nevada-test-site-workers/

[stack]

Seems appropriate…

[BillO]

What's this thing called?

[snip]

That's called TNT.

How much TNT?

At least one crate of it.

Oh yeah.  One of those 10 million ton crates of TNT.  I still have 3 or 4 of those in my back yard for clearing tree stumps.

You realize (I'm sure you do) that TNT does not explode with enough speed and force to create a mushroom cloud like that, don't you?

[Rushy]

Oh yeah.  One of those 10 million ton crates of TNT.  I still have 3 or 4 of those in my back yard for clearing tree stumps.

You realize (I'm sure you do) that TNT does not explode with enough speed and force to create a mushroom cloud like that, don't you?

You realize (I'm sure you do) that pink elephants can fly on the winds of time?

You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.

They're not real.

They're made up.

It's a meme.

Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.

You realize (I'm sure you do) that pink elephants can fly on the winds of time?

You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.

[BillO]

You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.

I did.  Except for the 10 million ton crates of TNT in my yard (there are only 2).  The rest are all facts.  Your incredulity does not change that.  Sorry.

Also the reality of atomic bombs is a fact.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also not fire bombed.  The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects some time after the detonations.  Specifically from the kind of radiation that is released from a nuclear detonation such as gamma and neutron radiation which make up approximately 50% of the energy released.  Radiation that is singularly missing from fire bombing.  So .. sorry .. you are wrong about that too.

[Rushy]

Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.

They're not real.

They're made up.

It's a meme.

Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.

You realize (I'm sure you do) that pink elephants can fly on the winds of time?

You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.

"no u" is not the powerful comeback you think it is. In the future, if you have nothing meaningful to post, then do not post. I'm not going as far as removing/warning you because it's a response to my post, but I personally consider this to be warn-able low content in the upper forums. I suggest posting epic burns like this in Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense, where it belongs.

I did.  Except for the 10 million ton crates of TNT in my yard (there are only 2).  The rest are all facts.  Your incredulity does not change that.  Sorry.

Also the reality of atomic bombs is a fact.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also not fire bombed.  The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects some time after the detonations.  Specifically from the kind of radiation that is released from a nuclear detonation such as gamma and neutron radiation which make up approximately 50% of the energy released.  Radiation that is singularly missing from fire bombing.  So .. sorry .. you are wrong about that too.

Oh geez, I didn't know someone can simply say "you're wrong!" and then suddenly I'm wrong. Look, in this thread, I've already gone over the points. I asked for evidence which no one can provide (because, coincidentally, it doesn't exist). Did you really come into the thread just to say "you're wrong and I'm right" over and over again until I get bored of replying to you?

For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill? Was Chernobyl a nuclear bomb all along? The answer is no, it wasn't. Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb, but you already know that, so why are you bringing it up when I've already pointed it out in the thread?

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding again.