[Rushy]

Closest thing I found, Rushy.
[video snipped]

This is nothing other than evidence that big explosions exist.

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities? If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

[Action80]

But kangaroos do, as do nuclear weapons. So seeing one is perfectly credible in the right circumstances.

When I see a kangaroo, it acts as a kangaroo and is identifiable as a kangaroo in its unique physical characteristics.

Nothing Duncan described as what he claimed to be a nuclear bomb was unique. He described no particular personal acts he committed to verify the veracity of his claim.

In short, you continue to write nothing but a bunch of fluff in support of the original fluff.

[RonJ]

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need.

I would need to see, either in person or an adequate video, actually showing the internals of the device, showing that it's obviously not faked using a large amount of conventional explosive, and then actually detonated. The video of course would need to be devoid of jumpcut editing where they go "here see this is totally it, this is totally what explodes!" and then it suddenly jumps to an explosion as if that's the device that was used.

All you need to do now is spend a lot of time researching the Manhattan Project and get a secret clearance.  After that's done you could get an appropriate job that would necessitate viewing a nuclear weapon and be present if one is ever tested again in the future.  The authorities aren't going to let just any wacko, like yourself, view a nuclear weapon and see it tested without doing a lot of vetting.  No one really cares if you believe or not.  Actually it's better that you don't believe and you convince others, who think like you, not to believe too.  When the bomber flew over Japan to drop the first Nuc no one worried.  They just weren't afraid of a single airplane at the time.  The Japanese wised up after they saw what happens when the Americans dropped a few radioactive firecrackers on their cities. 

[RonJ]

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities? If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants are not designed to explode but just produce a lot of heat to make steam.  They can release a lot of radiation if things go wrong.  That's already happened a couple of times.  I live nearby 2 different nuclear plants and have actually been inside the control rooms of both of them.  it's quite impressive but the authorities won't let anyone near one unless you have a legitimate reason.

[Action80]

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities? If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants are not designed to explode but just produce a lot of heat to make steam.  They can release a lot of radiation if things go wrong.  That's already happened a couple of times.  I live nearby 2 different nuclear plants and have actually been inside the control rooms of both of them.  it's quite impressive but the authorities won't let anyone near one unless you have a legitimate reason.

I guess an elementary school field trip is a "good reason."

[GoldCashew]

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?

Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?

[stack]

Nice strawman.

You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."

Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery.  Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...

It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

[markjo]

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities?

If you understand the physics involved, then you would realize that the two are, indeed, very similar.  The biggest difference is the reaction rate.

If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Ah, so you don't understand the physics involved.  Good to know.

[Pete Svarrior]

No. That's a false equivalence.

Because aliens don't exist.

"A random person claiming that they totally saw X is a good argument for the existence of X, but only if I believe X exists." - AATW, unironically.

[AATW]

No. That's a false equivalence.

Because aliens don't exist.

"A random person claiming that they totally saw X is a good argument for the existence of X, but only if I believe X exists." - AATW, unironically.

Nice straw man.
It’s not a good argument for the existence of X. But given that X exists, someone claiming to have seen X is credible, if they claim to have seen it in a credible context.
Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?

[Roundy]

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?

Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?

Can you prove it doesn't?

[Action80]

Nice strawman.

You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."

Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery.  Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...

It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

Witlf?

How, pray tell, does concocting a lie in order to cover the original lie, go against or negate his argument?

[Rushy]

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.

The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities?

If you understand the physics involved, then you would realize that the two are, indeed, very similar.  The biggest difference is the reaction rate.

If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Ah, so you don't understand the physics involved.  Good to know.

Markjo the nuclear physicist, everyone! He understands nuclear bombs and reactors. You don't. Bow to his knowledge (which isn't just obvious ignorance!). Markjo, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, can you stop pretending you do? Why embarrass yourself like this?

No. That's a false equivalence.

Because aliens don't exist.

"A random person claiming that they totally saw X is a good argument for the existence of X, but only if I believe X exists." - AATW, unironically.

Nice straw man.
It’s not a good argument for the existence of X. But given that X exists, someone claiming to have seen X is credible, if they claim to have seen it in a credible context.
Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?

"Given that X exists", you mean your entire argument of whether or not something exists is predisposed on it already existing?

[Pete Svarrior]

Nice straw man.

Sorry, that's literally your argument. If you think it's a strawman, clarify your position.

It’s not a good argument for the existence of X. But given that X exists, someone claiming to have seen X is credible, if they claim to have seen it in a credible context.

Right, so it wasn't a strawman. You think that X exists, you assert it as fact, and therefore someone claiming to see something you already believe in is proof. Proof, I tells ya!

C'mon, AATW, you're not THAT stupid. This discussion is on whether or not X exists. You can't start with the assumption that X does exist and then work your way from there. In a debate on whether nukes exist, you consider someone's "dude I totally saw it" claim to be "credible". Your reasoning for it is "well because they exist duh". Would you be happy if I engaged you in a similar argument? (Hint: no)

Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?

Why? Because you think the argument is stupid? If I took that approach, there'd be no RE threads on this site.

[RonJ]

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

[AATW]

Nice straw man.

Sorry, that's literally your argument. If you think it's a strawman, clarify your position.

I've clarified my position in all the other posts I've made in this thread which you have mostly ignored.

You think that X exists, you assert it as fact, and therefore someone claiming to see something you already believe in is proof. Proof, I tells ya!

No. Not proof, credible. If I believe X exists then of course I find someone saying they've seen X credible.
So long as they're saying they saw X in a context in which I believe X could be seen of course.

Roundy said, I think somewhat flippantly, "Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?"
DuncanDoenitz said "Yes".
And I said, equally flippantly, "Well if that’s not enough to satisfy Rushy then I don’t know what is."

Obviously I was joking. Someone who doesn't believe kangaroos exist isn't going to accept as evidence someone saying they saw one in a zoo.
All I was saying is that for those of us in the real world, someone claiming they saw a kangaroo in a zoo is not an outlandish, fanciful claim.

C'mon, AATW, you're not THAT stupid.

Oh stop! I can't get used to you being nice to me.

This discussion is on whether or not X exists.

Yes, and I have gone in to some detail in other posts about why I'm pretty confident that X exists.

You can't start with the assumption that X does exist and then work your way from there.

I'm not. I believe X exists and I've outlined plenty of evidence backing up that belief in this thread.
Given that evidence, and my belief based on it, someone's claim to have seen X is credible.

Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?

Why? Because you think the argument is stupid? If I took that approach, there'd be no RE threads on this site.

There is no argument. It's a "kangaroos don't exist" thread. Cue a load of people wading in to say "yes they do and this is how we know".
All of which Rushy has basically shouted "FAAAAKE!" to without providing a scrap of evidence.
The whole thread is an argument from incredulity. It's complete nonsense.

[Pete Svarrior]

Obviously I was joking.

Yes. As always when you say something mind-numbingly stupid, you were obviously joking. That's also why you defended your claim several times. It was because you were joking.

Someone who doesn't believe kangaroos exist isn't going to accept as evidence someone saying they saw one in a zoo.

Indeed - but you can show them a kangaroo pretty easily. This is unlike aliens, which are pretty hard to show to others, or nukes, which are apparently even harder.

There is no argument.

"This Argument That's Currently Ongoing Does Not Exist" - AATW, unironically.

[markjo]

Obviously I was joking.

Yes. As always when you say something mind-numbingly stupid, you were obviously joking. That's also why you defended your claim several times. It was because you were joking.

Yes, when someone says something mind-numbingly stupid, it usually is a pretty good clue that they were probably joking.  You know, like Rushy's mind-numbingly stupid claim that nuclear bombs don't exist.

Maybe you should change your profile name to "Sheldon Cooper" because you both seem to have a lot of difficulty picking up on irony and sarcasm.

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes, when someone says something mind-numbingly stupid, it usually is a pretty good clue that they were probably joking.

Yes, markjo, that is exactly what happens when someone spends 3 posts defending something idiotic and then flips to "well duh I was kidding" out of the sudden.

[markjo]

Yes, when someone says something mind-numbingly stupid, it usually is a pretty good clue that they were probably joking.

Yes, markjo, that is exactly what happens when someone spends 3 posts defending something idiotic and then flips to "well duh I was kidding" out of the sudden.

How many posts has Rushy spent defending his idiotic claim?