That perceived gain was bigger than the perceived loss —— what would a neutral cost benefit analyzer conclude?

Yea but Afganistan and Irak are not democracies yes?

Yes you are right

Afghan and Iraq didn’t decide to go to war. US did

Yes

Im talking about how decisions of war are made in the real world

Waging war*

Ah..on that topic yes

It’s almost never a cost benefit analysis.

Stone, why do Americans fear so much of Dictatorship? cause they live in a free world.

Is the fear justifiable by a neutral observer?

Dont know. But from my perspective it is unjustifiable

Same from my perspective

So we agree and can build on that

We can build even if we dont agree 😄

But we agree

Can we agree that we can build even if we dont agree? 😄

With caveats and it’s and but’s

Now we don’t need them

😂

Ifs*

😂

We could build more if we agree more. You agree?

Hmm. Now I’d have to ask what you mean by build. I just meant build our conversation

Yes. But it can be extrapolated at a Universal scale. The more people agree, the more they can build yes ? and faster

Well they could agree on a bad idea and never build anything

My use of the word build in that context was very limited.

Hm. If they agree to destroy, wouldnt their destruction building be more if they agree? Meaning they would build their goal of destroying the world faster?

If they agree to build an apartment tower hanging from a meteoroid in space with the apartments in earth’s atmosphere - no matter how many agree, they will not achieve anything. Instead lose a lost

Lot*

Yes. But still. Even if not achieving, can we argue that by agreeing, they are still closer to their impossible goal than if not agreed?

Hmm- still no. If they decide fires can be created by saying Magic words. No matter how many agree, they will be no closer to achieving anything

I disagree. Here is my argument:

Wanna listen?

Yes sure. My battery is low. I’ll read what u say. And then want to continue on previous 4 points you made

After a break

Go ahead

Me and you agree that both of us will levitate from a vertical position. But for the moment both of us stay on a different chair. We agree that in order to levitate, both of us must first stand up. So we agree to stand up, but levitation doesnt happen.

Are we closer to levitation this way, than only one of us standing and the other keeping on staying on the chair?

Doesn’t matter - what matters is if it’s objectively true that standing is a prerequisite to levitation.

Yes this is what we agreed to.