I agree with your statement that nuclear powers are less likely to wage war, yes.

But i dont understant why you dont want to give your opinion on the statement i made 😄 and shy away from it lol :))

Because you define democracy very specifically

And I don’t know what to do with that

I noticed this behavior arund here.. people avoid to give str8 answers for fear of critic

No - I don’t know because I do not know how I could exclude so many factors/ variables. Such as.... the times we live in - war isn’t necessary to ‘win’ anymore. It’s not ‘expansion of empire’ to win anymore. You can economically destroy enemies.

There’s just way too much nuance and too many variables to oversimplify it to ‘ democracy therefore less likely a war’

So when you said: "I dont know" you actually meant: "I dont want to express an opinion"

Or i got it wrong?

No, I don’t know means - I do not have the knowledge necessary, I dont know what we mean by the terms being used such as ‘democracy’, I think there are other factors which cannot be excluded including current factors and how the landscape of ‘war’ has changed (countries can achieve objectives without waging wars now- in the past this wasn’t as possible)

Just too much to thrash to make any claim either way

Ergo

I don’t know.

Lemme read

OK i wait for you to finish

And I have already said to your conclusion. If we define everything the same way as you want, the best we have is an observation with no causality, which is quite useless on its own to me. If a multivariable analysis shows there’s no causality and this is a moot variable, it would be like spending hours studying how many times trump appears on tv in a year compared with strawberry yield in Sweden.

Thanks. 🙏

( I don’t know if Sweden grows strawberries 🍓 😂)

So you meant: "I dont want to answer because I do not have sufficient information on the topic"?

I read all you said. Im trying to simplify it

Sure. Although I can recognize the immense amount of variables and knowledge needed to make such a conclusion and am skeptical of yours too 🙂

Now I really understand. It's a cultural difference here's how:

I asked: "Do you agree that Democracies are less likely to wage war against eachother"

And you said "I dont know."

My interpretations of your answer in the back of my mind were like this:

1. "I dont know what you are asking me"

2. "I don't agree with what you are saying"

3. "I dont know because i dont know sufficient information"

4. "I dont want to asnwer"

5."I dont know if I should answer."

So I didnt know which one to choose.

This is due to cultural difference in language

It’s 3 along with a bit of skepticism in 5. I don’t think one can make that conclusion because I recognize the plethora of variables in any such analysis/ study required

Something like that

Hm. Very interesting ❤️

Glad you don’t think I’m afraid of criticism. I’m not even decided in my mind if any form of democracy is better than a theoretical benevolent monarchy 😉

Actual democracy*

However you wish to define.

Yes. Interesting. I have 1 Argument to support the statement that "Monarchies are better than democracies, because the Monarchs are more educated to take public office, because they are trained from young". Just saying. Just an intelectual argument

Yea. Also, All forms of actual on-ground democracy fail so often in the 4-5 criteria that you set

Yes, I agree