Gad Saad

I've heard that they did the calculus of if, and by the way, it could be a very cold, callous calculus, but what I've heard is that there is a very clear pro-con thing where if we do this, this many people would die.

If we go on in the war and it takes that much more before they surrender, there'll be this many dead, drop those bombs.

No, I'm not applying that same calculus of Japan.

What I'm saying is images of destruction are very vivid to our brain, right?

They should be, don't you think?

But that doesn't mean that that's the information that I use to establish...

what is morally righteous.

What else can we use other than information?

We can use what is the existential calculus that animates each society.

One society says, we'll even help you build a better society.

Just please don't spend all your time screaming about eradicating every last one of us.

The other society says, I don't think so.

If we're ever strong enough to kill all, unfortunately, we were only strong enough to kill 1,200 of you.

And boy, that was orgiastically pleasing.

But if tomorrow, God willing, hey, maybe the Iranians have nuclear bombs.

We can eradicate all you assholes.

My God, the world was on fire.

Well, the numbers that I hear is that it was one to one ratio, which apparently is a pretty good ratio.

I mean, like, you want me to give you the reference?

I don't know.