Damn, if one reads that entire long list of ranting in one session it makes an even better case for nuclear than anything else ever could. It’s like you started with your “Nuclear sucks!!!111!!!eleven!!”, and then had to make a lot of effort to find ways to fit things into your narrative.
But let’s pick at it one by one, shall we?
That you think what I said is a slippery slope, an actual type of informal argumentative fallacy, is fascinating. Because if nothing else it exposes that you had a predisposed notion how to dismiss what I wrote before you actually read it. If you had said it’s appeal to emotion, then fair enough. In a lot of ways it is exactly that, specifically the point I’m making is that if you’re the one emotionally affected, then you don’t care why you are, your suffering is the same either way. I skipped the part where we try to compare quantitatively how many people are affected by deaths from either source of power because - getting to that in a sec - that’s the common part. But you’re correct of course in that since I didn’t present how I reduce from the large scale accident to an individual event of loss, it’s an argumentative fallacy.
Only… a slippery slope? Really? What I was levelling against the person I replied to? They did that argument, that corruption in the building or maintaining process warrants not using something. Which is bullshit, you need to take a far more specific approach. Specific companies need to be targetted for this, not an entire industry or even more broad an entire type of energy production.
But now to the funny part, your data source. So I take it you have a single centralized data source that has tracked various kinds of deaths from completely different industries in a single central location over time? So there’s no need to corrrelate disjunct data, nevermind what a completely normal process that might be?
Plus, the source that is from is, from looking around the site, they’re not directly affiliated with an energy produced that has a specific stake in nuclear. The writer is an assistant to a professor that in turn is pushing for improvements to green energy at both their university and through a nonprofit. Importly, the writer takes the upper boundary of the thyroid-in-children cases even though that is exceedingly unrealistic but they do it to take a more conservative approach. Which makes sense if you’re trying to check whether nuclear is really all that bad: When necessary, you take the numbers worst for nuclear so you can establish a solid lower boundary on its efficacy.
That it still comes up so well should tell you something. It’s also interesting that you never talk about the actual problems with nuclear energy, which are mentioned by people actually trying to do a more measured approach or proper criticism (namely how we cannot build more plants now to shut down coal/gas with them but there’s a secondary problem: while their accident effects are extremely localized by comparison to fossil fuels their duration is very long and we can run into societal problems in regards to warnings and long-term handling).
I will say, reading what you wrote, you’re not an ineffective shill for nuclear energy. You make criticism of it seem laughable and childish.
Damn, if one reads that entire long list of ranting in one session it makes an even better case for nuclear than anything else ever could. It’s like you started with your “Nuclear sucks!!!111!!!eleven!!”, and then had to make a lot of effort to find ways to fit things into your narrative.
But let’s pick at it one by one, shall we?
That you think what I said is a slippery slope, an actual type of informal argumentative fallacy, is fascinating. Because if nothing else it exposes that you had a predisposed notion how to dismiss what I wrote before you actually read it. If you had said it’s appeal to emotion, then fair enough. In a lot of ways it is exactly that, specifically the point I’m making is that if you’re the one emotionally affected, then you don’t care why you are, your suffering is the same either way. I skipped the part where we try to compare quantitatively how many people are affected by deaths from either source of power because - getting to that in a sec - that’s the common part. But you’re correct of course in that since I didn’t present how I reduce from the large scale accident to an individual event of loss, it’s an argumentative fallacy.
Only… a slippery slope? Really? What I was levelling against the person I replied to? They did that argument, that corruption in the building or maintaining process warrants not using something. Which is bullshit, you need to take a far more specific approach. Specific companies need to be targetted for this, not an entire industry or even more broad an entire type of energy production.
But now to the funny part, your data source. So I take it you have a single centralized data source that has tracked various kinds of deaths from completely different industries in a single central location over time? So there’s no need to corrrelate disjunct data, nevermind what a completely normal process that might be?
Plus, the source that is from is, from looking around the site, they’re not directly affiliated with an energy produced that has a specific stake in nuclear. The writer is an assistant to a professor that in turn is pushing for improvements to green energy at both their university and through a nonprofit. Importly, the writer takes the upper boundary of the thyroid-in-children cases even though that is exceedingly unrealistic but they do it to take a more conservative approach. Which makes sense if you’re trying to check whether nuclear is really all that bad: When necessary, you take the numbers worst for nuclear so you can establish a solid lower boundary on its efficacy.
That it still comes up so well should tell you something. It’s also interesting that you never talk about the actual problems with nuclear energy, which are mentioned by people actually trying to do a more measured approach or proper criticism (namely how we cannot build more plants now to shut down coal/gas with them but there’s a secondary problem: while their accident effects are extremely localized by comparison to fossil fuels their duration is very long and we can run into societal problems in regards to warnings and long-term handling).
I will say, reading what you wrote, you’re not an ineffective shill for nuclear energy. You make criticism of it seem laughable and childish.