4 ms·

>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. This poorly constructed sentence shows me to be wrong does it? It somehow refute

>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. This poorly constructed sentence shows me to be wrong does it? It somehow refutes my claim? How exactly? Have you ever heard the phrase quasi-religious? Perhaps you should have some sympathy for someone with Andi's dearth of vocabulary. It adds nothing to his earlier comment and takes nothing away from it either. You are making Andi out to be the unabomber, he does seem like a reasonable person - you are completely overreacting to all of his comments for some utterly bizarre reason. His comments are irrelevant to what we are talking about. Your whole basis of argument now is that Andi is some sort of certifiable nutcase. Time and again I've said his comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided? Even if you were somehow magically correct in delivering a devastating psychoanalysis of Andi, over the internet based on some comments, you can't argue with this: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. But you continue to. Do you disagree with this statement? It's what I'm calling you out on, and you seem to have a massive problem with it. What proof of principle solution? Your oil well suggestion is no solution to anything. Are you referring to something else perhaps? I'm sure they have pulled and will continue to pull lots of useful materials out of the areas and people near e.g. Fukushima and Chernobyl that our past, current and future research will make useful for future generations: cancerous thyroid glands, contaminated milk, water and aquatic life with 2Sv of radiation in it, irradiated metal and farmland. To demonstrate that there is a net cost of nuclear power to future generations: accept that nuclear plants are supported by tax breaks, and the cost of shutting down nuclear plants is so great that it cannot be undertaken by their owners and caretakers. This must be undertaken by the state taxpayer. After they have been shut down, the waste cannot be processed by current technology and must be stored and protected by the taxpayer. When the plants are no longer generating profit - the vain hope for the enterprise to benefit future generations is that someone invents some way of processing their waste. This is the same vain hope those had when they built these reactors in the the 50s/60s/70s. Sure, they produced power for a few decades - the waste however will cost taxpayer money for millennia. I will repeat myself again, perhaps you may notice this time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

berntb 15y ago
>>Time and again I've said [Andi's] comments are not relevant I argued against what "Andi" wrote, which was hard to read differently than being Luddite. You gave a strained explanation of what "Andi" wrote. Then you claim it isn't relevant that Andi wrote other strange things that supports "Andi" being stupid &&/|| Luddite. Sigh... You also ignored my points about R&D investments with cheap energy building future ... never mind, I've been trolled enough.
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  I gave a perfectly clear explanation of what he wrote in case you had any difficulty in reading it. Which, as it turns out you did. When confronted with this, you accuse me of getting creative and now say the clear explanation is strained. I will remind you that earlier you accepted the explanation as something a reasonable person might say (you qualified it saying it would be unlikely). They are two very simple sentences and the logic as I demonstrated is quite easy to follow. I think that perhaps you have misread them the first time, and are now just being stubborn. You then moved on to trying to make Andi out to be some sort of miscreant to justify your argument. Andi didn't write other strange things. What Andi wrote in the first place wasn't strange either, Andi has not shown himself to be a stupid luddite. In future if you are going to quote what I write or anyone else writes you would do well to include in full the part of the sentence you are responding to: >>Time and again I've said [Andi's] comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided? I've said that the other things that Andi wrote were not relevant, and that they aren't strange. You can't say that I accepted he wrote other strange things, again we are back to you trying to put words into other peoples mouths. You made no points about R&D, I asked you twice about your proof of principle solution and can find no comments by you referring to them, you are being extremely cheeky accusing me of ignoring things. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm getting deja vu here: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
  - berntb 15y ago

berntb 15y ago

>>Time and again I've said [Andi's] comments are not relevant I argued against what "Andi" wrote, which was hard to read differently than being Luddite. You gave a strained explanation of what "Andi" wrote. Then you claim it isn't relevant that Andi wrote other strange things that supports "Andi" being stupid &&/|| Luddite. Sigh... You also ignored my points about R&D investments with cheap energy building future ... never mind, I've been trolled enough.

eliasmacpherson 15y ago
I gave a perfectly clear explanation of what he wrote in case you had any difficulty in reading it. Which, as it turns out you did. When confronted with this, you accuse me of getting creative and now say the clear explanation is strained. I will remind you that earlier you accepted the explanation as something a reasonable person might say (you qualified it saying it would be unlikely). They are two very simple sentences and the logic as I demonstrated is quite easy to follow. I think that perhaps you have misread them the first time, and are now just being stubborn. You then moved on to trying to make Andi out to be some sort of miscreant to justify your argument. Andi didn't write other strange things. What Andi wrote in the first place wasn't strange either, Andi has not shown himself to be a stupid luddite. In future if you are going to quote what I write or anyone else writes you would do well to include in full the part of the sentence you are responding to: >>Time and again I've said [Andi's] comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided? I've said that the other things that Andi wrote were not relevant, and that they aren't strange. You can't say that I accepted he wrote other strange things, again we are back to you trying to put words into other peoples mouths. You made no points about R&D, I asked you twice about your proof of principle solution and can find no comments by you referring to them, you are being extremely cheeky accusing me of ignoring things. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm getting deja vu here: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
- berntb 15y ago