4 ms·

Nuclear power has a bunch of controversy and politics behind it. It's not clear whether it will be the future. The existence of nuclear power doesn't make the e

Nuclear power has a bunch of controversy and politics behind it. It's not clear whether it will be the future. The existence of nuclear power doesn't make the energy variable negligble. Energy is still a huge limited resource in our world because of this. Why would governments and scientists spend so much money on Fusion if Nuclear was the definitive answer? It doesn't matter. Whatever your stance is on the topic you can't change the fact that there exists huge political opposition against Nuclear power. The political opposition if anything makes the line of reasoning completely relevant.

j4yav 6y ago
I've sort of lost track of the point of these different subthreads, you seem to be taking on everyone individually to debate various semantic elements, but how does all this debate about sunburns, nuclear energy, and everything else in all these replies tie back to history being written by the victors? I'm not sure how to make sense or your argument. We could argue whether fusion is nuclear or not, but I'm wondering where all this is headed.
- neonological 6y ago
  Yeah it’s ok if you’re confused and don’t have the ability to keep track. I have a firm grasp on the main point in all sub threads. I’ll center the topic for you. Ignore the other threads if it’s confusing you. The main point for this specific thread is that the economy is zero sum because everything relies on energy and energy is limited. Nuclear energy as it currently exists and what it potentially could or could not be does not change the equation. The root post is another topic, I was simply responding to someone who said the economy was not zero sum and telling him that, that statement is categorically wrong. Then it spawned an avalanche of replies from people who disagree. What was just a small tangential reply is now a giant sub thread.
  - j4yav 6y ago
    Wow what a reply. Sorry I asked but good to know after all it didn't have anything to do with the original topic.
    - neonological 6y ago
      Yeah it was a jab at your intellectual capacity to follow the threads and topics. Why did I make such a jab? Possibly because you made a jab at how you thought I’m going all over the place and not staying on topic. Tit for tat. I’m sorry you had to resort to subtle jabs. And No my statement has nothing to do with original topic. It was just a remark that unintentionally spawned a debate. Perhaps much of the resistance to my argument is influenced by biased opposition to the original topic. I thought HN was above that.
      - j4yav 6y ago
        Usually HN is much more collaborative but you seem to have taken a combative approach to interacting with everyone, and I'd assume thats why you are finding yourself in a situation where you are arguing with everyone when that isn't what typically happens here.
        neonological 6y ago
        I was simply stating my opinions. Read everything I wrote carefully. The combativeness was initiated by you. As for the why this entire thread is so large the reasoning is simple. A lot of people disagree with my opinion and I have the capacity and willingness to interact with every single person who disagrees with me even when they vote me down. I don't make any personal attacks or combative stances unless the other opposing party does so. Look at the thread between you and me. Who decided to go meta and shift the conversation to a personal one about my own character? You could've stayed on topic and proved your point. I assume the only reason why you strayed is because you got nothing substantial left to say. What you will find is that combativeness always appears to be the stance of someone who disagrees with you. It's a bias that exists with all people in human nature. Literally look at this thread we're both in. I was never combative with you initially. You initiated the first jab. You changed the topic about zero sum games to my meta role in this thread and you're the one accusing me of straying from the topic? Come on man.

j4yav 6y ago

I've sort of lost track of the point of these different subthreads, you seem to be taking on everyone individually to debate various semantic elements, but how does all this debate about sunburns, nuclear energy, and everything else in all these replies tie back to history being written by the victors? I'm not sure how to make sense or your argument. We could argue whether fusion is nuclear or not, but I'm wondering where all this is headed.

neonological 6y ago
Yeah it’s ok if you’re confused and don’t have the ability to keep track. I have a firm grasp on the main point in all sub threads. I’ll center the topic for you. Ignore the other threads if it’s confusing you. The main point for this specific thread is that the economy is zero sum because everything relies on energy and energy is limited. Nuclear energy as it currently exists and what it potentially could or could not be does not change the equation. The root post is another topic, I was simply responding to someone who said the economy was not zero sum and telling him that, that statement is categorically wrong. Then it spawned an avalanche of replies from people who disagree. What was just a small tangential reply is now a giant sub thread.
- j4yav 6y ago
  Wow what a reply. Sorry I asked but good to know after all it didn't have anything to do with the original topic.
  - neonological 6y ago
    Yeah it was a jab at your intellectual capacity to follow the threads and topics. Why did I make such a jab? Possibly because you made a jab at how you thought I’m going all over the place and not staying on topic. Tit for tat. I’m sorry you had to resort to subtle jabs. And No my statement has nothing to do with original topic. It was just a remark that unintentionally spawned a debate. Perhaps much of the resistance to my argument is influenced by biased opposition to the original topic. I thought HN was above that.
    - j4yav 6y ago
      Usually HN is much more collaborative but you seem to have taken a combative approach to interacting with everyone, and I'd assume thats why you are finding yourself in a situation where you are arguing with everyone when that isn't what typically happens here.
      - neonological 6y ago
        I was simply stating my opinions. Read everything I wrote carefully. The combativeness was initiated by you. As for the why this entire thread is so large the reasoning is simple. A lot of people disagree with my opinion and I have the capacity and willingness to interact with every single person who disagrees with me even when they vote me down. I don't make any personal attacks or combative stances unless the other opposing party does so. Look at the thread between you and me. Who decided to go meta and shift the conversation to a personal one about my own character? You could've stayed on topic and proved your point. I assume the only reason why you strayed is because you got nothing substantial left to say. What you will find is that combativeness always appears to be the stance of someone who disagrees with you. It's a bias that exists with all people in human nature. Literally look at this thread we're both in. I was never combative with you initially. You initiated the first jab. You changed the topic about zero sum games to my meta role in this thread and you're the one accusing me of straying from the topic? Come on man.