4 ms·

> Pardon me? > But where did I accuse "lack of rationality"? In this part of your post I believe. It leads people to that conclusion: >> Edit: Look at the ch

> Pardon me? > But where did I accuse "lack of rationality"? In this part of your post I believe. It leads people to that conclusion: >> Edit: Look at the child reply. See what emotion brings to a discussion. From nuclear energy to illegal disposal of nuclear waste, then to holocaust. The emotion is increasing, but the subject of the discussion is dissolved in the process without any trace of respect to the other parties in the discussion. >> Emotion sucks the rationality from the discussion, and literally deprive the common grounds between people. In the end, achieve nothing. Frankly, I don't know what to make of it. Sometimes people build arguments with enough cruft to fog their main points and intentionally mislead people and sometimes it's not intentional and they don't realize it. HN also loves to play the definition game sometimes. I'd just say this: > But let's discuss in current context: emotional public are under skewed image of nuclear. Do we have a poll or something to assess where people stand regarding nuclear ?

justicezyx 5y ago
... I dont know what to say. The child post literally is just full of emotion and none of rationality. I never said the author not capable of rationality...
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  > Intentions don't mean much when someone somewhere has cut one corner too many and you and your family is in the fallout zone and can't leave the house, open the windows, trust your food or water safety, and that's AFTER the weeks go by before the "general population" finds out about it at all, while the people at the top of the power pyramid know within minutes or hours... > Then, years later, you read HN comments downplaying the effects and the affected with the same types of arguments as Holocaust deniers. > It's emotional, but it's not manipulation. It is the reality how it happened. But those things happened where I lived when the Chernobyl cloud passed over. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Thyroid_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas... Of course the writing style is not the same as the one used in a study abstract and probably the poster has some emotions about it but he's not writing irrational or emotional things. I do agree making a comparison with holocaust deniers approaches the Godwin threshold though. I'd have used climate change deniers instead. Also, one can write rational things while still being driven by emotions.

justicezyx 5y ago

... I dont know what to say. The child post literally is just full of emotion and none of rationality. I never said the author not capable of rationality...

johnchristopher 5y ago
> Intentions don't mean much when someone somewhere has cut one corner too many and you and your family is in the fallout zone and can't leave the house, open the windows, trust your food or water safety, and that's AFTER the weeks go by before the "general population" finds out about it at all, while the people at the top of the power pyramid know within minutes or hours... > Then, years later, you read HN comments downplaying the effects and the affected with the same types of arguments as Holocaust deniers. > It's emotional, but it's not manipulation. It is the reality how it happened. But those things happened where I lived when the Chernobyl cloud passed over. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Thyroid_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas... Of course the writing style is not the same as the one used in a study abstract and probably the poster has some emotions about it but he's not writing irrational or emotional things. I do agree making a comparison with holocaust deniers approaches the Godwin threshold though. I'd have used climate change deniers instead. Also, one can write rational things while still being driven by emotions.