4 ms·

"Ad nominem" is saying "this argument is wrong because this person is bad". Here, what I'm saying is that the arguments are wrong because they are simplistic, l

by cauch 2y ago

"Ad nominem" is saying "this argument is wrong because this person is bad". Here, what I'm saying is that the arguments are wrong because they are simplistic, looks unbalanced and don't correspond to what people who work on the subject have observed. I've brought new information: in the professional sector, including pro-nuclear actors, France situation is presented as "the example to not follow", and the reasons are way more diverse and unbiased than "it's because of the bad anti-nuclear". You can check if it's the case if you don't trust me. It's a bit like if someone says "python is never used to do ML stuff", and I answer "but I see plenty of people using it, it looks like it's not really an educated argument: the person seems to not know the community who do ML stuffs". Is that an ad nominem? If yes, does it mean that the first person argument cannot be criticized?

Kuinox 2y ago
I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. You come and spew out anectodal evidence, which you fail to notice that can be heavily biased, and present it as "the professional sector", and reduce what I said to "the bad anti nuclear". Then you try to parallel with an example, like this was our scenario. At least, bring some source when you say someone doesn't know anything.
- cauch 2y ago
  > I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. And what I'm saying is that, as usual, pro-nuclear people like you (there are intelligent pro-nuclear people that are way less unbiased) will explain the situation by cherry picking explanation that fit their ideology rather than also accepting the elements that don't. You had the opportunity to say "it's of course not just due to that but ...", but you did not, you really cherry pick as if the French situation is due to sabotage while it is in great part due to plenty of other factors, include intrinsic to the difficulty of nuclear. And, sorry, I cannot really bring source so easily, because I work in the sector, and when I keep hearing someone casually saying "well, France difficulties is due to ... and ...", I don't make a note thinking "I need to keep the source for Kuinox in 3 years from now". I think it's a good proof that you are not working in the sector: the sector does not play the ridiculous "renewable vs nuclear" game, it knows it's way more complicated than that in consequence does not pretend one is better than the other. It's just not how it works. As usual, fake news and cherry picking takes few minutes for you to generate, and if I want to source that it's crap, I will have to spend hours and hours digging up in my conference notes from years and years in the past. And for what? You have absolutely no idea of the reality and you will just say "na, you are bad, you lie, I don't believe you". You are clearly not worth the effort. If you are honest and want to make sure you don't spread misleading info, the ball is in your corner, you can have a deeper look to check if what I brought to the table is bringing useful nuance (it does). But I doubt you will, you will just reject the idea that maybe you, the armchair militant who only read things that goes in the convenient direction, maybe does not understand the complex situation so perfectly.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    You blame me of sharing misleading information but you claim I said things I did not say, then claim I'm an idiot. You didn't brought nuance, from the beginning you personally attacked me, you never directly contested any claim I made. I'll welcome discussing the points I brought up and the one you brought (none so far, except saying I'm an idiot).
    - cauch 2y ago
      Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect (even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage where the report is not able to give anything concrete, just that French people who think nuclear is not a good idea are unsurprisingly friends with people who think nuclear is not a good idea in other countries, and that political groups that think they have understood the situation well will fund reports, like it happens all the time including with pro-nuclear reports). My problem with your intervention is that your claims are not representative of the situation. You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments. The point I've brought up is that your view of the situation is not the same as the view of the situation in the sector, that your view is just ... caricatural. For example, how would like react if someone says that the failure of the Energiewende is due to France funding pro-nuclear in Germany and sabotaging the program? I would personally say that it is biased: even if we entertain the idea for the sake of argument, in itself it's way not enough to make the Energiewende fails. For the French situation, typical reasons given for recent difficulties with the nuclear park are: the mess the government made with EDF privatization, the loss of technical expertise, the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal, the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all, the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations, the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ... You will notice that these reasons are not "anti-nuclear": some of them implies that the French situation is not due intrinsically to nuclear, but due to the specific French situation. The problem is that you don't mention any of them. You just mention reasons that are supporting the fact that somehow French nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear. Some of these reasons are really anecdotal and never appear when professional discuss the subject. So, yes, it looks very biased, and you sounds like a living proof of what the initial article (I'm not always agreeing with it on all the points, btw) is talking about.

by cauch 2y ago

Kuinox 2y ago

I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. You come and spew out anectodal evidence, which you fail to notice that can be heavily biased, and present it as "the professional sector", and reduce what I said to "the bad anti nuclear". Then you try to parallel with an example, like this was our scenario. At least, bring some source when you say someone doesn't know anything.

cauch 2y ago
> I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. And what I'm saying is that, as usual, pro-nuclear people like you (there are intelligent pro-nuclear people that are way less unbiased) will explain the situation by cherry picking explanation that fit their ideology rather than also accepting the elements that don't. You had the opportunity to say "it's of course not just due to that but ...", but you did not, you really cherry pick as if the French situation is due to sabotage while it is in great part due to plenty of other factors, include intrinsic to the difficulty of nuclear. And, sorry, I cannot really bring source so easily, because I work in the sector, and when I keep hearing someone casually saying "well, France difficulties is due to ... and ...", I don't make a note thinking "I need to keep the source for Kuinox in 3 years from now". I think it's a good proof that you are not working in the sector: the sector does not play the ridiculous "renewable vs nuclear" game, it knows it's way more complicated than that in consequence does not pretend one is better than the other. It's just not how it works. As usual, fake news and cherry picking takes few minutes for you to generate, and if I want to source that it's crap, I will have to spend hours and hours digging up in my conference notes from years and years in the past. And for what? You have absolutely no idea of the reality and you will just say "na, you are bad, you lie, I don't believe you". You are clearly not worth the effort. If you are honest and want to make sure you don't spread misleading info, the ball is in your corner, you can have a deeper look to check if what I brought to the table is bringing useful nuance (it does). But I doubt you will, you will just reject the idea that maybe you, the armchair militant who only read things that goes in the convenient direction, maybe does not understand the complex situation so perfectly.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  You blame me of sharing misleading information but you claim I said things I did not say, then claim I'm an idiot. You didn't brought nuance, from the beginning you personally attacked me, you never directly contested any claim I made. I'll welcome discussing the points I brought up and the one you brought (none so far, except saying I'm an idiot).
  - cauch 2y ago
    Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect (even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage where the report is not able to give anything concrete, just that French people who think nuclear is not a good idea are unsurprisingly friends with people who think nuclear is not a good idea in other countries, and that political groups that think they have understood the situation well will fund reports, like it happens all the time including with pro-nuclear reports). My problem with your intervention is that your claims are not representative of the situation. You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments. The point I've brought up is that your view of the situation is not the same as the view of the situation in the sector, that your view is just ... caricatural. For example, how would like react if someone says that the failure of the Energiewende is due to France funding pro-nuclear in Germany and sabotaging the program? I would personally say that it is biased: even if we entertain the idea for the sake of argument, in itself it's way not enough to make the Energiewende fails. For the French situation, typical reasons given for recent difficulties with the nuclear park are: the mess the government made with EDF privatization, the loss of technical expertise, the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal, the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all, the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations, the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ... You will notice that these reasons are not "anti-nuclear": some of them implies that the French situation is not due intrinsically to nuclear, but due to the specific French situation. The problem is that you don't mention any of them. You just mention reasons that are supporting the fact that somehow French nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear. Some of these reasons are really anecdotal and never appear when professional discuss the subject. So, yes, it looks very biased, and you sounds like a living proof of what the initial article (I'm not always agreeing with it on all the points, btw) is talking about.