2 ms·
I didn't say that taking a side in the debate is "ignorance, or... fearmongering". I said that conflating deaths in nuclear accidents and deaths from nuclear a
by rosser 11y ago
I didn't say that taking a side in the debate is "ignorance, or... fearmongering".
I said that conflating deaths in nuclear accidents and deaths from nuclear accidents was. If you want to take a position on the distinction, that's one thing. Not even seeing it — or, worse, ignoring it for intellectually dishonest purposes — is something else entirely.
- jameshart 11y agoOh. That kind of debate. The kind where people who think that drawing a distinction between deaths during the accident and deaths caused by the accident is itself intellectually dishonest and accuse those who insist on making such a distinction of being arrogant and shilling for nuclear power lobbyists; and the other people who think that there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between the immediate impact of an accident and its aftermath accuse people who would conflate the two of ignorance and fearmongering. Yes, it's 'debatable' that way too.
- rosser 11y agoWow. Yeah, there's no discourse going to happen here, is there?
- jameshart 11y agoI am trying to point out that your attempts to sound reasonable were, from the start, undermined by your stating that while the distinction between immediate and indirect deaths caused by nuclear accidents might be debatable, you were going to enter that debate from the start by positioning anybody who thought there wasn't really much difference as an ignorant fearmonger. So yeah, you kinda headed off the prospect of civil discourse a bit there...