I was saying the post has little context, and based on relatively mainstream mental response, it's reasonable to assume that the OP intends to arouse emotional response through association, instead of lay out it's argument.
> You are stupid and I do not have to listen to your points
...
I was saying that the OP did not provide context and concrete meaning. How is that not listening?
If someone refuses to talk, then it must be the others is "not listening"?!...
> Further true rationality does not define any goals, because it is just about using reason to come to conclusions or for deducting how to best get to a goal. People that claim to be ideology-free are very dangerous, as they are not ideology free, but cannot accept people seeing different goals.
I guess this applies to the grand parent post more than mine?
> You can see this romantic view of science in a lot of nuclear power advocates. Nuclear power has, standing for progress and a representative of science, become the goal in itself that is needed to be protected.
Hah?!
Me and every post I saw uses climate change as the main driving force.
I have never seen anyone claim that nuclear is just plainly noble or something.
Everyone is claiming that tech advanced and nuclear is safer and should be acceptable, if it were to be assessed relatively evenly with alternatives...
> Your argument that improper handling is only the fault of the bad actors that in the end acted out the dumping is invalid
I never argued this
Or I never intended to argue this. But human language is complicated, I blame myself equally as anyone who misunderstood.
Back to bad actor.
No, bad actor in large scale is just interests misaligned. I never doubt there is fundamental issues with nuclear that caused dumping. But let's discuss in current context: emotional public are under skewed image of nuclear.
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 ?
> 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.
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.
But where did I accuse "lack of rationality"?
I was saying the post has little context, and based on relatively mainstream mental response, it's reasonable to assume that the OP intends to arouse emotional response through association, instead of lay out it's argument.
> You are stupid and I do not have to listen to your points
...
I was saying that the OP did not provide context and concrete meaning. How is that not listening?
If someone refuses to talk, then it must be the others is "not listening"?!...
> Further true rationality does not define any goals, because it is just about using reason to come to conclusions or for deducting how to best get to a goal. People that claim to be ideology-free are very dangerous, as they are not ideology free, but cannot accept people seeing different goals.
I guess this applies to the grand parent post more than mine?
> You can see this romantic view of science in a lot of nuclear power advocates. Nuclear power has, standing for progress and a representative of science, become the goal in itself that is needed to be protected.
Hah?!
Me and every post I saw uses climate change as the main driving force.
I have never seen anyone claim that nuclear is just plainly noble or something.
Everyone is claiming that tech advanced and nuclear is safer and should be acceptable, if it were to be assessed relatively evenly with alternatives...
> Your argument that improper handling is only the fault of the bad actors that in the end acted out the dumping is invalid
I never argued this
Or I never intended to argue this. But human language is complicated, I blame myself equally as anyone who misunderstood.
Back to bad actor.
No, bad actor in large scale is just interests misaligned. I never doubt there is fundamental issues with nuclear that caused dumping. But let's discuss in current context: emotional public are under skewed image of nuclear.