>>11850713>You're trying to get me to buy your bullshit by playing niceAnd you're trying to start an argument with ad hominems and strawmen.
You're trying to derail the discussion into an argument about energy sources because you want to argue with some dumbo who's chanting "radiation is bad" so you can call them a hippie or commie or some such and feel superior.
>well it COULD be responsible for a 10% increase in this cancer which typically affects 0.01% of the population.See
>Not solely because of nuclear power being the only current viable alternative but also because of the refusal to acknowledge actual causes of cancer. Everything "may" cause cancer and little has been proven to cause cancer since smoking.That's a separate discussion though.
As for your silly comparisons, here's a strawman for you using the same logic;
>Comparing the devastation of WW2 to WW1 does not invalidate either from being wars.I'll state one last time.
I'm not disagreeing that there are worse disasters or claiming that it was the worst disaster and i never made those argument in the first place. Only you arbitrarily decided that was what i was implying and brought up coal into a discussion about radiation.
I can only think you are a coal miner or work at a rig which is fair enough as i have no problem with either. In fact, i applaud you if you do and i personally think you should be paid much more than you do especially if you're occupation is higher risk than your fellow employees.
There, i have devolved the discussion into ad hominems, analogies, comparisons and strawmen just like you wanted in the first place. Are you happy now?
