• CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    You’re right, you shouldn’t have stepped in. At least,you shouldn’t have stepped in and build a strawman. The discussion you entered is about costs, not dangers.

    • InputZero
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You’re wrong, I didn’t talk about dangers and I didn’t put up a strawman. If you wanted to pin a logical fallacy on my argument you should have said I made a generalization fallacy or an informally fallacy because I was so vague. It’s actually pretty telling that you’re attributing a lot of intention where there was none. I am not going to spend the time or energy to make a legitimate argument with some random jerk on the internet that ultimately just gets us Internet points. I have more important things to do with my time.

      And honestly my only reason for posting is to make the comment number go up one tick to keep these communities going. I really don’t care about what you think and unless you’re in a position of power no one else does either.

      Edit: I’ll downvote myself, I don’t approve of anyone behaving like either of us.

      • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Your one and only fact-related statement was literally

        but nuclear energy isn’t as dangerous as some make it out to be.

        But sure, you weren’t talking about dangers lol.

        • InputZero
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You’re right, I was careless. It wasn’t a strawman though. It’s still a generalization or informality fallacy. If you’re going to head in so hot at least have use the right terms.