• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Yeah, that doesn’t prove anything. It’s just some researcher speculating that maybe it won’t be so bad after all. Anybody who would gamble the fate of humanity on this analysis is an absolute imbecile. Out of curiosity, how many billions dying would be acceptable to your psychopathic mind?

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        “just some researcher”

        Maybe try clicking those multiple links?

          • InputZero
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Did they say that it’ll be the other sides billions, not theirs? I am so jaded that this discussion doesn’t feel right without someone saying that their people will prosper after they nuke everyone else. With some bullshit that obviously the other sides nukes won’t work but all of theirs will.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Literally linked you two peer reviewed western studies that say otherwise. You’re the only one spreading propaganda here. The fact that you think this something that should be gambled with shows that you’re a sick individual.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Except we don’t know better. We just have psychopaths such as yourself trying to convince people that a nuclear holocaust wouldn’t be all that bad actually. Scum like you are driving us ever closer to nuclear annihilation.

                  • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don’t see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.

                    I don’t know or really care who’s right because it’s meaningless but you certainly don’t look like the person with a valid position here.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Anybody who understands how science works trust peer reviewed science. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of peer review?