• NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
    link
    English
    2
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    It’s not a strawman. It is 100% completely comparable to your point. You’re over here using deaths as a point against a technology when the current de facto standard society runs on us unimaginably worse.

    But keep handwaving and calling actual legitimate arguments against what you’re saying, “Strawmen.” It’s great and doesn’t stifle healthy discussions in any way.

    • SomeLemmyUser
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 day ago

      Dude, its a strawman because im not arguing pro fossil but pro solar, Wind, Walter and economical and social change.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.

        tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.

        • SomeLemmyUser
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -120 hours ago

          Its like saying electric cars are good for the environment just because benzin cars are worse. Its not true. Both are bad for the environment.

          The nuclear waste is a fucking problem, no matter if burning coal also is a fucking problem

          • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
            link
            English
            113 hours ago

            Speaking of strawmen, no one said nuclear energy is good for the environment. Nice job using exactly what you accuse others of doing, though. Spot on projection.