Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77373574" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>That's a fair point...</p><p></p><p>But shouldn't the onus be on the enviro-left to have a healthy level of skepticism toward anti-nuclear efforts coming from the fossil fuel industry?</p><p></p><p>This could just be anecdotal, but in my experience, those types of folks are willing to do some "page 8 googling" to find ways to debunk pro-coal arguments in order to prove that they were slanted due to fossil fuel influence, but they can't be bothered to do the same when the topic is nuclear?</p><p></p><p>If someone has done diligent research on the risks of nuclear and have sincere concerns about it, I'm willing to hear them out and have a debate. If they're the kind of person who will gladly do a "deep dive" in order to rebuke coal, but then that diligence seems do a full stop (conveniently) when talking about alternate solutions, then it kinda undermines their purported sincerity.</p><p></p><p>If someone's willing to sink hours and hours building a <em>Pepe Silvia crime board</em> to prove that a pro-coal study is flawed, but then are content to say "Well, Chernobyl happened, so I'm a 'no' for nuclear", I question their sincerity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77373574, member: 123415"] That's a fair point... But shouldn't the onus be on the enviro-left to have a healthy level of skepticism toward anti-nuclear efforts coming from the fossil fuel industry? This could just be anecdotal, but in my experience, those types of folks are willing to do some "page 8 googling" to find ways to debunk pro-coal arguments in order to prove that they were slanted due to fossil fuel influence, but they can't be bothered to do the same when the topic is nuclear? If someone has done diligent research on the risks of nuclear and have sincere concerns about it, I'm willing to hear them out and have a debate. If they're the kind of person who will gladly do a "deep dive" in order to rebuke coal, but then that diligence seems do a full stop (conveniently) when talking about alternate solutions, then it kinda undermines their purported sincerity. If someone's willing to sink hours and hours building a [I]Pepe Silvia crime board[/I] to prove that a pro-coal study is flawed, but then are content to say "Well, Chernobyl happened, so I'm a 'no' for nuclear", I question their sincerity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge
Top
Bottom