@doofaloofa just directly plagiarized the sentence below from Wikipedia without citing Wikipedia, including the hyperlinks from Wikipedia:
Also, ironically, Wikipedia cited the wrong report at the end of that sentence.
The report Wikipedia meant to cite at the end of that sentence was:
https://www.kernd.de/kernd-wAssets/docs/fachzeitschrift-atw/artikel/atw_2019-10_wendland_peters.pdf
He does, and again, you want to make personal attacks, do it in your troll thread, please. This is general BS.
On security
" Over the 135 reactors in operation, that turns into a per reactor cost borne by US taxpayers of $11.3 million, and a full 150-year lifecycle cost of about $1.7 billion."
I posted the link with a reference to the data.
You are engaging in a fallacious style of reasoning, whether you realize it or not, IMO.
Nobody wrote ALL nuclear plants are profitable, for one, so, you finding examples of those that are not, doesnāt disprove the fact that some are.
Same for safety issues.
Come now
It was an observation
Same reason you chose to tell me how easy it was to find the article
By your definition that was a āpersonal attackā aimed at me
Please start a parody thread yourself for that kind of thing
ā¦Or lighten up
Trying to encourage you to do the same.
Looks like it kind of worked.
I am saying both sides have used the same data to come to different conclusions, or one side or other is not being honest
Imo the risks arenāt worth the benefits
Anyway, I thought it was uncool to define perceived fallacies
What are you talking about?
Iāve never had a problem backing up claims with links
Are you white knighting for gonzo?
Thatās realy sweet
Bullshido is supposed to be all about that critical thinking, so, if I see someone engaging in what I perceive to be some sort of āuncriticalā thinking, I may well point it out, for everyoneās benefit, not as a personal attack.
I wonāt even post a meme about it, either. Iāll do the mature, adult thing and write out my thoughts.
If you perceive something as a personal attack from me, or anybody else for that matter, please call it out, especially in the serious part (General BS) of this website.
Weāve all done it, of course, over the years, and it can be great fun and very entertaining. Maybe letās just keep it minimized in at least one part of the Bullshido realm.
Merely posting links is in many cases not sufficient as evidence, nor proof.
If one posts a link, claiming it may be evidence, or proof, the person putting forward that link, must critically discuss what they are putting forward, including discussing its limits.
And posting erroneous or misinformation links serially, without clearly identifying that they are flawed, or false, makes one a source and spreader of misinformation, and is the exact opposite of behaviors to provide evidence for claims.
But you donāt like it when I do the same thing to you
You call me a troll
No, Iām not. Iām using the current example as an example.
I donāt dislike it, I may disagree with you, though.
Iāll try to do better about calling you a troll, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Heās not.
Both @BKR and I are saying similar things, because we both went through science based graduate school, and we are trying to teach you how to critically think, in a scientific way, as is taught in science graduate school settings.
Itās difficult because you are stubborn, and you either donāt know what you donāt know, or you donāt care, or both, but either way, you are ignorant because of it.
I say this not to be mean, and not to insult you, but clinically, and sincerely.
I would add, it is your choice, if you wish to remain ignorant, however the serially spreading misinformation, that you do, and the lying that you do, as part of your troll behaviors, is unacceptable.
Because that can mislead other readers, or make them stupider, which is contrary to the site mission.
You built your own home, right, on land you bought, correct. You garden extensively, as a source of income as well.
Although Iāve been to grad school in science, and worked as a professional scientist for 10 years (as a geologist), Iāve also worked a lot in labor (skilled and unskilled), gardened, fixed/maintained equipment (my own), hunt, fish, blah blah blah.
So Iāve met and worked with people who are not academically oriented, but are brilliantly skilled at mechanical things. Kind of like a certain TKD guy wishes he was genetically gifted, but they actually realized their genetic gifts.
Itās a different kind of ācritical thinkingā, and just as valuable, or even more so, than the more āformalā critical thinking that say, myself and Gonzo learned in college to some degree, and more so in grad school. And BTW, I donāt claim to be some sort of expert on critical thinking, or logic, or logical fallacies, etc.
For example, my oldest son, who is 18, almost 19, does well academically, (not brilliantly so) however, heās also quite gifted mechanically.
Anyway, all that to say that you absolutely engage in critical thinking when you garden, build things, and manage the land you own, raise your children, etc.
Gonzo and I come at it from a different angle, not necessarily a better one, maybe more formalized.
But we are all brothers in critical thinking, so lets not get all so pissy at each other because of our biases.
@BKR, correct.
More tactful, than I was, but nonetheless correct.
Which is why I have in the past suggested or recommended to @doofaloofa that he make more gardening posts as a contribution.
Because informative posts, pay into the gift economy.
And non-informative posts are taking from the gift economy.
Itās OK to take, but one should also pay in.
Bro itās on video.
Read literally the next two sentences after the one you quoted you fucking dunce.
Your equivocation is duly noted
An example of what?
I get that you get frustrated when discussions get derailed by flaming, but it appears to me that you are applying a different standard depending on who is acting the maggot