lol
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Well no, that first analogy doesn't work, you have proven malice in his intent, it's like letting a fox who's been stealing your chickens then guard said chickens.
And instead of kneecapping ourselves because we listen to the retarded, why not do what we used to do, don't listen to them and put them in arrow fodder positions
Because retards and those who manipulate them always win in the end. There is no incorruptible society. Governments always fall. If anything it's so incredibly common that the intelligent analysis assumes government defaults to incompetent evil.
A nuclear reactor will eventually fail in the same way that rain will eventually fall. "Why not just not ever let bad things happen though?" This is you right now. Do you realize what website you're on?
Ok let's stop all dam construction because they'll likely not be built properly and fail horrifically, space travel nah be constant challenger accidents, should we try cybernetics nah it'll probably turn into Upgrade, let's just stay at our current level always because retards will always screw it up
Your argument is like the classic blackpill mentality, why even try someone will ruin it anyway, may as well just give in and not attempt to put effort in to stop them.
You're just illiterate. It's called a cost benefit analysis. The challenger explosion cost 7 lives. Space development is worth exponentially more than that. Dams have massively more utility than risk.
Nuclear reactor failures are EXPONENTIALLY more devastating than anything you just listed, comparing a mountain to a molehill.
If you were capable of following a conversation you'd see I said there are acceptable places for nuclear development. You especially wouldn't have tried the "u no into space" shit because I said nuclear energy should absolutely be used in space. Go read the end of my first post.
Were you an adult during the Fukushima incident? I doubt it given your brainlet take on the potential consequences of putting a nuclear reactor somewhere prone to natural disasters.
You started the argument by stating that they should be placed in a "safe" location, when I pointed out the location wasn't the problem it was because of activists blocking funding for modernisation, you threw up a straw man about bill Gates and how retards mean it'll never be safe. When I pointed out that kneecaps us and leads to blackpilling, you effectively tried to gaslight me.
If I switched 'nuclear' with 'guns' this would be the same kind of argument you are using that gun control advocates use. You started off well but as soon as you're pushed back then you try personal attacks.