lol
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
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.
You are legitimately dimwitted if you didn't catch the point, which is that you must assume these things will always fail. Which is why you put it somewhere that the inevitable failure will cause minimal damage. They don't belong everywhere and Japan is an unsuitable area for nuclear power.
My argument is in no way related to gun control. Guns don't kill tens of thousands and leave decades of fallout behind. Defensive gun uses mathematically outweigh criminal gun uses.
Again with the personal attacks and the mis-characterisation, I didn't say your argument was related to gun control, I said it followed the same format of gun control arguments.
Plus really telling that Japan has multiple nuclear power plants, each one experienced the same earthquake and yet only the one that was denied funds for modernisation failed. Almost like so long as properly managed and adequately funded, nuclear power isn't a concern. But of course you'll say "but retards will get in and make them unsafe so we shouldn't have nuclear power in any location that isn't miles away in a desert with no earthquakes or deep space" which means that only the countries that have nukes monopolise nuclear energy as they are the only ones that can do that.
Which would stifle development of more efficient, safer designs since there would not be as many different cultures and perspectives working on the same issue with one coming up with a workable concept. Oh and I can show how your argument format is the same as gun control argument
Now let change just 4 words
You are fundamentally incapable of understanding cost-benefit analysis. Stop embarrassing yourself replying while missing the point.
You don't need to deliberately put reactors in unsuitable areas to make better designs. That's fucking idiotic.