• NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          23 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 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.