Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
The reactor didn’t melt down. There was a partial meltdown but nothing on a large scale.
You use such weird language when you write. Have you ever thought about writing like an adult? Chernobyl very much was a product of communism.
So it did melt down then?
Partial meltdown. Proof of the safety of the design.
So a meltdown then?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island
No deaths. No injuries. No damage to the environment.
It shows the safety of nuclear power.
Yes it safely melted down.
and?
To quote you from earlier:
I am merely asking that you admit you were incorrect in that statement and retract it.
This is like talking to a politician, you are incapable of admitting wrongdoing, it's very difficult to get you to talk honestly about these things.
To further quote someone I spoke to earlier "You use such weird language when you write. Have you ever thought about writing like an adult?"
It was a partial meltdown. It wasn't a full meltdown. It was an event like Chernobyl.
So it was a meltdown then, regardless of the qualifiers you are putting in there to save face? Thank you.
In future, please try to leave your ego at the door when talking about statements of fact.
Thanks for at least somewhat reluctantly admitting that you were wrong, even if it took far too long and you couldn't do it without trying to save face by arguing unimportant details.
This is progress! Well done.
Most people when they talk about meltdowns are talking about nuclear disasters and full meltdowns. They’re not taking about a partial meltdown.
You seem to struggle with words and the meanings of them. You’re so focused on being “right” that you just look foolish.
Do you disagree that three mile island is a success of our nuclear program? Or you just going to circle jerk in the corner for no apparent reason ?
I'm talking about the word meltdown, and how it refers to a meltdown.
That is how language works.
I'm sorry you are having trouble with it, but please stop with the ad hominems, they are childish and should be beneath you. You should really know better at your age.
The government document list it as a partial meltdown. That’s the official term being used.
I didn’t use an ad hominem. You seem to struggle with words. I used the term the government used and try to use it as an attack towards me. You now can’t stay on topic and can’t focus on the touch.
Do you disagree that three Mile was a success?
Yes, the government DOES list it as a meltdown, thank you. Honestly it can be so difficult to get through to you sometimes.
Speaking of words and grasping their meaning, when you childishly accused me of 'circlejerking in the corner' just a moment ago, in an obvious and unnecessary attack on my character, aka an ad hominem, you actually used that phrase incorrectly as well!
Allow me to explain - a circle jerk is when a minimum of two men jerk one another off, creating a "circle" of "Jerking".
When you lost your temper and began throwing meaningless insults in a manner very inappropriate for this forum, the term you would use more correctly would have simply been "Jerking it", as you were accusing me of masturbating ON MY OWN in the corner.
Please work on both your manners and your grasp of the English language if you are going to continue to insist on asking for my attention.
edit:typo
Partial meltdown. It’s in the cite I supplied.
I haven’t lost my temper. I’m just baffled by your behavior.
I’ll ask for at least the third time.
Do you see three Mile island as a success of the safety of our nuclear power ?
So if you didn't lose your temper, were you genuinely asking me direct inappropriate questions of a sexual nature?
I mean losing your temper is one thing, but this is beginning to look like you are making unwarranted sexual comments to a stranger.
Please do not do that, I am not interested and I do not consent to you talking about me in a sexual manner. I will consider any further talk in this manner sexual harrasment.
You’re acting in bad faith and trolling again. You refuse to stay on topic and want to circle jerking some imaginary victory instead of having a discussion.
You refuse to answer the question and instead what troll. Have a good day.
I asked you to kindly stop with the ad hominems, and if they are not ad hominems, to kindly refrain from making allusions about any sexual acts I may or may not be a part in.
I hope you learn to either control your temper or respect the boundaries of strangers.
All this because you dont want to admit to yourself that a partial meltdown is a meltdown. I hope you can learn and grow from this exchange.
Warning: Rule 3
Pre-emptively characterizing future responses as sexual harassment is textbook bad faith.
Also, you both should've stopped a long time ago. Or, if you insisted on continuing, should've clarified the terms of discussion, which clearly revolved around what "meltdown" meant.
Sounds like youre once again doin a stellar job of moderating there buddy, keep up the amazing work. This is why everyone respects you so highly <3