Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

2451 readers

206 users here now

#funny

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

380

Germans be like (lemmy.ml)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

402 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Im sorry to hear that I hope you get well soon.

I meant that referring to statistics just moves the argument to a lower level of what is the correct interpretation of the data.

I think the statistics presented are very clear and there's little room for interpretation. It clearly shows that nuclear energy is not viable economically. And again: The cost for storing nuclear waste is not factored in there, which makes nuclear power even more expensive.

The article depends on data which is not present there, so I can’t verify it, the rest is an almost lyrical text.

The sources for the data are referenced in the PDF.

My second point is from me hearing of a few stations being currently built, some recently launched by Russia. Which would be the data supporting it? A list of projects with estimated capacities, dates of turning operational, launch costs and expected returns? I don’t have it, but seems like a very small dataset.

I dont think this is vaiable argument from your side. The burden of proof for your opinions is your duty, not mine. Please present sources and data that nuclear power will be cheaper than other forms of energy production if we just build more nuclear power plants.

On the contrary, you need a threshold for what is accepted opposition. You are never going to have the resources to listen to everyone and even to respect everyone. And even to to match every point in a checklist of “behaving correctly in a discussion” without losing the goal.

This is IMHO also not true. If you do not accept arguments without consideration it's a prejudice.

People replacing nuclear stations with coal\gas\etc supplied by authoritarian regimes and pretend that’s a moral decision are what I said.

This was not a decision of the politicians. Politics in Germany wanted to push nuclear energy further, but have been met with fierce protest by the people. So this is the will of the people not of the "authoritarian regimes" you hinted at. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think the statistics presented are very clear and there’s little room for interpretation. It clearly shows that nuclear energy is not viable economically.

The sources for the data are referenced in the PDF.

I may have missed them again. Frankly I meant a CSV or an Excel file being linked.

This is IMHO also not true. If you do not accept arguments without consideration it’s a prejudice.

And presuming that your own resource for attention is infinite is just wrong, trying to imitate that more so.

I dont think this is vaiable argument from your side. The burden of proof for your opinions is your duty, not mine. Please present sources and data that nuclear power will be cheaper than other forms of energy production if we just build more nuclear power plants.

Actually there's no burden on anyone, person A losing an argument against person B doesn't mean that B is right and A is wrong.

But that's also not that I was saying, just that the cost is now affected by recent\ongoing construction and some sites closing at the same time.

It will also be a bit cheaper, of course, due to more qualified people being available with more plants.

Politics in Germany wanted to push nuclear energy further, but have been met with fierce protest by the people. So this is the will of the people not of the “authoritarian regimes” you hinted at.

I didn't mean German politicians by "authoritarian regimes".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And presuming that your own resource for attention is infinite is just wrong, trying to imitate that more so.

That's true, that's why civil discussions are so important, since you have the possibility to point out the errors in my reasoning or present sources that have not been considered by me before

Actually there's no burden on anyone, person A losing an argument against person B doesn't mean that B is right and A is wrong.

I don't agree. If opinions are stated without backing from reliable sources, they are merely opinions. Here's a paper detailing the importance of sources for viable arguments: https://www.sjsu.edu/writingcenter/docs/handouts/Argumentative%20Writing%20and%20Using%20Evidence.pdf

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)