• KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 days ago

    But that’s more like having people talk about how we should do nuclear and renewable power, and you coming along complaining people should be working on developing fusion power instead because fission power just won’t do anything

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 days ago

      Not it isn’t.

      Arguing that fission power won’t do anything is objectively incorrect.

      Arguing that a general strike would be more effective than weekend rallies alone is objectively correct.

      Your analogy is not analagous.

      Beyond that, arguing against doing something is not the same as arguing for doing something else, in addition to /or/ instead of the original something.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Arguing that fission power won’t do anything is objectively incorrect.

        That’s an opinion, regardless of whether it’s true or not. The analogy is analogous because I’m taking the same actions and statements, applying them to analogous topics in a different field. Dismissing that because you believe your beliefs to be objective fact is just dishonest.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 days ago

          … Fission power works.

          It generates energy.

          This is objectively true.

          That is not nothing.

          If you were being hyperbolic, well then your analogy is not analagous because one end of it is hyperbolic.