this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
384 points (87.1% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
2474 readers
110 users here now
#funny
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that's true. You did not once address my argument that we should not produce more nuclear waste while we have no facility to store it in the long term in a safe manner.
I did address it repeatedly. Not having a facility is a choice, and Germany had many decades to figure out how to make one. It's pretty clear that Germans would rather destroy our environment by burning coal than to actually get serious about moving from fossil fuels. Your actions speak for themselves.
Yes and there is no such facility. So we can't store our nuclear waste. Germany also wants as I stated multiple times to phase out coal power by 2038. Germany has currently 52% renewables and aims to be climate neutral by 2045. The move away from fossil fuel has been decided in Germany years ago.
sure
What are your trying to say?
That I see no point continuing the discussion.
There was no discussion, you only attacked me and all of Germany personally and offered no arguments in opposition to mine.
https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/discussion-skills
😂
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-human-equation/201003/nine-ways-lose-argument-even-if-youre-right
I love how you're still under the delusion that I'm trying to change your mind on anything.
Still no argument given to support your point or to deconstruct mine. Your resorting to evasion now. Just another fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Avoiding-the-Issue
You're a hopeless debate bro seeking attention. Whatever points you've mustered here have been addressed repeatedly, yet here you still are pretending otherwise.
No, you did not. My argument is that we should not produce more nuclear waste as long as there is no adequate storage facility. Please elaborate your counter argument without personal attacks and if possible based on credible sources.
I have addressed this exact point in several different replies to you.
No you did not. You always addressed the point that we could build a long term storage facility. But these are not existant in Germany and as long as that's the case we should not produce more nuclear waste. You did never address this point.
You can keep repeating that all you like. Anybody reading this thread can judge for themselves.
Yes, and I will: As long as there is no adequate long term storage facility we should not produce more nuclear waste. Maybe you can try addressing this argument instead of resorting to evasion or ad hominem fallacies.
The fact that you keep pretending that your argument hasn't been addressed is what makes this whole thing so hilarious.
Evasion fallacy again. No arguments given no valid points made.
You keep on repeating that if that makes you feel better.
Yes I will as long as you do not engage in a civil discussion, employ fallacies and do not offer arguments or sources to support your opinion.
good for you buddy
No source, no argument, just evasion again. Try supporting your opinion next time and you might make a valid point, but not like this.
learn to take a hint when people are done trying to have a discussion with you
I can see that you keep making no points and again attacking me. Maybe you can try offering arguments to support your views next time.
I can see that you keep replying unable to move on from this. Since you like links and sources so much here's one for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. you're evading again instead of supporting your opinion with arguments and sources.
You can keep repeating this as much as you want, it's not going to make it true.
I do think it's very much true: You keep evading without offering arguments or credible sources to support your opinion
great, you keep on thinking that
Do you have a different opinion? Wanna try backing it up with an argument or a source?