By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 18 February 2020
CaptainExplosion said:
EricHiggin said:

Well he is the 'great divider' isn't he?

Ironic, since usually people like that say Trump is chosen by God.

After all, he did have a sacred non-Christian site blown up for the boarder wall.

Seriously, how is endorsing someone like Trump being a "good Christian"?

Politics and religion are separate. How does supporting Bernie or Biden also allow someone to believe in equality? They are both old, evil, white, men...

the-pi-guy said:

EricHiggin said: 

Thanks for making my overall point.

Shift the problem from climate change to food supply, which of course will become the next problem to be solved, because you created it by filling up farmland with renewables to 'save the trees', meanwhile just as many tree's or more are being cut down to make up for the used up farmland and increasing demand.

Then shift the conversation to make it seem like I'm the environmentalist trying to save the world, when really that's the side you're taking, while I'm just pointing out it's not going to work because you're just shifting the problem to something else, yet you want a solution from me, when you're the one with the solutions apparently.

Shifting (the blame) doesn't solve problems. If anything, it ends up creating more.

You're inventing a hypothetical problem that doesn't exist, and using that to form an argument against a current problem.  

You mean everyone has plenty of healthy cheap food, or that the Rainforests aren't being cut down to grow more food, that we don't need?... If cutting down trees for renewables isn't a problem, then why the argument in the first place? If it is a problem, then what about the farmland they now take up? What does that lack of food mean, and where does it get offset?

Ka-pi96 said:
EricHiggin said:

If they were anticipating the unforeseen disaster at Chernobyl, don't you think they wouldn't have built it in the first place? If there ever becomes a problem of some sort with solar, while the sites are usually smaller in general, there are a ton of them all over the place, and a significant portion are fairly close to densely populated area's in comparison.

You can't just slap solar panels or wind turbines just anywhere. Well you can, but if the power output is lousy because it's a typically cloudy or calm area, you've done a poor job of investing and will pay dearly for it. If the hills without trees are in a typically calm area, then nobody is going to bother erecting wind turbines there. They will put them two hours north, in the densely forested hills, which will be cleared, where the wind is typically potent.

I've been on many wind and solar sites, where they cut down hundreds of acres of trees or more. This is because you aren't aloud to mount panels on useful open farmland, and nobody places them where they won't see much sun or get much wind. If that means clearing forest, that's what they do.

I think you're reading things that aren't there. I never suggested nuclear power always ends in disaster. I was talking about the possibility of disaster, and not just any disaster either, if a nuclear power plant goes wrong it's an absolutely huge fucking disaster. Are you actually suggesting that there's a chance solar power could kill millions of people and make huge swathes of land uninhabitable? If so, then could you provide some evidence? And if not, then clearly solar power isn't as dangerous as nuclear power.

The rest of your post isn't really relevant either. I was refuting the point that "you have to cut down trees for wind turbines". You don't. Just because you can, and sometimes people do, doesn't mean you "have to". You absolutely can build them without removing any trees whatsoever.

So why did they build Chernobyl in the first place, knowing the disaster that may occur? Did they know? If they did, well, they still built it and got away with it, until it became a problem. If they didn't, or thought the potential hazards weren't as bad as they ended up being, then who's to say solar couldn't end up being a problem in it's own way as well? I highly doubt the workers who built the plant knew what could happen, and finding public information about how there was likely an event like that being even remotely possible isn't worth looking for because who would go along with something like that knowing the trouble it could cause? I mean, why do you think there has been such a big scare over nuclear for decades now, and why fewer and fewer plants get built? Humans can't see the future. When we build things, we don't know everything that could happen, and we don't even know exactly how things will react to certain events that we know are possible. The best we can do is guess based on some tests and analysis and go from there. I mean, until the twin towers collapsed, there wasn't a problem with how they were built. Why did they build the replacement Freedom Tower like a tank? How is it that the Titanic sank? Unsinkable?

That's not a worthy argument either. Just because we can? Really? Could we end wars? Could we end starvation? Could we end poverty? Why don't we? Business, money, politics, ego, greed, etc. The biggest reason we do things is because we are forced to out of necessity, not because its the 'right' thing to do.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 18 February 2020
Snoopy said:
Runa216 said:
I posted this already but nobody read it or responded to it despite it being a VERY good point:

I find it utterly astounding how blinded both sides are by the concept that...there are more factors at play in the complicated US (or any) economy than who was president at the time. I hate Trump, but he's not the sole reason things are as they are. I loved Obama, but he was not the sole one responsible for the ebb and flow of the US Economy between 2008 and 2016. Anyone actually arguing that they - and even the parties that they are a part of - are solely responsible for the economy during their tenure is exactly the kind of person who's opinions can be immediately dismissed for bias or ignorance.

So, SO many factors are involved in an economy that even if I spent the next ten years of my life trying to explain it, someone could easily mention how rice production in Taiwan was missed out. Every little thing factors into the economy. World interactions are important, global events, the climate, general public perception, technological advancements, the ebb and flow of various companies and their impact, international trade factors, availability, pandemics, relations, corporate shenanigans, and so, so many other factors need to be considered. Yeah, politics are a slice of that - as different political parties push for different policies and changes in laws - but it's only a small fraction of the vast pie that is global economics. And, even if political parties do have some influence, the time and effort needed to put new laws into place ensures that it could be years or even as much as a decade before a proposed bill really has far-reaching effects.

Politics are important, they do have impact, but to assume that a politician or party is solely responsible for the economy during their tenure is so palpably stupid that anyone arguing using that as their primary point can be and should be immediately dismissed. If anyone does that they are clearly showing they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about no sense of perception, and no grasp of the vastly complicated workings of international economics.

It's almost like EVERYTHING is more complicated and nuanced than headlines and sensationalist garbage could ever possibly hope to convey.

And this right here is a perfectly encapsulated representation of the modern republican! 

"Uh oh, something got complicated and nuanced, better disregard it!"



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 on 18 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Politics and religion are separate. How does supporting Bernie or Biden also allow someone to believe in equality? 1). They are both old, evil, white, men...

So why did they build Chernobyl in the first place, knowing the disaster that may occur? Did they know? If they did, well, they still built it and got away with it, until it became a problem. If they didn't, or thought the potential hazards weren't as bad as they ended up being, 2). then who's to say solar couldn't end up being a problem in it's own way as well?

1). This should be good.  Please elaborate on how Bernie Sanders is evil.

2). Did you just suggest that a solar farm may have unknown disastrous events like a nuclear power plant meltdown?

1 - I, too, am curious. 

2 - I think he did! 

Can we get away with ad-hominem now? I think it's fair that certain people can be completely disregarded at this point regardless of whether or not they make a good point here or there. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

EricHiggin on 18 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Politics and religion are separate. How does supporting Bernie or Biden also allow someone to believe in equality? 1). They are both old, evil, white, men...

So why did they build Chernobyl in the first place, knowing the disaster that may occur? Did they know? If they did, well, they still built it and got away with it, until it became a problem. If they didn't, or thought the potential hazards weren't as bad as they ended up being, 2). then who's to say solar couldn't end up being a problem in it's own way as well?

1). This should be good.  Please elaborate on how Bernie Sanders is evil.

2). Did you just suggest that a solar farm may have unknown disastrous events like a nuclear power plant meltdown?

Progressives/MSM have made it clear that white males, especially elderly, are holding up the patriarchy, which is evil and must be stopped.

No. Did you just assume that the worst possible scenario is what I meant?



EricHiggin on 18 February 2020
Runa216 said:
Snoopy said:

And this right here is a perfectly encapsulated representation of the modern republican! 

"Uh oh, something got complicated and nuanced, better disregard it!"

I don't see any reply based on the racial portion of the pic. Did you just disregard it? 

A good loyal Democrat/Liberal would have pointed out the racism.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 18 February 2020
EricHiggin said:
Runa216 said:

And this right here is a perfectly encapsulated representation of the modern republican! 

"Uh oh, something got complicated and nuanced, better disregard it!"

I don't see any reply based on the racial portion of the pic. Did you just disregard it? 

A good loyal Democrat/Liberal would have pointed out the racism.

what racism? the character is a woman, but that's not what defines her or the quote associated with her. a good democrat doesn't equate 'casually accepting that black people exist' with racism. IT's you who thinks that this is racist. Or you are using a strawman argument to try to devalue my point by treating all democrats/liberals as folks who foam at the mouth any time race is even brought up.

Either way, you're being very, foolish and should probably stop.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

EricHiggin on 18 February 2020
Runa216 said:
EricHiggin said:

I don't see any reply based on the racial portion of the pic. Did you just disregard it? 

A good loyal Democrat/Liberal would have pointed out the racism.

what racism? the character is a woman, but that's not what defines her or the quote associated with her. a good democrat doesn't equate 'casually accepting that black people exist' with racism. IT's you who thinks that this is racist. Or you are using a strawman argument to try to devalue my point by treating all democrats/liberals as folks who foam at the mouth any time race is even brought up.

Either way, you're being very, foolish and should probably stop.

Labels eh?.. 

"And this right here is a perfectly encapsulated representation of the modern republican!" 

""Uh oh, something got complicated and nuanced, better disregard it!""

That poor black woman. I wonder if she's a republican too? What do you think? What defines people, if anything?

Maybe you mean, what politics? We're all just people in the end right?

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

1). Progressives/MSM have made it clear that white males, especially elderly, are holding up the patriarchy, which is evil and must be stopped.

2). No. Did you just assume that the worst possible scenario is what I meant?

1). So you're mixing ignorance and flippancy now. 

2). Well, that's what your post was alluding to.  Runa agreed.  And if you meant something else, please expand upon the potential disastrous events that could be.

I'll mix, while you spin. Deal?

2 vs 1. I must be wrong then. No way the minority... can be right. You got me!

I'm waiting for the explanation as to every single possible scenario as to how nuclear could be a problem, and how bad exactly, since it's been around so much longer. If we don't know that yet, how are we supposed to know about a much more recent technology?



EricHiggin on 18 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

I'll mix, while you spin. Deal?

2 vs 1. I must be wrong then. No way the minority... can be right. You got me!

I'm waiting for the explanation as to every single possible scenario as to how nuclear could be a problem, and how bad exactly, since it's been around so much longer. If we don't know that yet, how are we supposed to know about a much more recent technology?

Are you seriously under the presumption that we didn't know the potential danger of nuclear power plants until after Chernobyl? 

With regards to the dangers of solar farms, use your imagination.  You're well versed in solar power operations, what's the absolute worst that could happen at a solar farm?

Then why did they build it at all? Why didn't they plan for what could happen and make adjustments so it wouldn't happen?

Did the designer and builders of the Titanic know the absolute worst scenario? Did they build it anyway? What about the designers and builders of the WTC towers? Did they build it anyway? Did they know everything that could happen? Why didn't they design and plan for that, or refuse to be part of the projects? If they didn't why should I know?



EricHiggin on 18 February 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
EricHiggin said:

So why did they build Chernobyl in the first place, knowing the disaster that may occur? Did they know? If they did, well, they still built it and got away with it, until it became a problem. If they didn't, or thought the potential hazards weren't as bad as they ended up being, then who's to say solar couldn't end up being a problem in it's own way as well? I highly doubt the workers who built the plant knew what could happen, and finding public information about how there was likely an event like that being even remotely possible isn't worth looking for because who would go along with something like that knowing the trouble it could cause? I mean, why do you think there has been such a big scare over nuclear for decades now, and why fewer and fewer plants get built? Humans can't see the future. When we build things, we don't know everything that could happen, and we don't even know exactly how things will react to certain events that we know are possible. The best we can do is guess based on some tests and analysis and go from there. I mean, until the twin towers collapsed, there wasn't a problem with how they were built. Why did they build the replacement Freedom Tower like a tank? How is it that the Titanic sank? Unsinkable?

That's not a worthy argument either. Just because we can? Really? Could we end wars? Could we end starvation? Could we end poverty? Why don't we? Business, money, politics, ego, greed, etc. The biggest reason we do things is because we are forced to out of necessity, not because its the 'right' thing to do.

Given that nuclear power was an offshoot of the project to develop nuclear weapons... they would have had to have been complete idiots to not have known that there was the potential for a huge disaster. And considering more nuclear plants have been built since then as well the whole "they didn't know that could happen" excuse really does sound even more ridiculous.

Now name the times solar power was used to create a bomb. I mean, you're the one trying to compare the two and the fact is we knew nuclear power was dangerous since it was used in bombs from literally the moment it was discovered. Can you say the same about solar power?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? You're basically arguing that "we shouldn't do something just because some people might do something bad with it". It's also massively ironic that you're advocating for nuclear power at the same time as arguing that.

Here's a start.

I take it trying out Trump as Prez wasn't a problem then, since nobody knew exactly what would happen if he took office?



Runa216 on 18 February 2020
EricHiggin said:
Runa216 said:

what racism? the character is a woman, but that's not what defines her or the quote associated with her. a good democrat doesn't equate 'casually accepting that black people exist' with racism. IT's you who thinks that this is racist. Or you are using a strawman argument to try to devalue my point by treating all democrats/liberals as folks who foam at the mouth any time race is even brought up.

Either way, you're being very, foolish and should probably stop.

Labels eh?.. 

"And this right here is a perfectly encapsulated representation of the modern republican!" 

""Uh oh, something got complicated and nuanced, better disregard it!""

That poor black woman. I wonder if she's a republican too? What do you think? What defines people, if anything?

Maybe you mean, what politics? We're all just people in the end right?

SpokenTruth said:

1). So you're mixing ignorance and flippancy now. 

2). Well, that's what your post was alluding to.  Runa agreed.  And if you meant something else, please expand upon the potential disastrous events that could be.

I'll mix, while you spin. Deal?

2 vs 1. I must be wrong then. No way the minority... can be right. You got me!

I'm waiting for the explanation as to every single possible scenario as to how nuclear could be a problem, and how bad exactly, since it's been around so much longer. If we don't know that yet, how are we supposed to know about a much more recent technology?

You are an expert at speaking a lot but saying nothing at all. you should become a politician! 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android