Skip to main content

View Diary: Nuclear Secrecy & Disposable People (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for your illegal hide (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream Puff, kkkkate

    The diarist has been corrected several times about this topic and persists in ignoring the actual science. Perhaps this time they will surprise me and if that happens I'm more then willing to apologize and admit I was wrong but there's nothing hidable about guessing that someone will continue to stick their head in the sand when that's what they have been doing.

    You might not like that but I really can't say I care about what you like and certainly liking something or not isn't grounds for a hide.

    You have a pleasant evening as I doubt you actually want a scientific discussion on this.

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 07:38:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Pro-tip: you'll get better responses from people (6+ / 0-)

      if you engaged with them less stridently.  

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 07:54:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  fair point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raines, kkkkate

        but on science I have a particularly low bullshit level especially when someone seriously cautions people to 'avoid precipitation, fogs and mists'. Bad enough we have to deal with the inanity of the anti science of the right I expect far better from the left.

        In all honesty I somewhat regret that first comment even if it was truthful and (to date) proven right. And further I'm not even sure how much 'better' a response can get when people insist on twisting science to fit their opinion. I suppose somewhere there is a happy medium of making that point without (as you put it) being strident.  But it's rather hard seriously look for it when people insist on abusing their own status. Maybe my comment was overly strident but at least I contained myself to the rules present.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:08:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps offer a solution in lieu of argument. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, Bluefin

          Why always be anti and never offer a solution? Why not enjoin everyone in conversations and try to reach a means of solving our problems?

          Why must the extreme right insist there's a war on Christmas, etc to incite social unrest. IF there were a war on Christmas there would be crowds advocating the end to the national christmas tree and every christmas tree strung up from here to the far left coast. I don't know of anyone who's opposed to these governmental trees expounding one religion upon the masses.

          IF there were a war on christmas , just think of all the municipal funds that would be saved by not having these secular parades and street closings.

          There is no war on christmas. $arah has a new 'book'  out to continue to divide citizens and create more turmoil to no good end.

          What, sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce. Mark Twain

          by Gordon20024 on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:56:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What "solution" can there be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            to Tuna NOT being unsafe to eat off the coast of California?  Should we simply tell those with irrational radiation fears to seek counseling?  Or cater to their paranoia and ban all fishing in the Pacific?

            I understand your point about negativity, but reread some of the prejudicial adjectives in the diary itself.  There's not a lot of positive subject matter here.

            First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

            by Cream Puff on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 10:11:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh come now, Cream Puff. (5+ / 0-)

              Asserting subjective opinion and pejorative put-downs of people concerned about the serious and ongoing nuclear pollution of the Pacific Ocean being "irrational" and "paranoid" is violating the DBAD rule. Nobody has suggested a ban on all fishing in the Pacific but you.

              It's the Japanese government urging psychological counseling for people displaced and harmed by the disaster at Daiichi. So they don't have to compensate them for harm or displacement. I'm glad you agree that's bullshit.

              I apologize to no one for my bad attitude about things nuclear. I earned that bad attitude the hard way, thanks, and plan to keep it. Since you prefer positive subject matter, I'll point out that you are free to click on and comment to any of hundreds of diaries a day around here on just about any subject you can think of, some of them with positive subject matter. I encourage you to do so.

              Thanks for stopping by.

              •  I'm fine with negativity, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, dharmasyd

                I was just pointing out the difficulties in being positive.

                Since even you don't claim outright that we shouldn't eat pacific tuna off the coast of California, it's reasonable to conclude that someone like the article subject who is altering their whole lifestyle based on irrational (read: unscientific) fear is exhibiting classic symptoms of paranoia.

                My guess is that this woman would want pacific fishing banned, not anyone here.  Don't conflate the two.

                You're awfully quick to accuse others of violating site rules.  This isn't our first spat, and yet I've never been banned or had my ratings privileges suspended.   It's probably not the best strategy to post this kind of, shall we say, aggressively-themed content all while trying to police your detractors.

                First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

                by Cream Puff on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 07:16:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course you're fine with negativity. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gordon20024, dharmasyd, Just Bob

                  Otherwise you would not be responding so negatively. Deal is, you have established no credible authority for yourself here, you just keep appealing to your non-existent authority as if I'm supposed to be impressed or something. It's not working.

                  For instance, I don't eat Pacific tuna (caught anywhere). It has been deemed unsafe to consume for many years due to bioaccumulation of mercury, bioaccumulated radionuclides from Fukushima is just another reason to avoid it. That's not the least bit irrational, your chest-thumping doesn't magically change that.

                  I believe it is in the public interest to know that dangerous radionuclides from Fukushima are being dumped wholesale into the Pacific and bioaccumulating in the food chains. What 'this woman' (whoever she is) may or may not want is as irrelevant as your attempted thread-jack.

                  •  The hell I am (0+ / 0-)

                    Find an appeal to authority in any of my comments in this post.  I dare you.  In fact I specifically did the opposite by stating this isn't my area of expertise.

                    I've seen how you react to those (Marine Chemist, Keith Pickering, Pico, the science teacher guy from your previous diary) who either know more about this stuff or are a lot better a interpreting studies than you.  I'm not the one with the credibility problem.

                    And "Thread-jack"?  Whatever.  We're talking about the source article for your post.  Seems you don't understand what these blog etiquette terms even mean.

                    First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

                    by Cream Puff on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 09:26:20 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Yes! As Hannah Arendt... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Just Bob, Joieau

         eloquently spoke:

                  The Banality of Evil !

                  “...the class which has the power to rob upon a large scale has also the power to control the government and legalize their robbery.” Eugene Debs

                  by dharmasyd on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 10:21:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit. You lied. You character attacked. (6+ / 0-)

      A perfectly legal hide. In fact, what the hide function exists for.

      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:18:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No I did not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in point of fact you are lying about me I never said said what you have alleged what I said. Go reread my comment and if you are confused look up the difference between a claim and a guess.

        More over given that the diary exhibits a fair amount of ant science nonsense there's no character attack there just a fact. Which is inconvenient for your agenda but it is what it is and as I said a shame because there's excellent points in the diary but I can not recommend anti science nonsense.

        You have a pleasant evening (and yes I mean it this time I just was not going to let your misleading statements go unchallenged but neither am I going to go in circles with you)

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:34:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Jim, duhban is a HOS zombie troll. See my comment. (2+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P, cville townie
        Hidden by:

        'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

        by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:41:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Jim, a prediction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        can't really be a lie. As for Joieau's ignoring specific factual challenges and spouting shilling accusations, I'm pretty sure you've seen that yourself.

        First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

        by Cream Puff on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 10:14:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've never seen her ignore a specific factual (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluedust, Gordon20024

          challenge, and I've been reading every diary and comment on the topic since she started posting. In point of fact, it's usually the other way around.

          And her shilling accustations were backed by the fact that almost all of those she accused as such have since been banned. Anyone who followed those people who would do anything they could to ignore their own accountability recognized dishonest creeps after awhile.

          I assume you are not familiar with this particular troll. He's very skillful in ad hominem applied in a sneaky manner. When someone melds a prediction with an ad hominem, they have lied. You might hold there's a significant technical distinction between deception and lying but I don't hold the same.

          He lied here. He lies everywhere I've seen him 'contribute.' There's an interesting little bit somewhere in this thread where someone posts three links. Read the links. Then read drache's, er, duhban's response to that posting and you'll get an idea of the style used to troll, lie, and deceive.

          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 12:06:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ........ (0+ / 0-)

            if you or Clive or anyone else really think I am this drache or any of the other multiple people that you all have insinuated or flat out accused me of go take your case to the admins. They have shown they have no problem banning people if you have the evidence.

            But you don't do you? All you have is your dislike of me, my opinion and the known scientific facts because it conflicts with your opinion and wish to believe the worst and after months apparently of searching (as these accusations are no new thing) you have managed to find a thin, tenuous connection that is pure happenstance.

            You know what's really interesting though? I got curious and did a cursory search for 'drache' and you know what I found? I'm not the first, second or even third commenter that's been accused of being 'drache' I mean you all really have a nice boogey man going there don't you? So what's your argument that after years of being inactive these drache came back and why? That person seemingly managed to alienate everyone he ever met (from the impression I've had at least) and certainly I would think one could find better things to do on the internet.

            You don't think the science is right Jim then you are welcome to challenge me on it and I will do my best to met any objections you have but apparently like the author you would prefer to settle for passive aggressive ad homs and then accuse me of exactly what you are doing.

            But please continue because from what I understand eventually the admins do tire of this sort of behavior. I do what to thank you though for bringing this 'drache' to my attention though as it's been interesting to read this person's diaries. Not quite my cup of tea as the saying goes but then again why only read things you agree with?

            This will be my last reply to you pretty much ever I think because I'm not going to go round and round with you. So do whatever you wish but have a good night.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 02:15:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site