Thorry84

Since these debates are formatted like a game show anyways, why not go further and use a points system?

Imagine like anytime any player wants they can challenge what the other player said. Then a team of fact checkers is consulted and they give a truth rating. If the rating is ambiguous, nothing happens and we move on. If it turned out the player was lying, they get a penalty point. But if the player was telling the truth, the challenger gets a penalty points.

Three points and you're out, plus a bucket of slime gets dumped on you.

Let's make this shit fun to watch and call out the lies.

Wow look at this dude's github profile!

Never answer, the scammers sell data to each other. As soon as you answer, they know they've got a live number and the number of calls will multiply.

Also there's millions of them, pissing off a couple doesn't really do anything.

What country is that?

👽

You still get a participation trophy just for showing up.

I'm pretty sure we don't live in the Andromeda galaxy

You are right, that's brilliant!

Very well, let's agree to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. But I am in no way right wing or spreading misinformation.

The people I've spoken who work in the nuclear field bitch about unneeded red tape all the time. Some of it is important for sure, but a lot of it can be cut if we wanted to without safety becoming an issue. The price of nuclear has gone way up the past 20 years, whilst the knowledge and tools have become better. This makes no sense to me. We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can't we?

I'm all for renewables, I have solar panels. But I'm not 100% convinced we have grid storage figured out. And in the meanwhile we keep burning fossils in huge amounts. If we can have something that produces energy, without fucking up the atmosphere, even at a price that's more expensive than other sources (within reason) I'm all for that. Because with the price of energy from coal, the money for fixing the atmosphere isn't included.

Thank you for answering in a respectful manner.

Please share oh enlightened one

I have never heard being pro-nuclear is the anti science stance and it being on the rise among right wing political parties. All the right wing is talking about it more coal and less things to be done about the climate.

The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed and not anti science at all.

I believe nuclear can help us get to the future we want and we should have done it a lot sooner. Nuclear doesn't mean anti-renewable, both can exist.

It's like rain on my wedding day