You're right, you shouldn't have stepped in. At least,you shouldn't have stepped in and build a strawman. The discussion you entered is about costs, not dangers.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're wrong, I didn't talk about dangers and I didn't put up a strawman. If you wanted to pin a logical fallacy on my argument you should have said I made a generalization fallacy or an informally fallacy because I was so vague. It's actually pretty telling that you're attributing a lot of intention where there was none. I am not going to spend the time or energy to make a legitimate argument with some random jerk on the internet that ultimately just gets us Internet points. I have more important things to do with my time.

And honestly my only reason for posting is to make the comment number go up one tick to keep these communities going. I really don't care about what you think and unless you're in a position of power no one else does either.

Edit: I'll downvote myself, I don't approve of anyone behaving like either of us.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your one and only fact-related statement was literally

but nuclear energy isn't as dangerous as some make it out to be.

But sure, you weren't talking about dangers lol.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're right, I was careless. It wasn't a strawman though. It's still a generalization or informality fallacy. If you're going to head in so hot at least have use the right terms.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago

You argued against an argument I didn't make. That's the definition of a strawman.