Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” Follow

#27 Mar 15 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

No. Its a reality. Its REAL.


Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.

If you want to make a non-emotional argument, try comparing the health costs of nuclear power per unit of energy generated over the last half century to the other predominant alternative: coal. How many people die every year from direct coal related illnesses? How many people have their health adversely affected in less direct ways from coal use (air pollution is kinda always there, right)? How many people die in various accidents? Compare the numbers.


The unemotional assessment would show you that people only die from nuclear power as a result of some form of accident. They die from normal coal power all the time. A statistical percentage of coal miners die every year, not just from accidents, but simply from the environment they work in. A statistical percentage of people working at or near the plants die of various lung illnesses every year. Again, not just in accidents but from the materials and environment they work in. A statistically measurable increase in a number of illnesses is introduced into the population every year as a result of coal power generation.


Want to compare the rate of illness among workers at nuclear plants to coal plants? Want to compare the rates at the mines? Want to compare the rates along both their respective process paths from raw ore to power generation? Because that's what you'd do if you were making a non-emotional assessment of the two power types. And just to remind you again, the population as a whole is absolutely not affected at all by nuclear power, while they are constantly being poisoned a tiny bit each day from coal.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 7:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Mar 15 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.




Interpret it however you want.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#29 Mar 15 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Samira wrote:
My problem with nuclear power is that when something does go wrong, it's wrong for good. There's no bringing the land around Chernobyl back, ever. Write it off.


Sort of. Much of the area is still pretty radioactive and poses long-term risks, but there are a few fairly safe areas around it now. Apparently they're actually going to be allowing guided tours soon too, for what that's worth. The immediate area around the reactor has been sealed with a concrete sarcophagus, which needs maintenance. They've got a pretty large staff there working on keeping the most harmful stuff from getting out.

What I find more interesting though, is that nature there is actually flourishing. The area reforested a ton when all the humans left. Used to be 10% forest, now it's up around 80%. Animals that hadn't been seen in the area for years have suddenly cropped up there in large numbers, and it's now pretty populated by a pretty decent variety of species. Some of them might have three heads, I guess. It remains to be seen what problems may result from the radiation that they're undoubtedly being dosed with. But it's not like the area is a wasteland anymore.

Pretty interesting stuff, I think. There's a lot of research to be done on the long term consequences of Chernobyl, and all the weird side-effects that it caused. As I mentioned before, I kind of nerd-out over nuclear stuff.

Here are some neat photos of the site, before and after: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/chernobyl-then-now/14634?image=1

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 11:03pm by Eske
#30 Mar 15 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Moving back down to Westchester again, albeit not quite so close to Indian Point this time...

I'm okay with this.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#32 Mar 16 2011 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
catwho wrote:
Kinda glad I chose to live in a seismically stable area with no nuclear plants within 50 miles right now.

Hey, as it happens, US authorities have told Americans to stay at least 50 miles away from the ********* reactors right now.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#33 Mar 16 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Hey, as it happens, US authorities have told Americans to stay at least 50 miles away from the ********* reactors right now.

I'm doing MY part!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Mar 16 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Some people out here are rushing out buying up potassium iodine. 'S pretty funny, when you think about all the atomic bomb testing we've done over the years and what not.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Mar 16 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,905 posts
Samira wrote:
Some people out here are rushing out buying up potassium iodine. 'S pretty funny, when you think about all the atomic bomb testing we've done over the years and what not.



Isn't it in the table salt you buy in the stores? I thought you got plenty of iodine in your diet just due to that...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#36 Mar 16 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Some people out here are rushing out buying up potassium iodine. 'S pretty funny...

No, what's funny is some people HERE are rushing out and stocking up on potassium iodine.
Quote:
I thought you got plenty of iodine in your diet just due to that...

The idea is to pack your thyroid so full of inert iodine that the radioactive cooties can't get in. I'm assuming that attempting this by eating a giant bowl of table salt is contraindicated by the medical community.

Edited, Mar 16th 2011 8:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 16 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Dammit! I wonder if I can return those salt licks I bought...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 16 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Either that or invest in some deer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 16 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
It looks like one of the reactors is going to go into full meltdown, which is a Really Bad Thing. It's too bad there's no way to get a massive amount of water into the whole facility. Like, say, flooding it with thirty feet of seawater.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Mar 16 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
As I understand it, the problem now is that it's so hot, the water would flash to steam immediately, further spreading those radioactive cooties and possibly doing more damage.

I suppose if you could heat the water first it'd work. Dunno!

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#41 Mar 17 2011 at 4:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Samira wrote:
As I understand it, the problem now is that it's so hot, the water would flash to steam immediately, further spreading those radioactive cooties and possibly doing more damage.

I suppose if you could heat the water first it'd work. Dunno!



Or add other substances with a high heat capacity into the mix, until it's the appropriate temperature for the water.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#42 Mar 17 2011 at 4:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.


Interpret it however you want.


There's nothing inherently fallacious about an appeal to emotion, you realize. In fact, appealing to emotion as a product is the way to win a debate. It's appealing to emotion as an argument that is frowned upon, but only if it's an attempt to forgo deliberation of the ultimate emotional result. i.e., relying on the salience of the emotion rather than the actual emotional impact of each position. It's a fallacy when it doesn't consider the overall emotional impact of the other side. A debate doesn't operate under the assumption that feelings don't matter.

I think that generally when you're talking about children born without limbs, brains outside their heads, etc., that's a powerful, perfectly legitimate emotional appeal that falls on the opponent to counter with their own account of the ethical/emotional impact of their position.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#43 Mar 17 2011 at 5:22 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Welcome to ZAM.com, home of serious debatez.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#44 Mar 17 2011 at 5:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Kachi wrote:
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.


Interpret it however you want.


There's nothing inherently fallacious about an appeal to emotion, you realize. In fact, appealing to emotion as a product is the way to win a debate. It's appealing to emotion as an argument that is frowned upon, but only if it's an attempt to forgo deliberation of the ultimate emotional result. i.e., relying on the salience of the emotion rather than the actual emotional impact of each position. It's a fallacy when it doesn't consider the overall emotional impact of the other side. A debate doesn't operate under the assumption that feelings don't matter.

I think that generally when you're talking about children born without limbs, brains outside their heads, etc., that's a powerful, perfectly legitimate emotional appeal that falls on the opponent to counter with their own account of the ethical/emotional impact of their position.


Oh, so you want vivid imagery?

How about the children in oil rich nations who are the victim of the perpetual resource war, who've been orphaned or those who are left mutilated or dismembered by stray military actions. Or those choking on their own breath as they succumb to black lung, or burned to death in an oil fire, or poisoned by a ocean spill. The many who die a more insidious death labeled natural causes, but truly poisoned from accumulated toxins in our air and water and food, left with no recourse and no recompense, those who's futures have been stolen by tyrants and warlords fighting over energy stockpiles, and those who struggle to fight against those tyrants, who have been enriched in money and weapons by the purchasers of that energy.

See why this is not useful for a logical debate?

For the record though, rooftop solar is the more deadly than chernobyl, but less deadly than the various fossil fuels.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#45 Mar 17 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
I suspect the only reason nuclear power has less deaths than solar/twh, is because nuclear power is heavily regulated with strictly enforced safety precautions, where as solar is installed by morons who fail to utilize safety gear. I would think wind is much the same as people are stupidly comfortable on top of a roof where as wind turbines people tend to strap themselves in or use cranes.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#46 Mar 17 2011 at 6:26 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
This is even less of a logical debate. You can't compare injuries and deaths of untrained, unskilled homeowners falling off their roofs to mine cave-ins or refinery explosions. Besides the death is not attributable to the power being generated, but carelessness in climbing around on roofs.

If folks were installing their own nuclear power plants in their basements you'd likely see more injuries as a result.

It's a pretty stupid way to compare energy sources.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#47 Mar 17 2011 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
How about the children in oil rich nations who are the victim of the perpetual resource war, who've been orphaned or those who are left mutilated or dismembered by stray military actions. Or those choking on their own breath as they succumb to black lung, or burned to death in an oil fire, or poisoned by a ocean spill. The many who die a more insidious death labeled natural causes, but truly poisoned from accumulated toxins in our air and water and food, left with no recourse and no recompense, those who's futures have been stolen by tyrants and warlords fighting over energy stockpiles, and those who struggle to fight against those tyrants, who have been enriched in money and weapons by the purchasers of that energy.

See why this is not useful for a logical debate?


How is that NOT useful to a logical debate? You just articulated a number of consequences to the opposition's argument. That kind of emotional appeal is perfectly acceptable.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#48 Mar 17 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Yay, now the recommendation for foreign nationals is to evacuate out of Tokyo too.

1) because electrical blackouts and food shortages make living precarious in a modern city.

2) because of the dangers of a radioactive particle plume reaching Tokyo if/when the wind shifts.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#49 Mar 17 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
How is that NOT useful to a logical debate?

Because, logically, the stats regarding deaths, health issues, etc matter while the gory descriptions largely don't. Unless you want to come up with a chart measuring out how many 30 year olds with silicosis equate to one newborn with an external brain.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Mar 17 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Kachi wrote:
There's nothing inherently fallacious about an appeal to emotion, you realize. In fact, appealing to emotion as a product is the way to win a debate. It's appealing to emotion as an argument that is frowned upon, but only if it's an attempt to forgo deliberation of the ultimate emotional result. i.e., relying on the salience of the emotion rather than the actual emotional impact of each position. It's a fallacy when it doesn't consider the overall emotional impact of the other side. A debate doesn't operate under the assumption that feelings don't matter.


Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. I think the core issue is that most debate is rife with fallacy since it's more about swaying opinions of an audience than actually proving a position to be better than some alternative. While we tend to use the terms interchangeably, there is a difference between an argument and a debate.

The better question is whether we should base important decisions like whether to use nuclear power or coal power on emotion laden debate, or logical argument. Obviously, it's easier to sway people by using debate, but is that really a responsible thing to do in this case?

I tend to think it's not.

Quote:
I think that generally when you're talking about children born without limbs, brains outside their heads, etc., that's a powerful, perfectly legitimate emotional appeal that falls on the opponent to counter with their own account of the ethical/emotional impact of their position.


Sure. And politicians are great at this. But is that really the best way to make a determination as to the best course of action? There's a reason why societies quite often take actions that are directly harmful, or result in the exact opposite of what they were trying to do. It's because they are swayed by emotional appeals from leaders more interested in using a tragedy to gain support for themselves than they are in doing the right thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 17 2011 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kachi wrote:
How is that NOT useful to a logical debate?

Because, logically, the stats regarding deaths, health issues, etc matter while the gory descriptions largely don't. Unless you want to come up with a chart measuring out how many 30 year olds with silicosis equate to one newborn with an external brain.


And when you have stats, those things are great and should be used instead of anecdotal evidence. And when you don't, for whatever reason-- because they don't exist, or you simple don't have them-- a description of the possible consequences and their severity is a perfectly admissible contribution to a debate, emotionally charged or not. The fallacy in that case could be that an adjudicator is swayed emotionally without consideration of the facts at hand, but the fallacy is not inherent to the debater's contribution.

@gbaji: I think you're confused. Appeal to emotion if a type of logical fallacy. Another type of logical fallacy is equivocation, where you take a word or phrase that can mean multiple things and use it interchangeably, which is what is happening here. Just because there is a logical fallacy CALLED "appeal to emotion" does not mean that all emotional appeals are logical fallacies. e.g., "You should stop cheating on your wife, because it hurts her feelings," is an argument that appeals to emotion, but it is not the logical fallacy we classify as "appeal to emotion."
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)