80
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
80 points (98.8% liked)
Science
13267 readers
27 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, that doesn't prove anything. It's just some researcher speculating that maybe it won't be so bad after all. Anybody who would gamble the fate of humanity on this analysis is an absolute imbecile. Out of curiosity, how many billions dying would be acceptable to your psychopathic mind?
"just some researcher"
Maybe try clicking those multiple links?
I did, and I'm not impressed. How many billions dying is acceptable to you?
Did they say that it'll be the other sides billions, not theirs? I am so jaded that this discussion doesn't feel right without someone saying that their people will prosper after they nuke everyone else. With some bullshit that obviously the other sides nukes won't work but all of theirs will.
Literally linked you two peer reviewed western studies that say otherwise. You're the only one spreading propaganda here. The fact that you think this something that should be gambled with shows that you're a sick individual.
wait you trust the rotten west's science?
Anybody who understands how science works trust peer reviewed science. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of peer review?
Except we don't know better. We just have psychopaths such as yourself trying to convince people that a nuclear holocaust wouldn't be all that bad actually. Scum like you are driving us ever closer to nuclear annihilation.
This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don't see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.
I don't know or really care who's right because it's meaningless but you certainly don't look like the person with a valid position here.
Anybody who thinks a nuclear war between major powers would be an acceptable scenario is an utter imbecile and a piece of human garbage. Period. People why try to downplay the horrors of a nuclear holocaust are a danger to the human race.
Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That's not been suggested.
You're saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you're trying to push, even if it's objectives are good.
No, I'm saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you're claiming that I'm the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
By the way, my agenda is pretty simple. I don't want to die in a nuclear holocaust. The more idiots try to downplay the horror of a nuclear war the closer we all get to one.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don't get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that's pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that's not a good way to behave.
Sure, yet there's no actual evidence that this science has been overturned by anyone. At best there's a disagreement in the scientific community regarding what the worst case scenario would be.
Pretty clear that a lot of people are trying to marginalize the threat of a nuclear conflict even in this very thread.
Nope, I don't think that at all. That's just a straw man you're building here.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being aggressive and rude towards people spreading dangerous nonsense calling research they disagree with Russian misinformation. It's interesting how you went after me and not the other poster.