Sceptisim & debunking forum very polictical

  • Thread starter Thread starter username
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the perceived political bias in a skepticism and debunking forum, with participants expressing concerns about the quality of discourse and the presence of political rhetoric overshadowing scientific reasoning. The conversation touches on themes of belief attachment, suppression of ideas, and the intersection of politics and science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the forum is dominated by politicized discourse rather than genuine scientific skepticism, suggesting a need for more logical reasoning.
  • Others challenge the notion of suppression, stating that moderation actions are in line with forum rules and not politically motivated.
  • A few participants express frustration with the attachment to personal beliefs, suggesting that this can lead to hostility in discussions.
  • There are claims that political biases influence the perception of scientific discussions, with some asserting that all political groups exhibit irrational beliefs.
  • Humor and sarcasm are used by participants to address the serious nature of the debate, with references to mythical figures and light-hearted banter about political affiliations.
  • One participant notes that while political squabbling occurs, other threads with potentially interesting topics remain unresolved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether the forum is overly politicized or if the criticisms are valid. Multiple competing perspectives exist regarding the intersection of politics and scientific discourse.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific forum rules and moderation actions, indicating a potential lack of clarity on what constitutes acceptable discourse. The discussion also highlights the challenge of separating personal beliefs from scientific discussions.

  • #31
Reno and Las Vegas?? um you think the dam turbines stop for the night?

Yes conservation is low hanging fruit but you could think of better examples. like building retrofits in oil dependent economies - the tech is there. Right NOW.
Nuclear...
Typical knee jerk anti-nuke - coal releases far more radiation in the environment amongst other poisons so lets' put paid to the genetic nonsense.

Marginal nations cannot afford nukes and solar makes far more sense than long scale nuclear for them - they contribute almost nothing to the carbon problem - it's a completely ideological red herring.

70% of France, 50% of Ontario, 16% of the world, electricity comes from nukes - if you are anti-nukes at this stage in the carbon issue I suggest
a) reading
b) growing up

It's only one part of the solution to get to carbon neutral and breeder reactors are required to dispose of plutonium based weapons.

Small 40 year power units are coming for communities and these are ideal solutions.

Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
16K