• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Yes, of course. Because oil has never depended on outside countries that are openly hostile. No sire, thank goodness we rely on a power source that no war has ever been fought for, ever in history.

    /s

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Because oil has never depended on outside countries that are openly hostile.

      That argument is so weak to me. No one is advocating “oil is the future! We need to build more oil consuming power plants!”. If people were, sure you’d have a great counter. Since that’s not reality though, its a Strawman response at best. Its Whataboutism at its worse.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        The argument I’m replying to is a classic “not perfect, thus not worth it”. Its disingenuous and it calls for disingenuous reply. We are also pursuing renewables in despite of their political and technical flaws. The point is that all the flaws that OP exposes about nuclear power also applied to renewables (at one point in history solar power was 10x more expensive than nuclear) and also to oil. They are status quo defending arguments designed to halt thought, paralyze action and scoff change. Just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t better.