Sustaining the Wind, Part I...

[NNadir]

24. Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, one of you sentences is actually right.

Last edited Sun Aug 16, 2015, 11:39 AM - Edit history (3)

I think I understand very well - from your writings here and nowhere else, since I certainly have no interest in knowing any more than that about you - what your conception of what you call "reasoning" is. I have little interest in these definitions by you, beyond bemusement.

Your quasi-sexual reference doesn't really matter to me; I have a sense of who is talking, and I am proud of the time and efforts I have taken to developing my mind, such as it is, and am unlikely to apologize to any fool who may object to my thinking. I will say that for most intellectuals, the regard for what people think of their reasoning is precisely equivalent to what is thought of them but no matter.

I also think it's pretty clear that person who has no conception of either the disciplines of ethics or science will certainly not be in a position to adjudge who does and does not have "the fundamentals" of either, no matter, but that said, another sentence in your limited response is actually correct.

It's this one:

"You START with a passion for nuclear power and END with a passion for nuclear power." Well, it's partially correct. One would need to know something about me personally to understand my end.

Now, I can't say that I would ever deliberately place myself in any kind of situation where a rote anti-nuke could know anything about me. It's not like I'm going to hang out with these kinds of people; as I've said, I find them morally abhorrent, and gave my reasons for doing so in my previous post, although in the present company, the contents that explanation were ignored, predictably, like the part about 7 million people per year dying each year from air pollution. The worst anti-nukes here, when they speak of me, are generally speaking on a subject they know nothing about. If one reads the rantings of anti-nukes, not only here, but anywhere, one quickly learns that they feel very free about discussing things they know nothing about. Most anti-nukes are completely ignorant of nuclear technology, but hate it anyway. It's rather like Pat Robertson discussing evolution.

But you are correct about one thing: I am very, very, very, very, very, very clearly passionate about nuclear power. I consider it the last, best hope of the human race, this after several decades of serious independent subject of the technology and I am more convinced of this than ever.

Again, I made clear how this integrates with my ethical views on my first post on Dr. Brook's website: Current World Energy Demand, Ethical World Energy Demand, Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come.

I am pretty satisfied that I made my case there about the nature of my ends with respect to my passion for nuclear energy. It matters not a whit of any particular anti-nuke can comprehend my personal views with respect to the ethical outlook therein described. As I've argued many times, it's not like these people are high functioning with respect to comprehension.

My liberalism is informed by my concern for the environment, followed closely by my concern for the weakest and poorest citizens on this planet. Pretty much everything else is secondary.

Cheers. Enjoy the remainder weekend.