Brian H wrote:
Not particularly. Just taking the reasoning to its conclusion. A car is dangerous in the hands of a fool or a texter or cell-phoner. Is the solution to get rid of cars?

“Taking the reasoning to its conclusion” – Isn’t that the definition of “reductio ad absurdo” or something like that? I always mix those things up.

I didn’t say anything about getting rid of cars. I used cars as an example of tradeoffs people make. But the risk is very real. The danger is there. Have you ever been in a car accident? Lost anyone to an accident? This is why they spend billions on highway safety, car safety, licensing drivers. It’s dangerous.

If you don’t acknowledge the danger, if you don’t know what it is, you aren’t consciously taking a risk, you’re just acting out of ignorance and denial. It’s once you understand the danger that you can calculate the tradeoffs and make an informed choice.

Denying the dangers is counterproductive. You started this cycle by saying:

Brian H wrote: Fission is nothing to fear. It is expensive, but not dangerous–aside from decrepit plants run by decrepit countries, like the Chernobyl disaster.

I pointed out that statement was not accurate. There be risks and dangers. You may feel they are worth the gain, but being worth it is not the same as not existing at all.

“Nothing to fear.” You said. “Not dangerous”.

Then…finally, you acknowledged the dangers.

Although, now, you’re backtracking.

What was that word you used?

Silly.