|
Edited on Fri Jan-26-07 09:42 PM by NNadir
I have a distinct impression of who those people are.
To be perfectly frank, there are some people here who upon asserting that they have passed through grade school would do better not to mention the school in question, since they will besmirch its quality.
It happens that asserting a number that is wrong in a question of, say sampling, that irrespective of one's formal level of education, suggests something about whether, in fact, the education was worth anything. Frankly there are people with advanced graduate degrees who are extremely poor thinkers. I've known a number of these people in my lifetime and I still encounter them frequently.
I am perfectly satisfied with the manner in which I insult people, which I find appropriate to the level of thinking I am addressing.
It happens that a large percentage of my posts in this forum are about nuclear energy, not 95% as you assert without any real evidence, but certainly more than 50%. However this should really not be unexpected, since this is the energy forum. My position, strongly held, is that the best form of energy is clearly nuclear energy. Now, if one were discussing energy in a totally randomized fashion, one would have a certain statistical probability of discussing nuclear energy because, as it happens, there are only a few forms of primary energy available on earth. These forms all derive other from nuclear processes (nuclear energy and geothermal energy) or from the solar flux (solar, wind, hydroelectric and tidal) and from the stored solar flux, fossil fuels. Thus - again randomized - the statistical probability of discussing energy derived from nuclear processes in an energy forum would be 33.3% percent.
But there is nothing randomized about me.
I have argued that the energy derived from the immediate solar flux is inadequate to address the present crisis and the energy stored by the historical solar flux is unacceptable. Thus I discuss the nuclear fission form of energy, which as it happens, is the subject of vast ignorance and stupidity, some from people who indicate they have advanced graduate degrees.
It actually makes no difference whatsoever whether or not I am a shill. Most of my positions advanced here are identical with the positions of the nuclear lobby. I have no problem with saying this because I regard practically every statement made on the nuclear lobby's website www.world-nuclear.org as being irrefutably true. Thus I would have no ethical problem with working for the nuclear lobby since I would have to change almost none of my positions whatsoever. However, it is probably the case that to be an employee of the nuclear lobby, one would need to be cozy with power company executives, some of whom would advance notions that I frankly find absurd, like the notion that there is such a thing as "clean coal." Thus I would probably offend some, but not all, of the people who work in that industry.
It makes no difference either whether Johnny Ethanol is a corn lobby employee or not, although I have no problem whatsoever with suggesting that he is a shill, nor do I have any problem with him suggesting in return that I am a shrill. My positions are clear enough, and I still assert that I am right. Johnny Ethanol's positions are also clear enough, and I assert that they are silly and uneducated, irrespective of any degrees Johnny Ethanol may or may not have. If he does have degrees of any kind, I would suggest he would do a service to the issuing institution by not mentioning its name.
I like Xemasab. I often disagree with her - for instance on the subject of whether carbon sequestration is a plausible approach or not - but she is, unlike me, graceful, cheerful and very pleasant. Beyond the efficacy of the Carson sequestration plant, I also disagree with her about whether or not it is a big deal whether anyone calls anyone else a "shill." I think she's overly sensitive in this case because she is a power company employee. If so, she need not be worried. Her perspective, at least to me, is very worth hearing because it is about the world as it is actually happening and is not derived from naive ideals. I have no question about her right or her motivations to be here. She has a good job and an important job. Hers is precisely the perspective that political parties like the Democrats must have if we are to succeed at governing.
I don't give a rat's ass whether anyone thinks I am a shill or not. The nuclear lobby's positions are all supportable, whether or not the people who advance them are paid to do so or not. I hope the nuclear lobby is paying people to support their cause, because frankly the patent stupidity of the people who object to them needs to be addressed.
In general, if one is sufficiently skilled at thinking, one can determine quite readily whether the points made by the corn lobby, or the nuclear lobby, or the Exxon-Mobil lobby are true or not simply through the use of critical thinking.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
