ValiantDust

I also hate discussions with people who miss my point and argue against things I never claimed.

But what if it turns out we do need it in 10 years?

That’s the point, we likely wouldn’t have any new nuclear power plants in ten years, even if we started planning them now. The one they are building in the UK was started somewhere around 2017 I think and maybe, fingers crossed, it might be finished by 2029. Right now the estimated cost is around £46 billion, up from originally about £23 billion.

That’s one plant. We need many more for any relevant effect. Not even starting on the fact that nuclear energy is very inadequate for balancing out short term differences in the grid since you can’t just quickly power them up or down as needed.

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we’d have them by now.

That might be true, but how is that helping us right now? That’s why I said it doesn’t matter how the horse died. It’s dead now. There are many faster solutions, why take the one that takes longest?

I deeply wish that people would understand that this horse is deader than dead. There is no Frankensteinian experiment and no virus that will bring it back to even a zombie-like half-life. So would you, please, please, just stop beating the poor thing.

It doesn’t matter anymore how it died, it’s really time to get a new horse.

Edit: Instead of just down voting, could you explain to me:

• How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?
• Who is going to pay the billions of Euros to build new nuclear power plants? The energy companies are not interested.
• Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades’ worth of nuclear waste we already have.
• How this is making us independent of Russia, our former main source of Uranium

I just fail to see any way how this could right now solve our problem.

In that case I don’t think you should go. Your son is 14, he will be able to tell that there is bad blood. Maybe sit him down and explain that you would like to go for his sake but think it’s too soon and you are not comfortable around them yet (without throwing blame on them, as difficult as that may be).

While I generally agree with you, I think we have to look at it from the moderators’ perspective, too. What are they supposed to do? Deal with the same persons every few weeks until hopefully some of them grow? Moderating a community is already a lot of (often thankless) work. I don’t think adding this would help finding and keeping good moderators.

Ultimately it’s not only about what is the most fair but about what tools are needed to keep a community running.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being a bit angry or jealous sometimes.

You shouldn’t throw your rage at the people around you or let your actions be driven by anger alone. But there are a lot of things one can very justly be angry about. I would even argue that some things one should feel angry about. Like when someone is mistreated.

Denying yourself negative emotions is not entirely healthy in my opinion, it’s more about the way you act on them (or don’t act on them).