Perhaps my phrasing was bad. What i mean is if a person is legitimately motivated by reducing carbon emissions/pollution (as opposed to advancing a political agenda) they tend to be more open to nuclear power
Post by twetch#2022
correct
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 046
- Time
- 2020-05-15T14:36:11Z
- Signer
- 1sNJWUrAYfdxAKN1zGq3t9hwyR6ynQwas
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#2022
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1sNJWUrAYfdxAKN1zGq3t9hwyR6ynQwas VerifiedReplies (8)
When it comes to the ‘reasonable’ part - that works both ways, too.
Everything is Bayesian: Everything has upper- + lower-bounds.
I’d wager that blindness to range-maxes (and mins) contributes to many slippery slope arguments.
ie: It’s not only openness.
Folks less comfortable exploring boundaries see the lack of an ‘upper bound’ on logic as ‘unreasonable’, because it’s shortsighted.
‘Shortsighted’ - insomuch as the full context is either not considered or part of the argument.
And maybe this should probably be expected, too.
Those comfortable with exploration are perhaps more likely to throw caution to the wind, so to speak.
I think this just goes to show that depth of nuance is ultimately important, and that patience + ability to accept uncomfortable situations for long enough to have a true grasp on understanding .. is key to societal progress.