They’re seismically isolated

Or much much longer. It’s not going anywhere. It can’t escape its cask, and outside human intervention the casks won’t be breached. It’s just locked-up metal that gives off some radiation, fully contained within the cask. It isn’t oozing green goo.

The casks waste is stored in would take bunker buster yields to breach.

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site. Waste certainly isn’t the main issue, though it’s portrayed to be. Cost of deployment and staffing are more prohibitive issues, and both are surmountable. I don’t think it’s a bandaid for all power issues, but it’s a powerful tool that should be used more often, not phased out.

“Doesn’t believe in transgenders”

Genuinely funny.

My fiancée, for one. My close friend as well. Not every trans person feels dysphoria the same, or even at all. Don’t presume to know other people’s journeys or preferences, we’re all different.

You saw it too huh

It’s a reference to Noah’s Ark, where God supposedly flooded the whole world except two of each animal and Noah’s family, then put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol that He’d never do it again. Young Earth Creationists and their like take the story as fact, despite the fact that such an event would have put humanity well below the number of people needed for a stable gene pool, and that two of an animal likely wouldn’t repopulate an entire species. I digress.

Jesus Christ. Take it down a notch, if you want anyone to take you seriously. Perpetuating a cycle of violence leads to lasting resentment and hatred. Sometimes violence is necessary to make voices heard, but that’s from the oppressed against the violence of their oppressors. Violence should never be used to control.

Surely this will not cause religious friction. I can see no flaws with this plan.

Solving a problem of violence with even greater violence seems to be shortsighted at best, and would probably cause more unforeseen future issues. I’m no expert, but surely there must be some nuanced position in between “cheer them on like a cage match” and “total authoritarian control over two peoples.” It just seems so reactionary and extreme to say “oh just forcibly disarm them and make them be nice to each other. With force.” It won’t cure decades of cultural friction and religious tension, and seems a bad precedent to set. On whose authority would this coalition act? They have the absolute power to dissolve two states? Could they do this to anyone they dislike? Where is the line?

Obviously you weren’t genuinely proposing this as a real solution, but reactionary takes like that just dilute the discussion and inflame emotions.

Authoritarian doesn’t mean exercising authority. Banning slavery did exercise authority, of the law, over slave owners, but it was anti-authoritarian. It took power, and authority, condensed wrongly in the hands of a few and, in theory, distributed it to the many, however effective it actually was.

Expressed well or not, you didn’t use any logical fallacies or resort to ad hominem attacks. I could disagree on every point and still enjoy the discussion just for the sake of respectful debate. Hope to run into you again.

I happened to read your last reply before it was deleted, and I have to give you props for disagreeing respectfully. I don’t see nuanced debates online often, and I’d much rather have a respectful discussion where we don’t see eye to eye. Have a good one, you seem dope.

I think the issue is that the “new” usage of “they” is seen as different, or incorrect, when that’s simply not the case. The strict usage of “they” as only a plural pronoun is not “correct.” It’s revisionist. Historically, “they” has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun, and it can be found in conversation and literature going back hundreds of years. At some point, we revised that they should be only plural, and that’s why it feels like things are changing in our current lifetimes. We aren’t changing how the word is used, we’re going back to how it’s been used for centuries.

Language is not a set of rules and strictures. It’s fluid, and the way people use words becomes grammatically correct. If these things could not change, then language couldn’t exist. You can feel uncomfortable that language has changed from what you’ve known, but don’t hold it back, or complain about the next generation. Language will change in their lifetimes too. Overall, it’s a good thing and pushes us to understand each other in the manner appropriate for the times. Right now, an easily recognizable and commonly accepted gender neutral, singular pronoun is more valuable to language than a strict usage or a new word for the use case.

“They left their bag.” “They went that way.” “I’ll find them later.”

All these examples could refer to either singular or plural cases, and maybe that confuses some people, but I think it’s very simple to determine with even the barest bit of context. It’s better than defaulting to “he” for any unspecified gender, as was “correct” for the last few decades, and allows for non-binary people to be referred to without needing oft-criticized neo-pronouns.

TLDR: Times change. We need to get with it.

It’s my name

Ricky Gervais is never obligatory

I don’t like the Democrats one bit. It frustrates me to have to vote for them. BUT, they aren’t the ones demonizing me and removing my healthcare because of an innate part of myself. I’m trans, and Republicans are doing their damnedest to kill us. Democrats aren’t helping, but they aren’t calling to put us on lists and remove all of our healthcare, or make it illegal for us to change our names. Being a casualty of the apathy of those that think it doesn’t matter makes me want to cry, every day. And we aren’t the only ones! There are so many other targets conservatives are hunting and actively trying to hurt (people that can give birth, immigrants, veterans, etc), and no vote is just letting them get away with it. The Democrats are complicit and aren’t doing nearly enough, I’d vote for a leftist even after the primaries if one had any chance of election, but right now I have no choice for my own self preservation than to vote blue.

Please, I beg you, think of those that are vulnerable and hurting if conservatives have power. It’s not a good choice to vote blue, but it’s the least bad one.

This is the funniest comment on this post, and I believe you entirely

My mother doesn’t have a mom and a step dad. She has a mom and dad. Her step dad is her dad, as far as she is concerned. Bio dad was just a sperm donor. Family is a choice, not blood.

Then hopefully you don’t expect women to take birth control or have an IUD.