>It's impolite to accuse people on an HN thread of being deceptive.
It's impolite to do it everywhere. However, just like people "being rude" happens, people being deceptive also happens in HN as well as in "real life" -- in which case it's not longer impolite to call them on it.
But that's just theoritical. In this case I never accused anybody in particular, heck, I didn't even mention anybody. I said it's a deceptive tactic.
I'm not sure what you mean "it also doesn't add anything to the thread itself".
Identifying a deceptive argument doesn't add to a thread?
You might argue that I'm wrong in my identification of it as deceptive, but I don't see how you can say it doesn't add anything (in case it's true).
All I see you doing here is doubling down on your accusation that 'fridek is being deceptive. That's bizarre, given their actual comment. It's as if you read something you didn't like, and decided that the only way it could have appeared before you is dishonesty. No: some people just don't agree with you. You have no cause to call anyone a liar, and doing so is uncivil. Please stop!
Obviously something being spin doesn't mean somebody repeating it is deceptive or dishonest. Just some of them, and mostly those that originated it. Others merely repeat it uncritically.
Obviously again, Fridek, which I never mentioned at all, not even hinted at him, because I was answering my direct parent, can very much believe what he wrote.
>It's as if you read something you didn't like, and decided that the only way it could have appeared before you is dishonesty.
Actually it's like what I said is pretty clear, and you go out of your way to find some hidden attack beyond my words.
What I said of the thing said is that it's a classic spin.
Not that the one who said it on HN is a spinster or doesn't believe what he said, or is deceptive or anything.
If I'm right (and I think one can objectively say the argument is indeed misleading), then whether people who retell it believe it or not is orthogonal, as it doesn't make it any less spin.
[EDIT] Nuclear power supporters believe themselves correct, so pointing out the spin isn't an accusation of deception per se. [EDIT] They're not trying to fool us, just to advocate their position. It is still useful for undecided parties to notice the spin and take it into account.
EDIT: Admittedly, "trying to blind people" is not a charitable characterization.
"True believers" and "rose-tinted vision" and "spin" aren't particularly charitable phrases, either. You should engage with the opposing side's arguments instead.
Experience has taught that on the topic of nuclear power, HN is the wrong forum for that, for me. I tend to get wound up. 13years' original observation that radiation release should be compared on overall rather than "nominal" performance hasn't been contradicted in this thread, and my response to that is agreement. Others may prefer to discuss tone and comportment.
I hesitate to add anything else, but the following proposition doesn't seem to generate much discussion so perhaps it's safe. Consider the fact that regular power plants are regularly built by mostly private investment, while nuclear power plants are only built by the state. This suggests that nuclear power is not profitable in a strictly economic sense.
> Consider the fact that regular power plants are regularly built by mostly private investment, while nuclear power plants are only built by the state. This suggests that nuclear power is not profitable in a strictly economic sense.
That's quite possible, but if true, it just brings up the question of why it is not profitable. One might answer that it is not profitable because widespread public and media ignorance of the subject matter leads to NIMBY-ism that in turn makes construction too much of a hassle for private industry to bother with.
This thread seems to have been round-filed, but I think you have identified part of the problem. Significant portions of the public do not like nuclear power. It's interesting to consider the implication, that private investors are more responsive to this preference than the government that, in theory, the public elects.
