Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Thoughty2" channel.

  1. "has flaws" is too soft of a criticism for something we'll sink billions of dollars into and will prove useless, forcing us to buy thorium technology from China because we refused to research it ourselves.
    9
  2. Mikelis Brown The Arab slave trade went on for much longer, we're talking about centuries of difference - how did we manage to enslave more people in less time? And we Europeans bought the slaves from African and Arab masters, so there's an overlap between what we did and the locals had already done. Get the fuck outta here with your revisionism.
    5
  3. LuckyDukeSeven Don't tell me about revisionism when you'll literally defend slavery as long as it doesn't involve plantation. The Middle East uses slave labour to this very day, and I'm not even going to touch the subject of sexual slavery. This is not justifiable just because Europeans used slaves in plantation.
    3
  4. LuckyDukeSeven Your arguments were made from the standpoint that I tried to defend European imperialism (I didn't) and that I pretended that only white victims of slavery counted (which is why you mentioned the ships being attacked by Muslim pirates). That doesn't necessarily mean that they're invalid arguments, but they don't actually address the argument at hand so they are irrelevant. >"Your entire first comment was revisionist BS, and tried to transpose this form of slavery on to Arabs" False. My comment was related to how one millennium of slavery isn't chump change like the other guy claimed. >"Easy - you transported ships of an entire race across the ocean" 12 million, compared to the Arab slave trade which was about 17-20 million. And those millions were often bought from locals, so at least a sizable chunk of numbers that are to blame on Europeans should instead be shared by the sellers. Also, some incorrect statements you're making about race. Let me guess, you're one of the racists who still calls people "coloured" and lumps people together. >"slavery by war was, it wasn't comparable to entire villages being taken" You're a horrible human being for believing that slavery by war is justified, and for believing that people who were complacent with the European slaver trade by selling them human beings deserve to not be blamed. Not to mention that the reasons behind war are often the same reasons behind imperialism/expansionism. Slavery by war has the same results, and the same origin - human suffering and large scale kleptomania. You having a quarrel with your neighbour doesn't justify invading his home and taking his family as a trophy, and certainly doesn't entitle you to point the finger at the traders who afterwards bought them from you. >"The sex trade of young children is indeed rampant in that part of the world. I don't know where you think Pakistan is" The Arab slave trade spanned from South East Asia to North America. >"We're talking about the African continent" I'm sorry, are you the rich kid who starts losing the game in the playground so you use the "I have the ball so I make the rules" argument? I was talking about the Arab slave trade, which opens the door to slavery in the Islamic world. It's rich that you accuse me of not knowing my geography right after claiming that this is about Africa, when you brought up the rape of Native American women. So which is it, you hypocrite? It's only about Africa when it suits you.
    3
  5.  @totalermist  solar installations on rooftops are only useful to power the house they're mounted on (apartment buildings cannot power themselves because they have too many households per square meter). If you want to have an industry or even a telecommunications service you need solar farms. Funny how people claim others are lying and then say outright falsehoods like pretending rooftop pannels can power a country.
    3
  6.  MunroM84  Germany us mining brown coal, though...
    3
  7. LuckyDukeSeven That's not an argument, I was replying to a comment, not the video itself. >"I'm not defending any form of slavery - don't try to attack me personally just because you made a stupid comment" It's not a personal attack, it's only related to your statements. You're willing to dismiss any non-plantation form of slavery. Don't accuse me of stupidity and don't backpedal. >"Your comment tried to pawn off atrocities committed by European powers" No, it didn't. Stop reaching so hard, you'll blow your rotator cuff. >"Those atrocities were far more devastating in their consequences than the a ship of Moorish pirates stopping a European cargo vessel and demanding ransom, or some blacks taking some other blacks as slaves after a tribal war." Why are you accusing me of trying to pawn off atrocities when you are this reductive about a millennium of slave trade? I didn't even bring up white slaves, so thanks for doing it for me. >"And sexual slavery? Once again, this is an orientalist fantasy that developed in Europe" Chai boys aren't real. And the way marriage is handled in some Muslim nations definitely doesn't reek of sexual slavery. Waiting for moral relativism in 3... 2... 1... >"The king was a bad man" Your whole comment is written from the perspective that I think he was a good king (fuck monarchy) and that I only think white people are victims of the slave trade. Not only you can't read, all your arguments are null and void.
    2
  8. LuckyDukeSeven Arab slave traders bought South East Asian slaves for customers in Egypt, Persian Gulf, Arabia, Somalia and even European colonial customers. You're literally telling me that slavery is what humans in their most basic state do? Then please explain what is wrong with European slavery if it's just so natural! And by the way, you're using a naturalistic fallacy. Rape can become common in the animal world under some circumstances, doesn't make it right just because it's in Nature's way of dealing with problems. I am telling you with a straight face that slavery is wrong, what the Europeans did was wrong, etc. - logically it follows that those who engaged in the same practice are not absolved of their wrongdoings by revisionism. I fail to understand what makes my statement so controversial.
    2
  9. jassLmhn Wrong. Someone deflected and I countered their revisionist opinions. I have already blamed Europeans for what they have done, what do you want from me? Sell myself into slavery to make a point? Obviously not, that would be ridiculous. So shut up if you have nothing to say. You people are illiterate and can't read basic English. Worse, you read something and understand the complete opposite.
    2
  10.  @Loopanyway  so because lobbyists breathe oxygen should we stop breathing too?
    2
  11.  @camillealexandrebonnes2682  objectivity deals with facts. If facts are negative towards one side and positive towards another, it's not a flaw from an objectivity standpoint. If you want to question objectivity, present a countering argument that exposes the subjectivity in the picking of the facts.
    2
  12.  @samarmajumdar573  he means geothermal.
    2
  13. @UCU30G17XriGiXEW9u7ITt3w that's the "best" part of the situation. I'd rather take a stroll through the Chernobyl exclusion zone than live 30 years next to a coal plant. There's no exclusion zones because coal plants don't need to obey any nuclear regulatory standards. You're inhaling that shit just like a smoker gets his lungs full of radioactive isotopes but there's no warning on the label. You're severely increasing the chances of dying of a horrible cancer but nobody talks about it.
    2
  14. The researchers at Oak Ridge dismantled their reactor and there was no corrosion after roughly 5 years. That problrm was solved decades ago.
    1
  15. Coal plants pump out more radiation than nuclear plants.
    1
  16.  @fpvllama3068  preferable to living next to a coal plant. Have you ever heard about how smoking actually makes you inhale radioactive isotopes that get stuck in your lungs and irradiate your cells? That's what it's like living next to a coal plant.
    1
  17. How is it flawed? Renewables aren't even economically feasible and require tax credits/subsidies to be worth adopting. They require too much area for the power they produce and their output cannot be controlled requiring secondary installations for energy storage. Nothing about this is flawed.
    1
  18. Thorium fuel is recovered from normal mining operations. Trucks and trains can be electrically powered.
    1
  19.  @willybee3056  You know what I meant. If things are transported in an electric train or truck you can't exactly claim the nuclear fuel requires fossil fuel to be transported. And having a powered cable for the train or batteries for the truck is much less damaging to the environment than batteries to power huge cities and industry.
    1
  20.  @willybee3056  "people assume, just because it is nuclear, there is no pollution or carbon associated with it" - and the same thing with solar and wind. The point is, solar and wind generate a lot less power. So sure, a nuclear plant will have impact because everything you build has an impact. But you'll get so much power out of it that it evens out.
    1
  21.  @willybee3056  "the last I heard was 250k yrs, before it was not a bio hazard" - the longer an isotope lasts the less radioactive it is. Thorium reactors can burn up the nuclear waste from older reactors and reduce the storage requirements.
    1
  22.  @willybee3056  if you have an hour to spare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE
    1
  23. Natural selection is the first point, not the second. Collective immunity would be the point at which those who are immune serve as a barrier to transmission because they can't get infected and transmit to the non-immune. That's not natural selection but a function of statistics where many people who'd be weak at fighting the virus are spared because of living among an immune population.
    1
  24. >promotes nuclear >"fossil fuel industry" You people make me sick with all the ignorance you display.
    1
  25. >micro Okay and you can't power cities and industry with that. You can't create free energy. If you put enough micro generators along a river to power a large city and factories, you have essentially did the same thing a dam does.
    1
  26. He's not pro-CO2 so that means nothing.
    1
  27. Geothermal is nuclear. For fuck's sake where do you think the heat comes from? Radioactive decay.
    1
  28.  @jjk087  you TWAT, geothermal is a shitty energy source. Can't be used except in certain areas and you're essentially fracking the region.
    1
  29.  @blackpearl1-477  "only using earth's internal heat alone and not using the nuclear decay" - my friend, where do you think the internal heat comes from...?
    1
  30.  @blackpearl1-477  okay, and do you know where that heat comes from? Radioactive decay. That is all.
    1
  31. Geothermal is essentially just tapping into the radioactive decay of isotopes in the Earth's crust. It's nuclear with extra steps.
    1
  32. Which is a very small percentage of usable land and thus limits solar/wind even more.
    1
  33.  @yann5489  "The point isn't that we need 100% renewable now" - but then it's like hiring a person with disabilities and giving them a simple job so that they feel good about themselves. I'm all for it, but at least let's admit the... limitations. If we're going to put solar and wind in a corner and let them do their own thing we can't be wasting time on coming up with the true energy source that's gonna power the backbone of every country. "most of wind turbines are put on fields where there is no ecosystem" - even if that's true taking energy away from the winds causes damages to ecosystems "downwind". This means less wind which can affect natural erosion and birds but also higher temperatures in the regions affected. Of course the differences studied are pretty small. But if we start building more and more at one point the effects on the environment will be observable.
    1
  34. No, they won't. Thorium is virtually unlimited.
    1
  35.  @MCWaffles2003-1  Parks may not have food but they're also not congregating hundreds of people all breathing the same indoor air.
    1
  36.  @totalermist  "Neither wind nor solar and especially nuclear are a one size-fits-all solution since those don't exist." - but nuclear fits into the existing system we have. A big ass power source connected to the grid that can have its output managed according to demand. Solar and wind are the ones that don't fit the mold because their power output cannot be regulated and thus require secondary stations storing the energy. "nowhere did I make the case that a country can be powered by installing solar panels on rooftops alone" - but rooftop solar panels are a cool off grid solution, when connected to the grid you barely make any money back from the excess production as you can only generate enough for your own needs. It's a neat novelty and the tax credits/subsidies make it attractive as it breaks even in about 10 years but covering a city in solar panels doesn't make sense. It's an individual choice to make, not a solution.
    1
  37.  @ep5acg  "The worst accident scenario at a coal plant is more in line with what we would trust a private company or government to manage" - coal plants pump out radioactivity like crazy - somehow we can trust private corporations with coal even though they burn material brought from the depths of the Earth contaminated with radioactive isotopes, but can't be trusted with nuclear power which is one of the most regulated industries in the world...
    1
  38.  @ep5acg  how is it specious? "You are using non-accident scenario nuclear power plants as your point of reference, yet you are replying to a comment about accident scenarios. Strange thing to do." - a non-accident with a coal plant causes unseen, nearly impossible to quantify damage. Unseen, nearly impossible to quantify damage can only be caused by a nuclear power plant in case of a disaster. Coal plants do in their normal operation what a nuclear disaster does.
    1
  39.  @ep5acg  "A coal plant is incapable of creating a disaster like Chernobyl" - CO2 emissions apparently caused a disaster that is requiring the states to spend billions in fixing the damage we caused to the environment If rising waters will displace millions, the heat will affect our crops and kill us with tropical diseases carried by mosquitoes... that's just as bad as the India-Pakistan war.
    1
  40.  @ep5acg  "fact is today our options are not "more boiling water nuclear plants" or "coal" as you are trying so hard to make it out to be" - I'm not "trying" it to be. Just saying that if you don't want to burn fossil fuel, renewable energy won't save us. If you don't want nuclear, you're gonna need to burn fossil fuel.
    1
  41. How is it deceiving?
    1
  42. There is a physical limit to efficiency. I think solar pannels max out at 30% right now and the theoretical physical limit is around 40% efficiency.
    1
  43. Thorium reactors can "burn" waste from older nuclear plants and shorten the decay of said waste.
    1
  44. Because we can't just build hydro everywhere and disrupt the hydrographic basin of every country.
    1
  45. No, I won't trust you. Mankind will survive either way because we lived through higher temperatures in the past, we'll just have to accept another standard of living. But the loss of biodiversity will happen either way if we make stupid choices. So if we're not saving anything, we might as well accept the climate change and go live in a slightly warmer Siberia to flee rising water and insects.
    1
  46. Hydrogen requires energy to separate water into H2 and O2. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, but a fuel.
    1
  47. Thermal is just nuclear energy with extra steps. The water injection into the porous rock has the same downsides as fracking, and when the water comes back up it brings radioactive isotopes to the surface that are often unregulated. I know it's only one study but an area around a geothermal station in Iceland was found to have higher cancer rates. Further study is necessary.
    1
  48. And other countries using the Euro?
    1
  49. @Sourav okay, now power a factory with several double crank presses and CNC milling machines. Your panels can power your own house and that's it - and it's only economically feasible thanks to tax credits/subsidies. Apartment buildings don't have enough footprint to power every house, which means powering a city from the rooftops can't work. Powering a country's industry? Not happening. You'd need large solar farms.
    1
  50.  Pentagon1337  tapping energy from hydro means using gravity to pull water to a lower height. The Netherlands contained the water by fighting gravity. They're trying to keep the water "up" or else the country floods.
    1