Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify. You're right, of course. I was using it in the spirit of the phrase "violent disagreement" which is meant figuratively.
Off topic, but the idea that the “violence” of ideas, where the only thing in play is your point of view, is somehow equatable to physical violence, where physical integrity is at risk, is one of the least endearing features of the 21st century so far.
I cannot overstate how dangerous to human prosperity this false equivalence is. It is a first-tier ideological scourge that we entertain at great peril both to critical thought and the notion of objective truth itself.
On the other hand, it’s an excellent proxy to clarify that an idea, position, or sometimes even an entire ideology or its sycophant exist for entertainment purposes only and must not, on their own merits, be taken seriously.
Are we really so isolated from the brutality of nature to think that the inconvenient beating of a butterfly’s wings is the same category of experience as being disemboweled and eaten alive by a hungry beast?
Or is it that the whole ideological sham of the violence of ideas is merely a cowardice, a poverty of ingenuity, a plea for clemency by virtue of infantilism?
The pen, or the thought given flight, is mightier than the sword.
That does not make an idea a sword. It is in character , spirit, reach, and endurance a very different type of thing. A sword can be forged from an idea, but an idea will never spring forth from a blade.
Hell in a hand basket, get off my lawn, and uphill both ways to school. Lol.
Yep you know better than the people who have the credentials you don't and the access to internal data you don't. I don't see what's holding you back from doing surgery, qualifications and context are no barrier to the application of your self-imagined expertise.
I don't claim to know better. But restarting a $1.5B plant after 2 years of inactivity and having a worker fall into a vat of radioactive water and still being at 300 CPM after a decontamination procedure is not normal.
Phrases such as massive red flag and bureaucratic nonsense were claims you knew better.
Who claimed the event was normal? A worker falling in non contaminated water would not be normal. Many things are bot normal and not emergencies. False dichotomy and straw man are logical fallacies.
Were the plant cost and status meant to support your claim 300 counts per minute was a red flag? They appeared irrelevant.
If I'm not, then we're not grounded in the same consensus-driven objective reality, making this conversation meaningless, and therefore not worth your time to reply further.
I care enough that I would trust assessment of their health and condition only to qualified professionals with access to the relevant information, just like anyone else that I care about
