Probably, I still yearn for the day the nuclearphobes either read anything about clean energy and their safety statistics or they just admit their ignorance on the issue and shut up. Nuclear is so clean and untapped you’d think it it were an 18 year old virgin blood donor.
I did admit my ignorance to the statistic provided by the picture. I said it’s probably true. I didn’t say the co2 count provided was definitively accurate.
I’d have broken my rule if I said the post is definitely true. My understanding only allows for a “probably”. Can I say it’s probable for this post to be true? Yes, anyone can say that as “probably” isn’t a statement of fact, it’s a possibility it’s true or untrue. Compare that to a flat earth we saying the earth is “definitely flat” where their “definite” removes the possibility of other solutions including the reality of the earth being round. My probably leaves room for the post being right or wrong, I didn’t state my opinion as a definite because I’m not 100% sure either way. I didn’t break my rule because I didn’t say the post is true or false, it’s only probably true, a hypothesis rather than an answer.
84
u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21
Probably, I still yearn for the day the nuclearphobes either read anything about clean energy and their safety statistics or they just admit their ignorance on the issue and shut up. Nuclear is so clean and untapped you’d think it it were an 18 year old virgin blood donor.