GreyEyedGhost

It also caused a bunch of Russian soldiers to get sick because they dug holes in the ground. It isn't a nuclear paradise, and I'm not interested in Chernobyl-grown food, but it isn't a complete wasteland, either.

Atomic transmutation is never easy, and the only thing that really scales is a nuclear reactor. And not just any nuclear reactor will do - breeder reactors are the only ones that make it in any quantity. If you want to make this using a cyclotron or with centrifuges, a lot of the diagnoses and treatments we take for granted today will be almost completely inaccessible and only available to the very wealthy.

If you want to find out what the average person thinks, polls from 1000 to 5000 people work. If you want to educate the average person or get the opinions of already-educated people, those are different tasks.

I generally agree, given that geothermal and solar keep getting cheaper, and now cost less than nuclear or are at least competitive, but nuclear plants do more than just provide energy. Where do you think medical isotopes come from?

First, I love how you got upvotes for saying, "I didn't bother even trying to find any evidence before posting." But that's not on you.

Second, murders are usually followed up on in the developed world, at least to some degree.

Here's a BBC article. 20% in the UK (I found other regions with higher amounts, but I'm okay with this one). Note also that we are talking about something that is incredibly unlikely. 30,000 deaths worldwide per year of women in relationships by their partners. Assuming half of adult women worldwide are in relationships and noting there are about 6 billion adults gives 1.5 billion women in relationships. Note that the country with the highest rate of singles for both sexes is at 25%, so this is pretty conservative. That is a 2 in a million chance per year. Assuming women are in relationships for 60 years because, why not, puts your risk at 120 in a million of being killed by a partner over your lifetime. That is about 1.2 in 10,000, which is about 10 times as likely as dying from general anesthetic.

So now that we've determined that 1.2 in 10,000 men are killing their partners, and I will happily acknowledge that domestic violence is much more prevalent as long as you acknowledge that depending on region, 40% of victims of spousal violence are men (279000÷(432000+279000)), why would we waste our time targeting men for awareness of spousal violence when most men aren't doing it and a significant part of the people who are doing it aren't men?

So we have a problem that is done by a tiny minority of one demographic, and a third as many of the population that aren't part of that demographic, yet you insist that demographic is the key factor in the problem at hand, and I'm supposed to believe I, who haven't committed this act, am a part of the problem.

If you want to keep believing that the core issue is that men (or generally people with high testosterone) tend to be more violent, is the key issue, and not that there are people of either gender who wish to treat others as objects and believe their feelings are more important than other people's well-being, well, who am I to stop you? But you might find it easier to teach people that other people have agency and as many rights as them than you will trying to teach men that being a man is a problem. And you might reach 33% more people at risk of engaging in spousal violence than if you just look at men.

As for the whataboutism, I'm speaking of spousal violence, in which you and the person in the article seem to believe only happens in one direction in any significant amount.

While studiously ignoring 25% of the problem. Gotcha.

Well, I guess if only one in four of these "always men" are women, that doesn't count.

That's a very hyperbolic statement, and studies suggest about a quarter of spousal murders are committed by women. Closer to 3 in 8 in America.

Fair enough, thanks for the reminder.

I never took it as an accusation, more of an insult. I honestly don't remember if he doubled down or not, but I do seem to recall he backed off after threats to sue. Dangerous insult to use. - if you call someone an asshole, it's pretty clear it's hyperbole. Pedophile, not so much.

I'm curious, too. I just don't see a lot of right-wing voters buying Tesla to own the libs.