I should be concerned by the tenor of the writings of some who post here?
Expressing opinions should not include denigrating, abusing, or insulting others who post?
However, I learned a lesson when still a young man.
I was in a park, and observed two old men arguing heatedly.
It went on for some time, and I was understandably alarmed.
Suddenly, one looked at his watch, and said in a pleasant voice: 'I must go for my bus now'.
The other said calmly, 'ok, see you next time then'.
They then parted on friendly terms.
They were in reality 'good-mates'.
I realised their arguing was their way of letting off steam.
A way of feeling emotions they would otherwise not be likely to enjoy.
It was something which made them feel alive.
People have a 'war-like' streak in them, and need to experience some form of aggression?
As long as we are aware of this, and direct our emotions wisely, all will be well?

"People have a 'war-like' streak in them, and need to experience some form of aggression?"

I'm not entirely sure it's aggression.

Fester,

Let’s start with your lie: I never claimed that "normally operating nuclear plants cause harm." You know it, and you’re banking on the hope that no one else remembers the context.

My point was - and still is - that no energy source is risk-free, and pretending otherwise is propaganda, not analysis. You turned that into a straw man because it’s easier to attack a cartoon than an argument.

For someone who falsely accuses others of lying, you certainly tell many yourself.

Your sudden concern for Euthyphro is ironic, since that entire dialogue is about exposing people who claim moral certainty without understanding what they’re talking about. Socrates questioned arrogance parading as virtue - a category you’d fit neatly into.

And spare us the Peter Ridd sainthood. He wasn’t punished for "finding coral," he was disciplined for trashing colleagues in the media and breaching policy. Turning a workplace dispute into a Socratic tragedy is just theatre for people who can’t tell philosophy from grievance.

If you want to discuss argument as understanding, start by understanding what was actually said - not what you wish had been said.

Dear uncle Bonger 1405.

That’s a conspiracy theory!

Golgotha hill is the ancient equivalent of the Grassy Knoll of JFK fame.
Always a conspiracy lurking around to nibble on; such one is Charlie Kirk’s wife and Donald Trump are hot. Makes me laugh, but is it true?

Nurumberg Dan,

That's true it could be a conspiracy theory, although the Bible could be the conspiracy theory, and my narrative the truth. Then again a lot of it's fake news stories. In any case the Illuminati had a hand in it. As for "hot", well Donald does like em' hot in black, it matches his black silky pyjamas, never the less, with Donald its just another Stormy in a tea cup.

John,

I'll start by quoting you, and note that unlike you, when I quote someone I put statements that they actually made in italics.

"Let’s start with your lie: I never claimed that "normally operating nuclear plants cause harm." You know it, and you’re banking on the hope that no one else remembers the context."

Hmmm. Here's another quote you made in the dim dark past:

"Yes, nuclear power plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Cumulative radiation exposure, even at low levels, can increase health risks, particularly cancer and leukaemia, as indicated by studies like the KiKK study in Germany (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/)."

This is why I think that you suffer from a psychiatric condition, but at least I am grateful that you didn't say, "We've been through this before." or some such.

"Your sudden concern for Euthyphro is ironic, since that entire dialogue is about exposing people who claim moral certainty without understanding what they’re talking about. Socrates questioned arrogance parading as virtue - a category you’d fit neatly into."

Again, the dialogue contrasts the use of argument as a means of persuasion against its use as a means of examination. Note that at the end of the dialogue Euthyphro excuses himself so that he may prosecute his father over a matter the argument has shown to be flawed, demonstrating that he has learned nothing from it. That is why the dialogue reminded me of you, John.

"And spare us the Peter Ridd sainthood. He wasn’t punished for "finding coral," he was disciplined for trashing colleagues in the media and breaching policy."

I don't think him a saint, and the High Court determined that his "trashing of colleagues" for exposing shoddy research was within his scope of academic freedom and was nto grounds for JCU to discipline him.

Socrates set an example of using argument to increase our understanding of the world. As an example of its value, Dr Ridd used argument to examine the dangers of nuclear energy. Like Euthyphro, I doubt that you will profit from his efforts.

https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/duttons-nuclear-push-triggers-usual-anti-science-fallout