Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
14. "claim to be a "Professor of Ethics" and then LIE as much as Shrader-Frechette"
Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:52 PM
Dec 2013

So your basis for all of the name calling is a wiki article that doesn't even address her statement that material was withheld from the public while Strauss was on his too cheap to meter road tour?
.
I invite you to review the "liars" biography below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049#post12

You say she writes the papers because she rejects nuclear power. I'd say that given her qualifications, she is more likely to be against the nuclear industry because of the research she's done.

The nuclear industry and its lackeys on the internet just love to play the victim card. Who else do we know that makes being a 'victim' a mainstay of their defense against critics?


K&R cprise Dec 2013 #1
That's your notion of a "completely valid" argument? FBaggins Dec 2013 #2
Yes, it is. kristopher Dec 2013 #3
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. FBaggins Dec 2013 #4
Some background for those that don't have time to look them up. FBaggins Dec 2013 #5
Schrader-Frechette is DISHONEST PamW Dec 2013 #6
"claim to be a "Professor of Ethics" and then LIE as much as Shrader-Frechette" kristopher Dec 2013 #14
True, there's no surprise that you are defending the indefensible kristopher Dec 2013 #7
Once again... FBaggins Dec 2013 #8
I don't need to. kristopher Dec 2013 #10
Of course you do. FBaggins Dec 2013 #11
I'm not saying it, an ethicist is saying it. kristopher Dec 2013 #12
She didn't write the OP. FBaggins Dec 2013 #13
Nonsense? kristopher Dec 2013 #15
Yep FBaggins Dec 2013 #16
No I believe that your use of that criteria is fraudulent. kristopher Dec 2013 #17
It's "specifically mentioned" FBaggins Dec 2013 #18
She isn't "immunizing" anything. kristopher Dec 2013 #19
Misuse???? PamW Dec 2013 #9
Yeah... kristopher Dec 2013 #20
NOT IMPRESSED in the SLIGHTEST!!! PamW Dec 2013 #22
The details about how the Nuclear Industry is misleading kristopher Dec 2013 #21
kick for reference kristopher Dec 2013 #23
kick for reference kristopher Dec 2013 #24
Unscientific SIMPLISTIC analysis.. PamW Dec 2013 #25
Classical probability (i), relative-frequency probability (ii), subjective probability (iii) kristopher Dec 2013 #26
Common ERROR in calculating probabilities PamW Dec 2013 #27
"MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety" kristopher Dec 2013 #28
Repeat: "MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety" kristopher Feb 2014 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Chinese nuclear disaster ...»Reply #14