Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobie-Pedaller
that statement can definitely go BOTH ways here, including with all those in "denial mode".
|
Funny I wasn't going to bring it up but I'd say ignoring the scale of the pollution in comparison to the scale of the Pacific is absolutely a form of denial.
In fact you're ignoring the most important fact involved. The fact you can't see that may just show how deep your denial goes.
Say I told you that planets have been destroyed by the impact of asteroids, and meteors. Then stated that thousands of celestial bodies like meteors hit the Earth every day. Both are true and factual.
I supposed you could then say we are all in imminent danger. Then when others do not agree with you, claim that anyone who doesn't think so, that people who try to DENY that there is any possible chance, that there is any possible risk factors involving the possibility of a major meteor strike for the people of Earth, are all merely in "denial" mode.
That would ignore a significant issue, the scale of the things involved and the resulting probability of a major celestial catastrophic event in our lifetime.
I don't deny the facts involved with the spill. I just think your conclusions are biased and wrong because you ignore both scale and probability.
Could a particle of that radiation end up in a fish off our coast. Yes it could, but given the scale of the pollution spilled and the scale of the Pacific it's highly improbable, and not likely to happen.
Oh and I tend to find when people start saying things like everyone who doesn't agree with them is in denial, or they are like a young child shaking their head saying na, na, na, na, na, na, na, when you are trying to talk to them. Well I'd say that's someone who does not handle disagreement well, has a closed mind, and feels he has to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them so they can then completely ignore any possible validity of their arguments.