You lying about the EU is actually dead on point to my claim that misinformation played a role in the Leave campaign. Me pointing that out may be inconvenient to the pro-Leave argument that you’re attempting to make, but an argument supported by falsehoods certainly isnt awarded any points.

Why do you keep asking the same stupid question despite me repeatedly outlining its flaws?

Are you aware that that example doesnt actually ban olive oil at tables or are you just functionally illiterate?

You keep demanding that that despite me repeatedly pointing out that preventing an explosion from taking place and preventing an explosion from destroying a nuclear power plant are different things. I guess since you adopted a losing argument youre just trying to change the argument.

What are you saying isn’t true? Use your nouns rather than nonspecific indicators like “that.”

I get it, you misread what I wrote and now you’re sticking with your misinterpretation because you realize that what I ACTUALLY wrote makes sense because youre afraid of being wrong. Dont be afraid, people make mistakes every day. The trick is to figure out that you’ve made a mistake and learn from it rather than…

Do you have an actual basis for those “understandings” or are they just unsupported claims that you were gullible enough to believe? They certainly dont seem like the result of actual research into how the EU works.

“Your thin logic seems to center around interpreting “going boom” as “explosions taking place AT the power plant” rather than “explosions DESTROYING the power plant.” Even if that misinterpretation was reasonable the first time you read that comment, the numerous times I’ve clarified that since you first read it…

A lot of the Leave folks seem to have known EXACTLY what they were voting for and be fine with that choice, but a lot of them seem to regret believing the Leave promises that cant be kept. Boris Johnsons recent column in the Telegraph is especially delusional.

My favorite thing about the Sun is how they waited until the day AFTER the vote to tell their readers about the likely negative consequences.

Why would I bother to provide you with evidence to support a claim I never made? Jesus Christ, maybe you just need to find someone to read for you.

I’ve repeatedly posted the same explanation for what sort of boom I meant. I kindly suggest that you learn how to read and stop whining about how I haven’t explained what sort of boom I was referencing.

I don’t care about your “perspective,” I wrote what I wrote. If you didnt read it properly or chose to take it out of context so it became nonsensical that’s on you, not me. If you merely wanted me to provide more details you should have ASKED rather than declaring my statement to be nonsense.

I LOVE LAMP!

Whether the plant is inoperable as a result of the explosion is a major portion of the statement that you claim doesnt make sense. Changing the scope of your argument with me would probably result in you no longer arguing against what I wrote - as we saw earlier when you tried to change it to preventing all explosions…

Obviously the containment failure would start at the weakest point, but I’m going to need something other than your mere opinion that it would result in a static fissure rather than explosive decompression that produces a debris field. The same goes for your claim that the volume of water is insufficient to allow for…

The explosive decompression I’m referencing wouldn’t be caused directly by the explosions themselves, itd be caused by a buildup of pressure that exceeds the design limits of the containment unit. How would the concrete make it more likely that the result would be venting rather than explosive decompression?

A boom certainly means an explosion, but the physical and radioactive consequences of the explosion still result from the explosion. What design features or experts can you point me towards that support your claim that failed containment of an overpressurized environment is unlikely to result in explosive…

A containment failure of pressurized gas seems to me that it would generate a potentially catestrophic debris field via explosive decompression. Even ignoring that potential, a power plant rendered completely inoperable because of excessive radiation seems to me that it would fall under the heading of destroyed.

A boom that destroys the entire power plant rather than just the reactor. Jesus fucking christ, that was the entire point of #2 in the list I posted earlier.