Climate Denial, i.e. Free Speech Now Subect to Prosecution

[socialist]

I agree with letting people have freedom of speech, but as for the best ideas winning out in the long run... not so sure. After all, humankind has been around for thousands of years and yet religion is still here.

Also, for some ideas, like Nazism and communism, the long run may be too long and one could argue that less harm would be done by violating free speech rights to stamp them out than to let them gain too much sway and inevitably cause millions of deaths.

Ignore the FACT that the Earth cycles through 100,000 year periods between full ICE AGE and full Inter-Glacial and the FACT that they know sea levels for instance fluctuate over 600 FEET between the two extremes. Ignore that the last ice age ENDED around 14,000 years ago so that if we follow normal cycles the Earth WILL warm for another 40,000 years or so ... and then get colder.

Various petition sites have been posting the graph showing GHG emission with Canada spewing an atrocious Conservative-inspired 1.7% of ALL emissions. This graph is idiotically fraudulent. Here are some quick FACTS.

THE number one GHG is water vapor and it accounts for 95% of ALL Green House Gasses. 95%!! OK. That leaves a whole 5% of other types of GHG. The overall estimate is approximately 215 Gt's and man produces less than 9Gt's which is just less than 5%. So Canada produces 1.7% of 9 Gt's which is less than 5% of the "other than water vapor" totals.

1.7% of 5% of 5% and they tell us if WE shut down everything (as in EVERYTHING) well maybe that will save the planet. Of course our new political masters don't want us to know the truth because they can TAX the schnot out of us and all the low IQ/low INFO citizens (the same ones who voted) will be HAPPY to pay the extra tax because the Masters tell them they will be saving the climate and the planet for their children.

[Michael Hardner]

While I agree that the 'vaccines cause autism' argument is dangerous I certainly don't agree that it be suppressed largely because I don't trust the processes used to decide what should be suppressed and what should not be suppressed.

Understood, and I think that your point of view on this is reasonable.

The grey areas in these things are very difficult to manage because they sit on foundations that are subjective, eg. what is 'harmful', how much do we need to protect people from themselves, etc.

It is not a lot different from the death penalty which I can support academically for anecdotal cases but reject it as an option because I don't trust the processes used to determine if someone deserves such a penalty.

And that's an analogy I would never have considered, but it's apt. Humans can only be principled to a point, however every individual believes themselves to be objective and free of influence. For that reason, humans actually had to invent subjectivity... group think and other human factors would otherwise hold us back from disagreeing with the king, the big man, the renowned scientist...

[Michael Hardner]

Ignore the FACT that the Earth cycles through 100,000 year periods between full ICE AGE...

This is just spam. Ice ages and nonsense like that only snag the most obtuse dupes on the pile. Go and look back at argument from years ago and opine on that. This is the thread where the topic of ice ages belong:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/19856-climate-change-looking-back/

[GostHacked]

Leaving 'the moon is made of cheese' into the marketplace of ideas is fine, but not 'vaccines cause autism'. The second argument is dead wrong, and designed to fool people... the results of which can impact others.

So what causes autism? And why do we have an increasing amount of children diagnosed with autism? Something is causing it.

[Michael Hardner]

So what causes autism?

I don't know. Why would you ask me that ?

And why do we have an increasing amount of children diagnosed with autism? Something is causing it.

Are you saying that those two assertions by you bring vaccines into question ? That would be something.

[GostHacked]

I don't know. Why would you ask me that ?

Are you saying that those two assertions by you bring vaccines into question ? That would be something.

How many shots are children getting compared to you and I when we were kids. I know this is about climate change so I will stop it there.

If climate change was such a big deal why do we keep building on the ocean front? Reports as of late indicate the M.E might be inhabitable due to rising temperatures. The M.E. is already practically uninhabitable from decades of war. Why do we see the influx of refugees, because of climate change? /facepalm

[Michael Hardner]

How many shots are children getting compared to you and I when we were kids. I know this is about climate change so I will stop it there.

I really appreciate the attention to thread drift. I think we should just resurrect another thread on this topic. Suffice it to say that I don't think you understand cause and effect vs correlation.

If climate change was such a big deal why do we keep building on the ocean front?

People live in denial of reality all the time.

Reports as of late indicate the M.E might be inhabitable due to rising temperatures. The M.E. is already practically uninhabitable from decades of war. Why do we see the influx of refugees, because of climate change? /facepalm

I don't think that's the reason.

[GostHacked]

I really appreciate the attention to thread drift. I think we should just resurrect another thread on this topic. Suffice it to say that I don't think you understand cause and effect vs correlation.

People live in denial of reality all the time.

I don't think that's the reason.

It does not matter what you think. It does not matter what I think.

I see many articles touting that prediction of climate change affecting the M.E. Not that I believe any of their tripe. They are looking 90 years into the future when there is a more immediate crisis happening right now in the M.E. War is making the M.E uninhabitable NOW.

Edited November 10, 2015 by GostHacked

[-1=e^ipi]

'vaccines cause autism'. The second argument is dead wrong\

If people want to argue that vaccines cause autism, then so be it. I'd rather the people who believe that vaccines cause autism try to engage with others about their beliefs, which results in the potential for this individual changing their mind, rather than never have the discussion.

[-1=e^ipi]

The M.E. is already practically uninhabitable from decades of war.

Speaking of uninhabitable, which is more uninhabitable?

Near the South Pole:

Or near the Equator:

[Michael Hardner]

I see many articles touting that prediction of climate change affecting the M.E. Not that I believe any of their tripe. They are looking 90 years into the future when there is a more immediate crisis happening right now in the M.E. War is making the M.E uninhabitable NOW.

I see your point, but it's OT. They're looking to shut down companies' ability to spread perceived misinformation about climate change, that's the topic.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd rather the people who believe that vaccines cause autism try to engage with others about their beliefs, which results in the potential for this individual changing their mind, rather than never have the discussion.

...and have people die of diseases too ?

If so, then I get it. Our disagreement is based on different values and we have argued this point to a logical end.

[-1=e^ipi]

...and have people die of diseases too ?

Why do people have to die? Just mandate that all kids must be vaccinated and any parent that doesn't follow with the law gets fined, imprisoned or their children taken away.

Our disagreement is based on different values

What's your value? That free speech is bad? Well the pope, Hitler, Stalin and ISIS certainly agree with that.

[Michael Hardner]

Why do people have to die? Just mandate that all kids must be vaccinated and any parent that doesn't follow with the law gets fined, imprisoned or their children taken away.

You're kind of leapfrogging the discussion, though. We were talking about [OT] the limits to free speech, presumably with the consequence that certain free speech has an impact.

It doesn't make sense to have the free speech discussion if you add this part.

What's your value? That free speech is bad? Well the pope, Hitler, Stalin and ISIS certainly agree with that.

Go back and read the thread. You're jumping in half-way and missing it.

[-1=e^ipi]

the limits to free speech

limits? Fraud. That is the only reasonable limit that I see can be justified from a consequentialist point of view.

[Michael Hardner]

That is the only reasonable limit that I see can be justified from a consequentialist point of view.

Ok. So the examples I gave are good then ? I'm not familiar with the limits of consequentialism.

[-1=e^ipi]

People having incorrect beliefs is not fraud.

[Michael Hardner]

People having incorrect beliefs is not fraud.

But you can contain the harm from their stupidity to their own bodies by taping their mouths shut... perhaps only figuratively. The consequence is healthy children, and more fuel for forum trolls to get upset.

[biotk]

So what causes autism? And why do we have an increasing amount of children diagnosed with autism? Something is causing it.

Better detection (in the past far more children within the ASD would have gone undetected).

Classification creep (the definition of autism has expanded immensely and what in the past would have been classified as autism now only makes up a small percentage of ASD).

Classification substitution (I have an uncle who if he was born today would undoubtedly be classified within the ASD and remain in the home. 60 years ago he was classified as having mental retardation and institutionalized).

People are older when they have children.

Due to educational opportunities expanding for both men and women, people who have ASD-like tendencies are more likely to go to university together, get married and have children. In the past you were more likely to marry the girl/boy down the street, so the likelihood of two people who have ASD-like tendencies finding each other was decreased compared to today.

There has been a lot of research into environmental causes (including vaccines) mainly because people/the general public like to pin things on environmental causes. So far, I agree with the experts that evidence supporting environmental causes is almost non-existent.

[Michael Hardner]

Keeping in mind thread drift... what we have here is a parallel example (Autism and Vaccines) and a question / answer pair that addresses the controversy itself. The topic, though, is whether the "truth" can/should be mandated by law.

[-1=e^ipi]

But you can contain the harm from their stupidity to their own bodies by taping their mouths shut... perhaps only figuratively. The consequence is healthy children, and more fuel for forum trolls to get upset.

Who is the objective arbitrator of what is correct and what is incorrect?

'We must prevent the stupid people from questioning our religion and harming our feelings, so we need to have blasphemy laws and should kill apostates.'

'We must prevent the stupid people from harming the greatness of the aryan race, so we need to put them all in concentration camps.'

'We must prevent the stupid people from harming the utopia of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so we need to put dissenters into concentration camps and ensure that their kids and grandchildren are also punished.'

'We must prevent the evil MRAs from questioning our view of gender/sex issues, so we need to imprison people that disagree with feminists on twitter, ensure that those that disagree do not find employment, and pull fire alarms to prevent discussion.'

etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Who is the objective arbitrator of what is correct and what is incorrect?

Who is, or who should be ?

Those are some good examples of controlling information.

[-1=e^ipi]

Who is, or who should be ?

Whichever. How does society fairly decide who should be able to determine what speech is 'correct' and 'incorrect'? If there is no fair method, then it is better not to restrict people's freedom of speech.

[GostHacked]

I see your point, but it's OT. They're looking to shut down companies' ability to spread perceived misinformation about climate change, that's the topic.

I would say the government spreads enough misinformation about climate change as well as others. Agendas. And whatever the agenda is, you and I are going to pay for it , at least twice.

[Bonam]

I don't really agree with you here. I'm a consequentialist, so I justify freedom of speech due to its good outcomes, rather than due to some 'inalienable rights'. I'm not even sure these fundamental principles you refer to exist.

Well, I don't believe in "inalienable rights"... clearly, it's very easy for these rights to be taken away by a tyrannical regime, hence they are far from inalienable. As for "good outcomes", these are largely impossible to predict.