|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 6, 2014 15:24:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 6, 2014 16:08:05 GMT -5
The author addresses the First Amendment toward the end of the article.
He is suggesting that people who knowingly lie about this should be held accountable, just as cigarette companies were (eventually) for denying that smoking is harmful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 6, 2014 16:12:01 GMT -5
No-one "denies" climate change (ie, man-made global warming). They just don't believe it because the evidence is laughable.
The very fact that proponents of climate change theory refer to skeptics as "deniers" (with its connotations of Holocaust denial) and suggest arresting them should tell you everything you need to know about the emotional, rather than scientific, basis of their argument. And they're becoming more strident, and more fascistic as the EVIDENCE for global warming becomes more and more scant. On The Guardian a couple of weeks ago, Nick Cohen wrote:
This is not science. This is just intimidation. Even if I believed in climate change (which I don't) I would be fundamentally opposed to these people and this movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 6, 2014 17:11:39 GMT -5
The author addresses the First Amendment toward the end of the article. He is suggesting that people who knowingly lie about this should be held accountable, just as cigarette companies were (eventually) for denying that smoking is harmful. Yes, he does address the First Amendment at the end of the article. This is what he says: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater poses an immediate danger to the lives of those in the audience because there is no time for rational consideration. Yelling "balderdash" at scientific articles poses no such danger and the author is an idiot for making such a stupid and false comparison. We give freedom of speech to those we don't like not for their sake but for ours. If they don't have freedom of speech, then we don't either. In the old Soviet Union, scientists who came up with results that did not conform to the Party line were purged. That is what this fool of an author is advocating here. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 6, 2014 17:41:36 GMT -5
People who want to restrict your right to free speech always bring up this shouting fire nonsense.
Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre doesn't pose any danger whatsoever. I know because I've tried it. Nobody reacts at all. I also tried it in a cinema. People just look at you like you're nuts. They don't all run blindly for the exit. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 6, 2014 19:15:03 GMT -5
I think you’ve missed it here, bob. Shouting “Fire!” in a theatre is a standard example of an exception to Freedom of Speech. Mentioning it does not mean that an author is comparing his particular topic to that standard example. Many people will take it that way, however, so this is a stupid and lazy way for an author to phrase his argument. The tobacco industry denied the dangers of their products for decades. Tobacco didn’t pose “an immediate danger to the lives” of smokers. People didn’t get sick after a few cigarettes. Harmful effects took years to develop. But eventually the tobacco companies paid large fines - not because of the harm they did, but because they had lied about it. Likewise, the state governments of Georgia and North Carolina should be held responsible for ignoring the known dangers of building on the coast if (when) disaster strikes. (These links from mcans a couple weeks ago) www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/13/global-warming-text-was-removed-from-virginia-bill-on-rising-sea-levels-www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/01/sea-level-bill-would-allow-north-carolina-to-stick-its-head-in-the-sandThink tanks and pundits and such, since they are just talking and not in enacting policy, probably can’t be prosecuted for delaying actions that could mitigate the problem. But I am confident (without being able to prove anything) that they are hurting all of us, particularly the next few generations who will face whatever disruptions are caused by increased temperatures and rising sea levels. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 6, 2014 19:37:45 GMT -5
I think you’ve missed it here, bob. Shouting “Fire!” in a theatre is a standard example of an exception to Freedom of Speech. Mentioning it does not mean that an author is comparing his particular topic to that standard example. Many people will take it that way, however, so this is a stupid and lazy way for an author to phrase his argument. I agree that the author is stupid and lazy.  The tobacco companies were producing a dangerous product that was harming people and their own research showed it. They chose to suppress those findings and continue to produce a dangerous product. That's reckless endangerment and is against the law. And that is not what this author advocated here. Once again Ray, this is freedom of speech. If you take away their right to say what they think, you have also removed your right to say what you want. Suppose some right-wing group staged a coup and started arresting everyone who says there is a global warming problem, saying that they are causing unnecessary panic. What would you do then? We eliminate the rights of people we do not agree with at our own peril. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 6, 2014 21:11:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 14:16:56 GMT -5
Two can play at this game...heheheh
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 7, 2014 14:49:49 GMT -5
God, how I detest Bill Maher. And what a liar. Nobody said they didn't believe in global warming "because we had a cold winter". He's making that up to get a cheap laugh. And it isn't just "scientists against non-scientists". Thousands of scientists reject man-made global warming. Another cheap laugh. I can't listen to the rest of it. The guy actually makes me want to throw up. And I don't mean just when he's talking about climate change. Can't stand him, period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 16:09:26 GMT -5
Well, I don't like him mich, either. He's too much of an iconoclast, and I do wonder whether he actually believes everything he thinks and says or does he use controversy to have material to use in his shows and interviews. But he is clever and extremely funny, except when he steps on some cherished feelings and beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 7, 2014 17:38:18 GMT -5
He's neither clever or funny.
|
|
