Good lord that article is frightening. Do people honestly want to imprison others based on what they believe?
English
-
I don't exactly support imprisoning politicians for denying both the harmful effects of climate change and pollution, and the coalition between the two. However, standing so strongly against it is when science has proven it time and time again is disturbing. If a doctor says smoking is dangerous, people turn away from it (excluding addiction and induction through peer pressure). If a doctor says Asbestos is dangerous, we remove it from our architecture. If an astronomer saw an asteroid hurdling towards us, don't you think we'd do what we could to prevent our destruction? Scientists and doctors tell us what cause cancer and other illnesses, yet politicians are so strongly against scientists on this subject. It seems like they're protecting something or hiding something.
-
It's a fake article. This guy makes shitpost a about a flat earth and stars not actually existing.
-
Bearbeitet von Stallcall: 5/2/2016 7:07:37 AMI know who he is. But Washington Times? It must be a legitimate article. Edit: Second article should confirm it. http://www.infowars.com/science-guy-bill-nye-lets-discuss-criminalizing-climate-deniers/
-
Bearbeitet von Autolycus: 5/2/2016 7:04:47 AM
-
Am I missing something? I'll try and find another article for corroboration.
-
It's not about the belief so much as the effects that are stemming directly from it. The denial of climate change tends to increase harmful manmade emissions, and is leading to ecological damage, which in turn hurts more people.
-
It's still persecution of a thoughtcrime. Merely [i]believing[/i] that there was no meaningful link between emission and global climate trends hurts nobody. If somebody wanted to press a legitimate case, they could hold people liable for what their emissions have done. I wouldn't personally support that case, but at least it has merit since it can possibly identify victims that have been harmed. Arresting somebody based on that [i]belief[/i] is morally wrong. It establishes that there is such a thing as a thoughtcrime.
-
It's nothing of the sort. It would be prosecuting them for not recognizing harm their actions/products are causing by refusing evidence. Essentially, it would be prosecution of a big tobacco executive for denying the link between smoking/chewing and increased cancer risk.
-
[quote]It would be prosecuting them for not recognizing harm their actions/products are causing by refusing evidence.[/quote] I [i]just[/i] made a large distinction. It's legitimate to charge somebody for the harms that they have allegedly caused. But charging somebody for [i]not recognizing[/i] the harms? That's like declaring them guilty because they plead innocence. Not [i]only[/i] that, but can you imagine the effects this will have on the scientific community? Any sort of experiments or studies that are regarded as trying to disprove the theory of climate change will be open to legal action.
-
No, it wouldn't. It would have no effect on that. It would be a company being held responsible for the toxic chemicals their factory is pouring into the air, and they cannot use the "but it's not real" excuse.
-
Read the article again. Nye [i]explicitly[/i] acknowledges the chilling effect on the scientific community. He even declares that it's a good thing. And there's a difference between being charged for the harms that you've caused and being charged for denying climate change. Not only that, but not being able to use the belief defense is ridiculous. The defense can be used. It's just up to the court to decide if it warrants a guilty verdict.
-
Look at it this way. The majority of "studies" that have tried to disprove human-involved climate shifts are either funded by groups who, incidentally, have a lot to gain from blowing it off, or are from groups of dubious credibility. And it isn't as if it would become some Inquisition. It would be if a group specifically began claiming it as fact. Essentially, the same coverage as the people who defend smoking as harmless, or that "conversion therapy" works.
-
Bearbeitet von Stallcall: 5/2/2016 6:38:26 AMAnd yet claiming that smoking is harmless will not land me in jail. Not only that, but money and intent aside, science is not rigid. Regardless of the motives of people carrying out these studies, it's ridiculous to say that science must ignore or censor their findings. Science used to hold that continents did [i]not[/i] drift apart. It was accepted as fact. It was ludicrous to suggest that continents shifted because of tectonic plate movements. It could have been written off as entirely certain, and any studies attempting to show continental drift could have been shut down. But that would be contrary to the nature of science. We can't establish a scientific doctrine.
-
Y'know what? I'd hate to live in a paranoid, fearful world like you do. You're afraid that this will lead to some sort of Orwellian dystopia, or something. Recognizing Climate change has wide-reaching benefits across the board, regardless of severity of our involvement.
-
I'm not arguing in support or against support of the recognition of climate change. Rather... 1) I take issue with the moral implications of arresting somebody based on their beliefs, and... 2) I recognize that science is not a belief system, but a methodology. As such, it's irresponsible to establish an unquestionable scientific doctrine.
-
It is scary