or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leftist Hate Speech

post #1 of 195
Thread Starter 
A thread where you can drop examples of leftist hate speech. There are two examples today and plenty more to follow. I likely won't go as far as the left does in continuing to claim generalized speech incites violent action and call for the suppression of speech, I'd rather be free thanks.

The first example today comes from Paul Krugman.

Now before discussing the word Krugman uses, it is important to understand the context from which he decides to use it. He is an American, under the American legal system using it in the United States.

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


So consider such when you read this passage today from Paul Krugman....

Quote:
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

In case that wasn't clear enough he adds this bit....

Quote:
In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Finally if the past examples weren't strong enough, we have the end...

Quote:
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.


Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

An unforgivable treason that no reasonable person can justify failing to act against because it is a clear and present danger against the planet, our country and future generations....wow.

He also equates denial of global warming to a terrorist threat and claims (wrongly) that we just ignored the rules for terrorism, so of course, why not ignore them for climate change deniers as well.

Second example is from the LA Times in which the States Speaker has some fun with words.


Quote:
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.

Isn't it nice to "guess" it is about free speech. Nice to be so certain about the so-called "fundamental rights."

If you don't support tax increases or heaven forbid, want to recall or vote against a politician for voting for them, you're a terrorist.

More to come....

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 195
Very appropriate words on CC by Krugman. I don't blame the ignorant, that are fed their views by corrupt politicians but I do blame those mostly repub politicians who are willing to sacrifice untold harm for their own benefit. Treason can sometimes be noble. CC denialist politicians are not noble and their actions amount to treason and terrorism.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #3 of 195
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #4 of 195
Anyone who denies rapid change in climatic conditions in the past several years due to human activity / inactivity needs to lay off the kool-aid. You are welcome to get out of your concrete jungle and come visit any third world country to have a view of reality. In the meanwhile we might end up going to war over water at this rate within the next century.

At least Krugman got your attention with his choice of words. Try to do something about it before it hits you on the face like this current economic crisis.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #5 of 195
Trumptman, what are you trying to accomplish by starting all these purposefully inflammatory threads?

Most of them appear to be motivated by hate or the desire to convince other people to hate. Which is kind of ironic given the stated topic of this thread.

Why not attempt to discuss how things should be instead of always focusing on getting people to hate each other?
post #6 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Trumptman, what are you trying to accomplish by starting all these purposefully inflammatory threads?

Most of them appear to be motivated by hate or the desire to convince other people to hate. Which is kind of ironic given the stated topic of this thread.

Why not attempt to discuss how things should be instead of always focusing on getting people to hate each other?

Killing or even blaming the messenger is an ad-hom fallacy.

Discussing my motivations as opposed to the thread contents is an ad-hom.

Discussing intentions (how things should be ) instead of discussing reality (what is actually happening) is delusional.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Isn't this thread a discussion of hate speech? Well, i'm discussing hate speech. The name involved just happens to be Trumptman rather than Krugman or leftist.

And that's against the rules. No negative comments about OTHER POSTERS. Stick to the topic.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #8 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

Anyone who denies rapid change in climatic conditions in the past several years due to human activity / inactivity needs to lay off the kool-aid. You are welcome to get out of your concrete jungle and come visit any third world country to have a view of reality. In the meanwhile we might end up going to war over water at this rate within the next century.

At least Krugman got your attention with his choice of words. Try to do something about it before it hits you on the face like this current economic crisis.

Some people just don't want to admit that what they do dramatically harms other people, especially concerning CC. They attack poor people with words to the effect of lazy scroungers, hmmm...how lovely. They attack large groups of the population with hate incessantly and inappropriately. Hideous exploitation isn't it. Who am I talking about specifically.....um.....Rush Limbaugh maybe, yes that's one good example I can think of. Who else...hmmm, I can't think of anyone right this very second.

Trumptman what are your thoughts on this aspect of this topic, you know, exploitation and hate?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #9 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

And that's against the rules. No negative comments about OTHER POSTERS. Stick to the topic.

I'll respect that rule. Although to clear, if there was a problem, it was that I commented on another poster, not that the comments were negative. There was no name calling or slander, but rather commentary on the content and motivation of their post. That includes the post of mine that was deleted from this thread.

It is slightly ironic that my post was deleted. (Not that it was the wrong thing to do, nor to start an argument about it)

It was ironic because that is the exact topic quoted in the first post of this thread. That some speech is being, or should be squelched because it is considered hateful. What does it mean? Heck, I don't know... but it did cause me to pause for thought.

It brings to mind the dilemma of: when it is OK to criticize or hate others? Is it better or worse to criticize and/or hate an individual as compared to criticize and/or hate an entire group? Is one acceptable in some situations but not others, and vice versa?

For instance, this thread is based upon the premise of listing bad things about a group of people. Specifically, listing hateful things said by members of that group. The entire group is thus portrayed badly by associating them with the comments of the unelected / alleged spokesperson. Again there is irony here, the premise of the thread is to reinforce the hating of that group, while at the same time decrying hate speech.

To me, the motivation for saying hateful things is an integral part of the discussion when discussing hate speech. But I'll refrain from addressing anyone on the forum directly. Hopefully, it is at least ok to point out the irony in a hateful portrayal of a group of people that are being accused of being hateful. Doubly ironic in that the criticism of hateful speech was censored while that hateful speech itself was criticizing the desire to censor hateful speech. Whew, I think my head just imploded as a result of the circular nature of it all.
post #10 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Some people just don't want to admit that what they do dramatically harms other people, especially concerning CC. They attack poor people with words to the effect of lazy scroungers, hmmm...how lovely. They attack large groups of the population with hate incessantly and inappropriately. Hideous exploitation isn't it. Who am I talking about specifically.....um.....Rush Limbaugh maybe, yes that's one good example I can think of. Who else...hmmm, I can't think of anyone right this very second.

Trumptman what are your thoughts on this aspect of this topic, you know, exploitation and hate?

I'd be more than happy to discuss specific quotes or incidences. However what I often encounter instead are folks who repeat the talking points and think in terms of the caricatures.

As an example... is wanting someone to fail hate? No.

Is leveling a false charge at someone due to a policy disagreements, a charge punishable by death hate? Yes. It is akin to falsely claiming someone lynched or raped you. Crimes call for a response, a punishment or a consequence and falsely charging them is meant to bring about ACTIONS as a response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I'll respect that rule. Although to clear, if there was a problem, it was that I commented on another poster, not that the comments were negative. There was no name calling or slander, but rather commentary on the content and motivation of their post.

Well, i'm discussing hate speech. The name involved just happens to be Trumptman rather than Krugman or leftist.


That includes the post of mine that was deleted from this thread.

It is slightly ironic that my post was deleted. (Not that it was the wrong thing to do, nor to start an argument about it)

It was ironic because that is the exact topic quoted in the first post of this thread. That some speech is being, or should be squelched because it is considered hateful. What does it mean? Heck, I don't know... but it did cause me to pause for thought.

From the OP, I likely won't go as far as the left does in continuing to claim generalized speech incites violent action and call for the suppression of speech, I'd rather be free thanks.

Quote:
It brings to mind the dilemma of: when it is OK to criticize or hate others? Is it better or worse to criticize and/or hate an individual as compared to criticize and/or hate an entire group? Is one acceptable in some situations but not others, and vice versa?

I find it interesting that criticizing someone is apparently a synonym for hating them based off the reasoning above. The dilemma is in conflating the two together. You can criticize someone without hating them. The ability to recognize this would resolve the dilemma.

Quote:
For instance, this thread is based upon the premise of listing bad things about a group of people. Specifically, listing hateful things said by members of that group. The entire group is thus portrayed badly by associating them with the comments of the unelected / alleged spokesperson. Again there is irony here, the premise of the thread is to reinforce the hating of that group, while at the same time decrying hate speech.

Perhaps it would be good to investigate a thesaurus or dictionary. It would appear several of the words you use do not have the understood definitions you assign to them and thus there is this impugning of premises, intents, etc. of the poster (me) by you due to these inabilities to understand.

Could you please point the passage in the OP that reinforces the hating of "that group." My examples allege specific crimes related to speech. They equate speech with action. They say speaking against a policy is treason or terrorism. They do not say it might convince someone to engage in treason or terrorism, they say it IS the crime.

Quote:
To me, the motivation for saying hateful things is an integral part of the discussion when discussing hate speech. But I'll refrain from addressing anyone on the forum directly. Hopefully, it is at least ok to point out the irony in a hateful portrayal of a group of people that are being accused of being hateful. Doubly ironic in that the criticism of hateful speech was censored while that hateful speech itself was criticizing the desire to censor hateful speech. Whew, I think my head just imploded as a result of the circular nature of it all.

You are welcome to show where you engaged in a multi-pronged discussion about the nature of hate speech, parties involved and effects and eventually had motivation covered as a facit of that.

The irony is none of that happened. Instead the post meets the classic definition of ad-hom which is why it was moderated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I'll respect that rule. Although to clear, if there was a problem, it was that I commented on another poster, not that the comments were negative. There was no name calling or slander, but rather commentary on the content and motivation of their post. That includes the post of mine that was deleted from this thread.

It is slightly ironic that my post was deleted. (Not that it was the wrong thing to do, nor to start an argument about it)

It was ironic because that is the exact topic quoted in the first post of this thread. That some speech is being, or should be squelched because it is considered hateful. What does it mean? Heck, I don't know... but it did cause me to pause for thought.

It brings to mind the dilemma of: when it is OK to criticize or hate others? Is it better or worse to criticize and/or hate an individual as compared to criticize and/or hate an entire group? Is one acceptable in some situations but not others, and vice versa?

For instance, this thread is based upon the premise of listing bad things about a group of people. Specifically, listing hateful things said by members of that group. The entire group is thus portrayed badly by associating them with the comments of the unelected / alleged spokesperson. Again there is irony here, the premise of the thread is to reinforce the hating of that group, while at the same time decrying hate speech.

To me, the motivation for saying hateful things is an integral part of the discussion when discussing hate speech. But I'll refrain from addressing anyone on the forum directly. Hopefully, it is at least ok to point out the irony in a hateful portrayal of a group of people that are being accused of being hateful. Doubly ironic in that the criticism of hateful speech was censored while that hateful speech itself was criticizing the desire to censor hateful speech. Whew, I think my head just imploded as a result of the circular nature of it all.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Intent

2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.

Desiring to discuss the state of a poster's mind is ad-hom. Long justifications don't change that point.

It would be very good at this stage to address whether it is proper to allege crimes against someone for policy disagreements or provide evidence for a counter-claim or argument.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 195
@Trumptman

Maybe your not one to see the deaths of millions of people from CC as need for ACTION. Climate denialist's at high levels are liars Trumptman, with big business obligations that stack wealth and power for themselves. Krugman gets this and is willing to say so. Hate speech it certainly is not. You reasoning, that treason is punishable by death, in this instance, is ironic at best.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #12 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Maybe your not one to see the deaths of millions of people from CC as need for ACTION.

Where are these millions of deaths of people from climate change that you speak of?
post #13 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Wow, quite a bit in that post to digest! Please, when quoting my posts, don't rearrange sentences and combine sentences from multiple posts into a single quote. It changes the meaning.

You mean it reveals the meaning.

Quote:
Obviously my criticism got you worked up. This indicates that my original post was too inflammatory, stirred up emotions that prevented logical discussion, and thus I kind of ruined the thread. For that I apologize. My goal wasn't to ruin the thread but instead to discuss hate speech using the thread itself as an example. I now see that my approach failed.

You really seem to prefer discussing your perceptions of my mind or emotional state to pretty much anything else. The thread is fine, please contribute something to it besides that.

Quote:
There isn't any need to continue harping about an ad-hom attack. Please note that my second post made no mention of you. It was an introspective look at hate speech, and discussion of hate speech, from an AI forum perspective.

See above.

Quote:
You asked what in the original post was hateful. I wrote out an extremely long reply to this but have opted to not post it. It would be difficult to address the topic without breaking forum etiquette. It would involve discussing the motivations of a forum member. In summary, it would have pointed out that 10000 posts gives us a fairly good idea of a poster's motivations and feelings about certain issues or groups of people.

So intentions, motivations and feeling but not a word or quote. I would suggest it was wise not to post more bad reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

@Trumptman

Maybe your not one to see the deaths of millions of people from CC as need for ACTION. Climate denialist's at high levels are liars Trumptman, with big business obligations that stack wealth and power for themselves. Krugman gets this and is willing to say so. Hate speech it certainly is not. You reasoning, that treason is punishable by death, in this instance, is ironic at best.

First millions have and will continue to die due to climate. Our earth is an unstable and constantly changing thing and that has been true in the past and will be in the future. Throughout history, those that wish to control the masses have asked to take actions and give up power so as to not anger the gods/weather or whatever factors they claimed they could influence or control. Those pushing human driven climate change are no different than those asking for us to toss a virgin into a volcano to prevent it from making the ground rumble.

Tomorrow another hurricane or earthquake could kill thousands. This will be true regardless of whether we are willing to slit the throat of a virgin or our economy in the name of the "greater good." Being unwilling to engage this as science, but instead in terms of hate deals with attempting to eliminate dissent from the discussion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Where are these millions of deaths of people from climate change that you speak of?

"When?" might be a better question.

From a historical perspective, changes in the carrying capacity of land and sea has lead to death from starvation as well as wars between empires. Entire empires and populations have disappeared or dwindled to fractions of their peak. These things tend to happen gradually and thus weren't well documented by the primitive people throughout history or pre-history.

Granted, these assertions aren't provable. But they are widely held beliefs among experts in the related fields.
post #15 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

"When?" might be a better question.

From a historical perspective, changes in the carrying capacity of land and sea has lead to death from starvation as well as wars between empires. Entire empires and populations have disappeared or dwindled to fractions of their peak. These things tend to happen gradually and thus weren't well documented by the primitive people throughout history or pre-history.

Granted, these assertions aren't provable. But they are widely held beliefs among experts in the related fields.

And yet, they are spoken of as if they were gospel. What I find interesting about the vague and all-encompassing climate change "debate" is a notable absence of any discussion whatsoever of the potential positive effects that might come about as a result of it. All we hear about are unprovable, extreme case assertions (projections, estimates, guesses, etc.) from which we are ordered to take decisive action immediately lest we be considered treasonous.

Interesting. That sounds terribly similar to something else (actually multiple things) that has happened in recent history.
post #16 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

"When?" might be a better question.

From a historical perspective, changes in the carrying capacity of land and sea has lead to death from starvation as well as wars between empires. Entire empires and populations have disappeared or dwindled to fractions of their peak. These things tend to happen gradually and thus weren't well documented by the primitive people throughout history or pre-history.

Granted, these assertions aren't provable. But they are widely held beliefs among experts in the related fields.

OK, now that we're all advanced and stuff, how many lives will be saved if 100% of the suggestions on how to respond to expected warming are implemented? Seems the goal is to slow, not eliminate, climate changes. All I've seen is how CO2 is a contributor that accelerates the natural warming event that occurs between ice ages.

Yes, humans change the earth. I don't see that as something inherently deserving of criticism. I also don't see any significant scientific benefit to what is being proposed. Seems there is all sorts of "proof" on what will happen if folks don't change, now, what is the benefit if all the changes are made? Will the ocean not rise? What is the difference in ocean levels between not doing anything and doing all we can? Will the earth not warm? What's the difference there?

I guess there are folks that don't think the problem through, but I want to know what the time, money and effort will buy. If that can't be scientifically quantified, then what merit is the scientific studies?

I guess that begs the question - how many lives have ever been "saved". Seems folks dying is pretty much the way things work... at least I've not seen evidence of the contrary.
post #17 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

And yet, they are spoken of as if they were gospel. What I find interesting about the vague and all-encompassing climate change "debate" is a notable absence of any discussion whatsoever of the potential positive effects that might come about as a result of it. All we hear about are unprovable, extreme case assertions (projections, estimates, guesses, etc.) from which we are ordered to take decisive action immediately lest we be considered treasonous.

Interesting. That sounds terribly similar to something else (actually multiple things) that has happened in recent history.

I'd agree that activists can and do go too far, as is true with any subject. But there are also very level headed and rational debates taking place. It is far preferable to talk about climate change rather than starting down the path of pointing fingers about who to despise.

As for posative effects of climate change, here's a concept that few have heard of, "global dimming".

Ironically, particulate air pollution combats the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Less light makes it through to the surface. As emission standards have been rolled in, particulates have drastically decreased, thereby counteracting less of the warming effect of greenhouse gasses. In other news, particulate pollution was preventing one contributing factor to a one type of climate change.

The data indicating this trend, if I remember correctly, has to do with timing the evaporation of water from pans sitting on the ground outdoors. Farmers have been using this technique for over a century to track the sun's intensity. It was quantitative record of climate data that I had no idea existed!
post #18 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

OK, now that we're all advanced and stuff, how many lives will be saved if 100% of the suggestions on how to respond to expected warming are implemented?

I guess that begs the question - how many lives have ever been "saved". Seems folks dying is pretty much the way things work... at least I've not seen evidence of the contrary.

Those are exactly the questions to be asking!

Unfortunately it's such a complicated subject that politicians have no chance or really knowing for sure. The best they can do is conduct a risk assessment on the data available while taking into consideration the opinions and theories of experts.
post #19 of 195
@Trumptman Your Gods analogy is a real cracker. Thanks for a genuine laugh out load moment.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #20 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

And yet, they are spoken of as if they were gospel. What I find interesting about the vague and all-encompassing climate change "debate" is a notable absence of any discussion whatsoever of the potential positive effects that might come about as a result of it. All we hear about are unprovable, extreme case assertions (projections, estimates, guesses, etc.) from which we are ordered to take decisive action immediately lest we be considered treasonous.

Interesting. That sounds terribly similar to something else (actually multiple things) that has happened in recent history.

Despite your CC denial, you do have a point. I don't think there's any doubt that unless you follow new CC laws you'll be penalized, sometimes severely maybe even locked up. Things aren't at that stage yet but they will be sooner rather than later.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #21 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

@Trumptman Your Gods analogy is a real cracker. Thanks for a genuine laugh out load moment.

No problem. Enjoy using ridicule. I'll enjoy using logic. If I lose, humanity gets what it deserves.


/sarcasm on
However I warn you, if you don't listen to me, the planet will get hotter, the sheep will shrink, the oceans will dry up and millions will die.

Now what choice do you have?

Please don't protest that I'm wrong because that just shows the truly evil, greedy, and of course treasonous intent you have in these matters. We cannot tolerate discussion or dissent since the lives of millions hang in the balance.
/sarcasm off

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No problem. Enjoy using ridicule. I'll enjoy using logic. If I lose, humanity gets what it deserves.


/sarcasm on
However I warn you, if you don't listen to me, the planet will get hotter, the sheep will shrink, the oceans will dry up and millions will die.

Now what choice do you have?

Please don't protest that I'm wrong because that just shows the truly evil, greedy, and of course treasonous intent you have in these matters. We cannot tolerate discussion or dissent since the lives of millions hang in the balance.
/sarcasm off

If your gods and virgins analogy isn't ridicule I don't know what is. Hardly the basis for a serious discussion but given the science isn't on your side I can see why you choose to disregard serious discussion and instead ridicule it and say you're being silenced. The ridicule game has been played by vested interests for a long time regarding the environment and to their benefit until fairly recently. It's interesting that someone who talks regularly about fallacies and criticizing others for them would be so hooked up in one.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #23 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Despite your CC denial...

That's interesting. I don't recall denying the climate change happens in my posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I don't think there's any doubt that unless you follow new CC laws you'll be penalized, sometimes severely maybe even locked up. Things aren't at that stage yet but they will be sooner rather than later.

So now we know that the climate change zealots and their proposed laws might lead to a new kind of tyranny. That's actually not too surprising given the rhetoric we're seeing at this point. As I think was pointed out in an earlier post treason is punishable by death. So if doubt is treason, then, well what the heck. Who knows, perhaps people will be "indefinitely detained" for even questioning the climate change orthodoxy. Maybe there will be a call for "enhanced education techniques" to be used with those audacious enough to continue in their doubt.
post #24 of 195
Quote:
June 29, 2009
NYT Op-Ed Columnist
Betraying the Planet

By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

This in no way reads as the opening post suggests, doubling down on the hyperbole, as it were.

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters

Quote:
Abstract

The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

This is the MIT report Krugman is referring to. \

This is a link to the USA government report Krugman is referring to;

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States

Oh, and one more link not mentioned by Krugman;

Researchers present newest update on climate change science

Quote:
18 June 2009

A report synthesizing the newest research results relating to climate change and what action can be taken in response to climate change was presented today at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The 36 page report is written for the non-specialists and is based on discussions and presentations made at the scientific congress "Climate change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions" hosted by the University of Copenhagen in March 2009.

The report can be downloaded from www.climatecongress.ku.dk
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #25 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

That's interesting. I don't recall denying the climate change happens in my posts.




So now we know that the climate change zealots and their proposed laws might lead to a new kind of tyranny. That's actually not too surprising given the rhetoric we're seeing at this point. As I think was pointed out in an earlier post treason is punishable by death. So if doubt is treason, then, well what the heck. Who knows, perhaps people will be "indefinitely detained" for even questioning the climate change orthodoxy. Maybe there will be a call for "enhanced education techniques" to be used with those audacious enough to continue in their doubt.

No ones stopping you for challenging CC and it's certainly not a crime punishable by death yet. Democracy is at play in the US and hence laws supporting the view that CC is real and has serious consequences are continually gaining traction as that's where the majority is. If you break laws that are in place, just like now you'll be punished just as anyone else would be, whether they agree with the law or not and whether they think CC is real or not. Your views as I understand them are certainly becoming the views held only by a small fringe element of society devoid of reason and whipped up by conspiracy theorists. Those views have already really lost the battle and the alienation from scientists and politicians renders you of you little consequence,
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #26 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Those pushing human driven climate change are no different than those asking for us to toss a virgin into a volcano[...]

Now certainly, pushing a virgin into a volcano is murder and murder is punishable by death. Wouldn't this make your rhetoric the same as Krugman's? If Krugman's words are to be taken so literally with regard to treason and the punishment for treason, should we do the same with your words?

For the record, I don't believe you nor Krugman want to execute anyone over the climate change debate. Suggesting either is just plain ridiculous.
post #27 of 195
@ topic of climate change

It is important to keep in mind consensus of opinion is no substitute for facts. I know people on both sides of the fence on this issue, and I myself fall on the side that there is not sufficient evidence that human activity has either significantly (I use this term in the statistical context for those in the know) or permanently altered the makeup of the atmosphere. Now, that isn't to say we should become "gross polluters" (by our standards) - as we see in valleys like the central valley of California - have pollution problems because of the shape of the geography - it traps the pollution in.

Also, time and technology is on our side. Safe, reliable fission reactors provide clean affordable energy, which will eventually be replaced with even safer, more reliable fusion reactors which provide an even greater energy output.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2950-Denve...-geologic-time

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml

As people can see from the second link, even if we had the lowest ball estimates for each time period for CO2 gases, human contribution either way is still too small to effect the greater natural cooling or warming of the earth itself.
post #28 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No ones stopping you for challenging CC and it's certainly not a crime punishable by death yet.

As you point out...yet. But with talk suggesting that it is treasonous or terrorist (not to mention the ever neutral and non-pejorative "denialist"), then I suppose it cannot be long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Democracy is at play in the US and hence laws supporting the view that CC is real and has serious consequences are continually gaining traction as that's where the majority is. If you break laws that are in place, just like now you'll be punished just as anyone else would be, whether they agree with the law or not and whether they think CC is real or not. Your views as I understand them are certainly becoming the views held only by a small fringe element of society devoid of reason and whipped up by conspiracy theorists. Those views have already really lost the battle and the alienation from scientists and politicians renders you of you little consequence,

I can see where we're going here. The majority believes something to be true (whether it is or not) and those who don't are "a small fringe element of society devoid of reason" and of "little consequence". Additionally they are deemed treasonous terrorist denialists. The majority will get its way. I'm sure nothing bad will come of all this. All we need is a little more democracy and less constitutional republic (yeah, I know, that died a long time ago) and we're ready to just burn those fringe reason-less treasonous terrorist denialists of little consequence at the stake.
post #29 of 195


Pffft.
post #30 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post



Pffft.

Works for me.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #31 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You sir/madame,

Sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

are not a SME on statistical methods and probability theory,

I'm not, nor did I say I was. Are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

and that this is all too obvious, from your complete lack of understanding of the carbon cycle, and the

I don't have a complete lack of understanding, but I will be the first to admit that this scientific field is not something I am overly concerned with or track for the above reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

incontrovertible fact of humankind's impacts to date on said carbon cycle.

I listed two links and reasoning. Can you do something more productive and say something more than the word "incontrovertible?" Or at the very least, elaborate? If you can provide edification for myself and forum, I'd love to have it. Otherwise your post just broils down to "I disagree" - which is not a counterpoint to my two links and reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Those in the know ... does not include yourself, sorry Bucko.

Providing links, counterpoints, and logical argument might elevate your post above an ineffectual attack.
post #32 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I'm not, nor did I say I was. Are you?

Yes.

I have posted in PO extensively on CO2, several threads in fact, have analyzed much of the available CO2 data myself firsthand. Again, I have presented much of these analyses in previous CC/AGW/AGW/HIGW threads.

The canard you want to put forth has been shot down countless times, for decades even.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

As you point out...yet. But with talk suggesting that it is treasonous or terrorist (not to mention the ever neutral and non-pejorative "denialist"), then I suppose it cannot be long.



I can see where we're going here. The majority believes something to be true (whether it is or not) and those who don't are "a small fringe element of society devoid of reason" and of "little consequence". Additionally they are deemed treasonous terrorist denialists. The majority will get its way. I'm sure nothing bad will come of all this. All we need is a little more democracy and less constitutional republic (yeah, I know, that died a long time ago) and we're ready to just burn those fringe reason-less treasonous terrorist denialists of little consequence at the stake.

I really don't think there's reason to punish anybody for treason and subject them to death for holding an opinion much as personally some of them deserve worse IMHO. I do think that breaking laws, if severe enough, say in the case of a major polluter, could further down the road, be considered for harsh punishments that go well beyond what's currently pursued though.

The majority of the population, case you forget, where convinced by special interests, and some sadly still are as you make evident, that CC was just fear mongering hippies as hellbent as the Gestapo to achieve their aims. Now a majority holds the opposite view and the extremists still flaunt absurdities as gospel to eager ears of government hating isolationists who feel increasingly disempowered and bewildered by current events and future predictions.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #34 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yes.

Fair enough, I'll take you for your word.

Now, since you seem to have knowledge on the issue - which I gather to be very detailed and technical - could you share it with the forum so that we can see the bigger picture here - thereby countering my post?
post #35 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The majority of the population, case you forget, where convinced by special interests, and some sadly still are as you make evident, that CC was just fear mongering hippies as hellbent as the Gestapo to achieve their aims.

The irony is so rich I can't believe it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...and the extremists still flaunt absurdities as gospel to eager ears of government hating isolationists who feel increasingly disempowered and bewildered by current events and future predictions.

post #36 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Fair enough, I'll take you for your word.

Now, since you seem to have knowledge on the issue - which I gather to be very detailed and technical - could you share it with the forum so that we can see the bigger picture here - thereby countering my post?

There is nothing in your post that needs countering, as it's been countered already, for decades even.

See my above edited post, then search PO, and my screen name, and you will find plenty of verbiage on said CO2/carbon cycle.

Nothing has changed since my previous posts, except that CO2 and sea levels appear to be increasing at rates greater than predicted in the 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1 report.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #37 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

The irony is so rich I can't believe it.





That really is the base of those with your views. It may not apply to you personally, but government hoax and CC denial go hand in glove. You certainly sound like someone who's had it with government.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #38 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You sir/madame, are not a SME on statistical methods and probability theory, and that this is all too obvious, from your complete lack of understanding of the carbon cycle, and the incontrovertible fact of humankind's impacts to date on said carbon cycle.

Those in the know ... does not include yourself, sorry Bucko.

You are welcome to present how you think your credentials make you an expert on planetary climate. You can use that knowledge to present a case and likely it would give you the ability to build a counterargument better than most.

However if you are just going to call people names, and dismiss them, then don't be surprised when they return the favor and dismiss you in return.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are welcome to present how you think your credentials make you an expert on planetary climate. You can use that knowledge to present a case and likely it would give you the ability to build a counterargument better than most.

However if you are just going to call people names, and dismiss them, then don't be surprised when they return the favor and dismiss you in return.

Those in the know... does not include yourself, sorry Bucko.

I have already, in several past threads, sorry Bucko.

The individual in question presented two links that are not from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

Posting links from non-peer reviewed well respected climate science literature is the hallmark of the contrarians/denialists.

In fact, the poster does not present any new evidence to buttress their argument, just posts to a couple of backwater web links, and says counter this. Well it's been countered, many times, by me, and by many, many, many others in the past, and even here in PO.

An old broken link from Scripps and a full of lies and half truths from some abysmal op-ed of someone that no one has ever heard of before.

Go figure Bucko.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #40 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If your gods and virgins analogy isn't ridicule I don't know what is. Hardly the basis for a serious discussion but given the science isn't on your side I can see why you choose to disregard serious discussion and instead ridicule it and say you're being silenced. The ridicule game has been played by vested interests for a long time regarding the environment and to their benefit until fairly recently. It's interesting that someone who talks regularly about fallacies and criticizing others for them would be so hooked up in one.

It's called a study of the history of human-kind, their organizational and power structures, and how they formed.

Control of the unknown used to be called God who you must appease. Now it is called Gaia who you must appease. A thorough study of philosophy would help understand this however it isn't just made up nonsense. Weather and the control of it is one of the most historical and fundamental means of the few attempting to control the many.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech