Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Free Soviets]

Sounds like a blatant infringement on the right of freedom of speech, so how about no?

let's try a different example. suppose there is a fascist party that vows to abolish democracy if they win the election. and they win a plurality of the vote in a three-way split election. should they be allowed to abolish democracy? they were democratically elected, after all...

[Genivaria]

No, but I think that Climate Change deniers should be treated no different then holocaust deniers, birthers, and truthers.

Completely ignored?

More like repeatedly mocked as the nut-cases they are.

[AETEN II]

The ends justify the means. If the greater good ever demands the sacrifice of human rights in order to save the species (which is the greatest good), it must be done, no matter the cost. However, we're not at the point, and I doubt that we'd ever be capable of doing it. But yeah, I am one of those people that see more logic in allowing the death of a billion in order to save the species. If a healthy breeding population will result of it, and the alternative is extinction, everything should be considered.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Which, again, the notion that we can pump all this shit into the atmosphere and have it have no effect is hilarious and naive.

Not as naive as believing that we could pump in enough in to destroy humanity.

OK, I'm confused. What position are are you arguing for?

* We're not physically capable of destroying humanity via climate change.
* We're not currently doing anything that could destroy humanity via climate change.
* We're not doing anything that's changing the climate. (Natural effects exceed man-made effects.)

[The Republic of Lanos]

And this could easily be used as an argument for banning non-christians from voting. No, we shouldn't disenfranchise people for their beliefs

Thankfully, such wisdom takes the day.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

I personally think that, in an ideal world, we should go to the "one-vote" system of government to deal with this sort of thing.

Of course, in an ideal world we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

The ends justify the means. If the greater good ever demands the sacrifice of human rights in order to save the species (which is the greatest good), it must be done, no matter the cost. However, we're not at the point, and I doubt that we'd ever be capable of doing it. But yeah, I am one of those people that see more logic in allowing the death of a billion in order to save the species. If a healthy breeding population will result of it, and the alternative is extinction, everything should be considered.

This too. Humanity über alles!

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

Humanity is hardly doomed by climate change. Humanity will adapt.

Can't adapt in a hundred years.

Not if we wanna start growing gills since land's gonna get swallowed up.

Not all land, alot sure, but not all.

[Saiwania]

Show me the evidence that climate change will cause human extinction? Wanting a cleaner environment is one thing, but when the proposed solutions aren't economically viable, it is another.

Where is the new source of energy going to come from that can still meet current and future energy demands, while not harming the environment and abandoning the need for fossil fuels? There is none.

[Xsyne]

Sounds like a blatant infringement on the right of freedom of speech, so how about no?

let's try a different example. suppose there is a fascist party that vows to abolish democracy if they win the election. and they win a plurality of the vote in a three-way split election. should they be allowed to abolish democracy? they were democratically elected, after all...

Let them abolish democracy. However, as democratic elections have been abolished, and they were democratically elected, then they are no longer the legitimate rulers of the nation and you are free to lop their heads off and reinstate democracy.

[Agymnum]

let's try a different example. suppose there is a fascist party that vows to abolish democracy if they win the election. and they win a plurality of the vote in a three-way split election. should they be allowed to abolish democracy? they were democratically elected, after all...

Let them abolish democracy. However, as democratic elections have been abolished, and they were democratically elected, then they are no longer the legitimate rulers of the nation and you are free to lop their heads off and reinstate democracy.

Well I would assume that the people who voted for them don't want democracy in the first place, so if they have enough supporters...

[Frisivisia]

Show me the evidence that climate change will cause human extinction? Wanting a cleaner environment is one thing, but when the proposed solutions aren't economically viable, it is another.

Where is the new source of energy going to come from that can still meet current and future energy demands, while not harming the environment and abandoning the need for fossil fuels? There is none.

I'd say the destruction of once fertile farmland will serve to hurt humanity. Solar, Wind, Wave, etc. are perfectly viable, but apparently the short-term economy outweighs the long-term viability of farming outside of the Yukon.

[Galla-]

And if too many people refuse to be educated?

Well that's just a damn shame maybe you should have tried harder.

There's only like 15 or 16 really democratic states in the world anyway.

[Free Soviets]

Show me the evidence that climate change will cause human extinction? Wanting a cleaner environment is one thing, but when the proposed solutions aren't economically viable, it is another.

extinction, probably not. collapse of civilization, about 50-50 if we don't fix this shit.

[New Chalcedon]

Electoral democracy is not a suicide pact, and it's certainly not an end in itself. Rather, it's a means to ensuring the well-being of humanity, and there should be no hesitation to set it aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end, just as we would set aside a hammer with no compunctions when it comes time to cut a plank in two.

If the climate change deniers continue with their willfull ignorance and obstructionism, well, we are not obligated to let them sacrifice all of humanity for their own short-term private interests. Our lives are more important than their oil revenues. If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

Um, no. Disenfranchising people because they have beliefs that you hold to be wrong (for that matter, they are wrong - but that's not relevant) sets a really, really bad precedent.

After all: the next time the GOP gets into power, they move to disenfranchise all pro-choicers. Then what? That kind of tit-for-tat disenfranchisement can only end in civil war, because no group today is going to sit down and let itself get legislated out of existance.

Really, really bad idea. Really bad.

*Looks at Franklin Delano Bluth's posting history*
Are you sure you're not a sockpuppet set up to create a left-wing strawman for right-wing posters to bash on?

[Dominion of Nova Scotia]

The Republicans won't let that happen because most of them are White.

[Tubbsalot]

I really didn't expect to be on the side of someone arguing we should corral a certain group of people into ghettoes, but the pro-democracy side of this argument has been so breathtakingly weak that I don't think I have any other choice.

[Emile Zola]

Not as naive as believing that we could pump in enough in to destroy humanity.

And you have nothing to back that up other than a desire to bury your head in the sand.

This is the problem with deniers. There is no dispute in the climatologist community, among the people who publish peer reviewed studies on the subject. Man is altering the environment.

Deniers? They have nothing, other than an agenda for big oil or just outright naivety.

This. As interesting as it it is to see posts going, "Yes it is" or "No it isn't" The first reply to a denier should be, "the IPCC says otherwise."

[Saiwania]

extinction, probably not. collapse of civilization, about 50-50 if we don't fix this shit.

I actually want civilization as it is currently, to collapse if it would effectively mean the end of globalization.

[Emile Zola]

In reply to the OP, no. That's just being patronizing.

[Tubbsalot]

In reply to the OP, no. That's just being patronizing.

"Patronising" is certainly a word which you are not expressly forbidden from using to describe disenfranchisement, yes.

[Northwest Slobovia]

And you have nothing to back that up other than a desire to bury your head in the sand.

This is the problem with deniers. There is no dispute in the climatologist community, among the people who publish peer reviewed studies on the subject. Man is altering the environment.

Deniers? They have nothing, other than an agenda for big oil or just outright naivety.

This. As interesting as it it is to see posts going, "Yes it is" or "No it isn't" The first reply to a denier should be, "the IPCC says otherwise."

We can junk the appeal to authority, and say "The best available evidence says otherwise.".

[Tubbsalot]

This. As interesting as it it is to see posts going, "Yes it is" or "No it isn't" The first reply to a denier should be, "the IPCC says otherwise."

We can junk the appeal to authority, and say "The best available evidence says otherwise.".

Is that really an appeal to authority? "x says otherwise" is a very different beast when x = the IPCC and when x = my dad.

[Cu Math]

Show me the evidence that climate change will cause human extinction? .

*points at the hurricane heading towards NY* that.

[Saiwania]

Show me the evidence that climate change will cause human extinction? .

*points at the hurricane heading towards NY* that.

Meh, only a category 1 storm.

[Northwest Slobovia]

We can junk the appeal to authority, and say "The best available evidence says otherwise.".

Is that really an appeal to authority? "x says otherwise" is very different beast when x = the IPCC and when x = my dad.

Yup, and you give the reason why. It doesn't matter if the IPCC or your dad state the same evidence and reasoning; it's either right or wrong.