Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Radiatia]

Wow, that is one of the most disgusting suggestions I have seen since... well since the last time I went on General.

[Agymnum]

Wow, that is one of the most disgusting suggestions I have seen since... well since the last time I went on General.

Really, this is the most disgusting thing?

Today's a pretty good day, then.

[Gauntleted Fist]

If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

Why does mankind deserve to be 'saved'? If we cannot all muddle through it together, what gives those who hold beliefs judged to be correct the necessary imperative to remove from those who would oppose them the ability to do so by means of voting?

[Tubbsalot]

Why does mankind deserve to be 'saved'? If we cannot all muddle through it together, what gives those who hold beliefs judged to be correct the necessary imperative to remove from those who would oppose them the ability to do so by means of voting?

Er, look, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if an extinction-level asteroid is about to hit the Earth - we can see it with our telescopes - and most people are nonetheless of the opinion that it doesn't exist, we should ignore them and do what's necessary to prevent everyone dying."

[Gauntleted Fist]

Why does mankind deserve to be 'saved'? If we cannot all muddle through it together, what gives those who hold beliefs judged to be correct the necessary imperative to remove from those who would oppose them the ability to do so by means of voting?

Er, look, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if an extinction-level asteroid is about to hit the Earth - we can see it with our telescopes - and most people are nonetheless of the opinion that it doesn't exist, we should ignore them and do what's necessary to prevent everyone dying."

Please tell me what technology we currently have, here and now or that can be rapidly developed, that can stop an asteroid capable of wiping out a very sizable chunk of life on earth. I am curious and wish to invest.

[Agymnum]

Er, look, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if an extinction-level asteroid is about to hit the Earth - we can see it with our telescopes - and most people are nonetheless of the opinion that it doesn't exist, we should ignore them and do what's necessary to prevent everyone dying."

Please tell me what technology we currently have, here and now or that can be rapidly developed, that can stop an asteroid capable of wiping out a very sizable chunk of life on earth. I am curious and wish to invest.

NUKE DAT BITCH PEW PEW PEW

Nah, but I invested in the Lifeboat Foundation. Sounds gimmicky, but hey, whatever works.

I funded the nano-shield tech. Seems like awesome stuff.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Please tell me what technology we currently have, here and now or that can be rapidly developed, that can stop an asteroid capable of wiping out a very sizable chunk of life on earth. I am curious and wish to invest.

NUKE DAT BITCH PEW PEW PEW

Nah, but I invested in the Lifeboat Foundation. Sounds gimmicky, but hey, whatever works.

I funded the nano-shield tech. Seems like awesome stuff.

Not even remotely close to fruition, also the rabid conspiracy about the development of artificial intelligence is rather quaint.

[Agymnum]

NUKE DAT BITCH PEW PEW PEW

Nah, but I invested in the Lifeboat Foundation. Sounds gimmicky, but hey, whatever works.

I funded the nano-shield tech. Seems like awesome stuff.

Not even remotely close to fruition, also the rabid conspiracy about the development of artificial intelligence is rather quaint.

Well I mean I donated spare change (like 20 bucks or so), so like... Yeah, not too serious about it but every penny helps!

[Tubbsalot]

Er, look, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if an extinction-level asteroid is about to hit the Earth - we can see it with our telescopes - and most people are nonetheless of the opinion that it doesn't exist, we should ignore them and do what's necessary to prevent everyone dying."

Please tell me what technology we currently have, here and now or that can be rapidly developed, that can stop an asteroid capable of wiping out a very sizable chunk of life on earth. I am curious and wish to invest.

Technology has nothing to do with it. I mean sinister dark magicks, with which we can visit a variety of minor misfortunes on any target we choose. Let's see how long this asteroid's nerve lasts when it loses its wallet every five minutes. Eee hee hee hee heeee!!!

No, this is taking place in a hypothetical scenario where we are somehow capable of producing a practical anti-asteroid weapon at high cost.

[Norstal]

Right, because you're willing to make space for all the people who lose land, right?

I mean, I'm perfectly fine with adopting some European and African bros, but I dunno about you.

Actually, I would hope that the rising sea level would serve to thin the herd a bit.

Whereas you hope people die due to some misunderstanding about how overpopulation works in biology, the rest of us want to live.

[Darwinistica]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

Yay, this sums of the tolerance of the left!

[Free Soviets]

Er, look, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if an extinction-level asteroid is about to hit the Earth - we can see it with our telescopes - and most people are nonetheless of the opinion that it doesn't exist, we should ignore them and do what's necessary to prevent everyone dying."

Please tell me what technology we currently have, here and now or that can be rapidly developed, that can stop an asteroid capable of wiping out a very sizable chunk of life on earth. I am curious and wish to invest.

we don't need 'currently available' for the principle to hold. its a test of an idea. suppose we do have the necessary technology. if the democratic purists are right, that changes nothing. if the people vote against doing something about it, then we have to sit back and let the asteroid hit. this is, of course, dumb as rocks. therefore democratic purism is false. there are at least some circumstances where we should say 'fuck it' and steamroll right over democratic opposition.

the only legitimate argument is over cut-off lines in the risk analysis.

[Norstal]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

Ignore them. You don't need to punish them. You need to ignore their obstructions just as we ignored pacifists during World War II.

It isn't, I don't think, leaving them out of the political process just as democracy didn't die during WWII.

[Zweite Alaje]

Bluth, I must implore you to cease this line of thought. It is terribly unbecoming of a socialist to propose such an idea.

[Threlizdun]

No, I do not believe we should be been entitled to deprive others of the right to vote under any circumstance. However, as Genivaria stated, such individuals should be given as little respect as Holocaust deniers. I would also certainly be accepting of more direct tactics to prevent harm to the planet, including (hopefully I don't end up on a list for saying this) the acts utilized by Earth First and the Earth Liberation Front

[New England and The Maritimes]

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

If we can objectively prove that a specific idea encapsulated in "Christianity" is absolutely correct, and that denying it damns everyone for the actions of a few, then yeah it would be pretty wise to keep those people down.

[Zweite Alaje]

No, I do not believe we should be been entitled to deprive others of the right to vote under any circumstance. However, as Genivaria stated, such individuals should be given as little respect as Holocaust deniers. I would also certainly be accepting of more direct tactics to prevent harm to the planet, including (hopefully I don't end up on a list for saying this) the acts utilized by Earth First and the Earth Liberation Front

Um no, that's not good either. Having society ran by eco-freaks is a horrible idea.

[Acrainia]

The second your beliefs can be used to disenfranchise you, the Pandora's box that will destroy any democracy is opened.

Basically it provides the precedent for a government to take the vote from whoever holds a belief they happen to disagree with. Its not up to the government to decide what is proper for its citizens to believe.

Those who you disagree with will always appear to be ignorant. Its honestly startling to see how few people realize how bias they actually are.

As for climate change, like all big things in science it is going to take a good while to fully settle itself into the public conciseness as proper fact.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Er, look, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if an extinction-level asteroid is about to hit the Earth - we can see it with our telescopes - and most people are nonetheless of the opinion that it doesn't exist, we should ignore them and do what's necessary to prevent everyone dying."

Please tell me what technology we currently have, here and now or that can be rapidly developed, that can stop an asteroid capable of wiping out a very sizable chunk of life on earth. I am curious and wish to invest.

Pop off a bunch of nukes on one side and the material blasted off will act like a pretty decent rocket. Do it at the right point in its orbit and you can make a very large difference in where it will be later in its orbit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If we do that to every person or group that holds ideas we consider 'stupid', we would be disenfranchising a lot of people.

[Zephie]

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?

Do you think TPTB care about the environment? They are passing the global climate change or global warming garbage, whatever the fuck they call it now, to take more tax dollars from all of us. The technology for fully electric cars has existed for decades, but had been bought out by oil interests. They're the real people ruining the environment, not the people who are forced to buy vehicles that use gas, or pay the premium for hybrids.

Chances are OP drives a car, gets rides from a car, or rides a bus. OP also probably gets electricity from a plant that pollutes the environment, and consumes food products made in factories that pollute the environment. OP should start his own garden he eats off of, buy a windmill to generate power, and take a bicycle to work. How DARE OP sacrifice all of humanity for his huge carbon footprint.

My guess is 98% of radical environmentalists are not willing to make the changes they must to stop polluting the air themselves, so they need to lead by example or shutup.

[Maruspinia]

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

this

[Gauntleted Fist]

No, this is taking place in a hypothetical scenario where we are somehow capable of producing a practical anti-asteroid weapon at high cost.

Okay, so what do we do with the marginalized element of society that we've thrown the book at? "You don't deserve to have a voice in our system because you don't believe as we do." Especially if, as Free Soviets says in the next post I'm quoting, it's actually the majority of people that preferred to simply allow it to happen? Also please explain how education makes tyranny any more acceptable. Because this is exactly what is happening here. We're dictating the fate of the whole world based on how we believe. (Namely that we shouldn't allow our race to die because.) Even if it is right.

we don't need 'currently available' for the principle to hold. its a test of an idea. suppose we do have the necessary technology. if the democratic purists are right, that changes nothing. if the people vote against doing something about it, then we have to sit back and let the asteroid hit. this is, of course, dumb as rocks. therefore democratic purism is false. there are at least some circumstances where we should say 'fuck it' and steamroll right over democratic opposition.

the only legitimate argument is over cut-off lines in the risk analysis.

I don't think the human race is particularly deserving of continued survival. I'm not advocating that we all find a gun or something and off ourselves, but we do get up to some pretty terrible shit on a minute by minute basis. Is there some sort of good coefficient that we must meet to continue to make your belief that we should stop this asteroid from blowing up earth, or is it simply "Humans deserve to exist the end"?

[Xathranaar]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

Yay, this sums of the tolerance of the left!

I suppose you just missed the pages and pages of every other leftist on NS calling Bluth out on this idea then?

I'd say that this "sums of" the cherry-picking of the right, but that would be unfair, wouldn't it?

[Tubbsalot]

Okay, so what do we do with the marginalized element of society that we've thrown the book at?

Dunno. Attempt to pacify them, I imagine, in order to avoid a violent reaction. Is this really relevant to the point, which is that democratic processes are sometimes not the best option?

Also please explain how education makes tyranny any more acceptable. Because this is exactly what is happening here. We're dictating the fate of the whole world based on how we believe.

Sorry, are you suggesting that we should just lie down and die because people don't accept that the giant asteroid, which we can literally see getting bigger by the moment, doesn't exist?

I don't think the human race is particularly deserving of continued survival.

Yes well join the voluntary extinction movement then. I don't see why you should be allowed to enact a plan for global destruction just because you feel humans are a bit meh.

Is there some sort of good coefficient that we must meet to continue to make your belief that we should stop this asteroid from blowing up earth, or is it simply "Humans deserve to exist the end"?

Dunno about him, but I take happiness as a universal good, so I'd say humans should continue to exist as long as they'd like to.