Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Genivaria]

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

Well to the Gulag with you.

[SanctusEmpire]

No we shouldn't disenfranchise the deniers because they help keep the accepters honest.

[Gauntleted Fist]

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?

Of course, it's part of the consequences of the decisions we're deciding to make in this wonderful hypothetical. How would a society after such an event continue to function?

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?

No. In fact I make plenty of post in threads about how I think death is pretty shitty. Just wondering what the justifications are for doing such things. Basically looking for the point where disenfranchisement becomes okay.

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.

I don't think I have a choice. We will eventually go extinct. I'm in no hurry to contribute, just like I don't think anyone else should be, but there's got to be a point where the justification for this (People dying?) becomes unacceptable. I also don't really think we could apply the argument you're making (That we should disenfranchise people because their decisions will kill others) in the situation of believing in this asteroid, and not apply it in the situation of climate change. People literally will die, possibly on quite a large scale, because of what humans are doing to the environment. Eventually. But we're not allowed to make decisions to stop these potential deaths because disenfranchisement is bad. is it the immediacy of the threat that makes it more important?

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.

Okay.

[Nazi Flower Power]

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?

Who gets to decide when electoral democracy is becoming a hinderance? Who gets to decide which groups need to be disenfranchised? And what makes you think people who don't believe in climate change are all making money off oil? Sorry, but if you want to get the government to be more environmentally conscious, then you need to educate voters about why it's important. Or just lobby the government. Convincing the politicians is actually more important than convincing the voting public since the politicians have more direct influence on what the government does.

[Free Soviets]

Who gets to decide when electoral democracy is becoming a hinderance? Who gets to decide which groups need to be disenfranchised?

depends on the issue. in the case of climate change, the people to be excluded from power are those that deny it exists, deny that humans are the cause, or deny the expected effects without the expertise to do so legitimately.

as for who gets to decide, presumably anybody. just as long as they've got a very compelling argument for it, such that they could rationally persuade enough of the power centers of society that it is literally necessary for the continued survival of that society in a form worth preserving.

[Genivaria]

More to the point.
Should politicians and business leaders who openly deny Climate Change be forced to pay reparations for damages?
I say yes.

[Yewjin]

Are some of the members of the NSG Climate Change Alarmist Club losing there marbles?
Demanding that nations embrace dictatorship for there own personal ideals is the sign of a fanatic.

[Genivaria]

Are some of the members of the NSG Climate Change Alarmist Club losing there marbles?
Demanding that nations embrace dictatorship for there own personal ideals is the sign of a fanatic.

There are no 'Climate Change Alarmists'.
There are people who understand the science, and people who don't.

[Tubbsalot]

Are some of the members of the NSG Climate Change Alarmist Club losing there marbles?

Get back to me when you've noticed the asteroid.

[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?

Who gets to decide when electoral democracy is becoming a hinderance? Who gets to decide which groups need to be disenfranchised? And what makes you think people who don't believe in climate change are all making money off oil? Sorry, but if you want to get the government to be more environmentally conscious, then you need to educate voters about why it's important. Or just lobby the government. Convincing the politicians is actually more important than convincing the voting public since the politicians have more direct influence on what the government does.

OP would just rather discriminate against people who have a different opinion and throw them into reeducation camps

[Tubbsalot]

OP would just rather discriminate against people who have a different opinion and throw them into reeducation camp

LOL stupid liberals (whoops i mean commu-nazis LOL!!!!!!!!)

[Zephie]

OP would just rather discriminate against people who have a different opinion and throw them into reeducation camp

LOL stupid liberals (whoops i mean commu-nazis LOL!!!!!!!!)

Yup, while they discuss whether they should discriminate against a group of people or not, or threaten someone with violence, they whine racism when someone disagrees with them.

[Evil Lord Bane]

LOL stupid liberals (whoops i mean commu-nazis LOL!!!!!!!!)

Yup, while they discuss whether they should discriminate against a group of people or not, or threaten someone with violence, they whine racism when someone disagrees with them.

Climate change is part of the great liberal lie. There using this falsehood, fake data and all, to effect a global communist takeover, nothing more.

[Zephie]

Climate change is part of the great liberal lie. There using this falsehood, fake data and all, to effect a global communist takeover, nothing more.

Al Gore wants our money

[Costa Alegria]

depends on the issue. in the case of climate change, the people to be excluded from power are those that deny it exists, deny that humans are the cause, or deny the expected effects without the expertise to do so legitimately.

as for who gets to decide, presumably anybody. just as long as they've got a very compelling argument for it, such that they could rationally persuade enough of the power centers of society that it is literally necessary for the continued survival of that society in a form worth preserving.

I'm not going to loose my right to vote because someone like you has some sort of superiority complex and can't handle other people that have different views.

Your society isn't worth preserving, and should be avoided at all costs, for the sake of the human race.

[Zephie]

depends on the issue. in the case of climate change, the people to be excluded from power are those that deny it exists, deny that humans are the cause, or deny the expected effects without the expertise to do so legitimately.

as for who gets to decide, presumably anybody. just as long as they've got a very compelling argument for it, such that they could rationally persuade enough of the power centers of society that it is literally necessary for the continued survival of that society in a form worth preserving.

I'm not going to loose my right to vote because someone like you has some sort of superiority complex and can't handle other people that have different views.

Your society isn't worth preserving, and should be avoided at all costs, for the sake of the human race.

Watch out, Michael Moore might sit on you.

[Tubbsalot]

I'm not going to loose my right to vote because someone like you has some sort of superiority complex and can't handle other people that have different views.

so given the giant asteroid heading towards us

what is your suggestion

[Dire Rock]

I think overpopulation will become a problem faster than climate change. People should start having less children.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Or you do a BBC...and refuse the cranks access to the media.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29 ... n_refusal/

[Costa Alegria]

Watch out, Michael Moore might sit on you.

It's pathetic to think that the human race has reached such lows when people now openly advocate the oppression of other people "because I don't like what they say".

And besides, Alex Jones is way fatter and is paid by Russians.

[Zephie]

I'm not going to loose my right to vote because someone like you has some sort of superiority complex and can't handle other people that have different views.

so given the giant asteroid heading towards us

what is your suggestion

Climate change causes giant asteroids to hurl towards Earth? Holy fucking shit, we need to stop this, NOW.

[Zephie]

Watch out, Michael Moore might sit on you.

It's pathetic to think that the human race has reached such lows when people now openly advocate the oppression of other people "because I don't like what they say".

And besides, Alex Jones is way fatter and is paid by Russians.

No way, Michael is fatter. Maybe he lost weight, haven't seen him lately, but Alex was never as fat as Michael at his fattest.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Watch out, Michael Moore might sit on you.

It's pathetic to think that the human race has reached such lows when people now openly advocate the oppression of other people "because I don't like what they say".

And besides, Alex Jones is way fatter and is paid by Russians.

Bullshit. Do you give children a voice? Because frankly that is what deniers are....children.

[Costa Alegria]

so given the giant asteroid heading towards us

what is your suggestion

Implant some form of explosive device on the surface of it so it is powerful enough to essentially blow the thing into smaller pieces and then blow those smaller pieces into further smaller fragments to reduce the damage to Earth.

And how does this relate to how my opinion of climate change is a threat to Free Soviets?

[Zephie]

It's pathetic to think that the human race has reached such lows when people now openly advocate the oppression of other people "because I don't like what they say".

And besides, Alex Jones is way fatter and is paid by Russians.

Bullshit. Do you give children a voice? Because frankly that is what deniers are....children.

I'm gonna tell my Mommy.