Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Cerian Quilor]

Absolutely. The Criminally Stupid should always be disenfranchised. As should the regularly stupid.

[Greed and Death]

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?

Perhaps if the Democrats had used their time with 60 in the senate to focus on Climate change rather than mandating healthcare.

That said things shift and swing in politics so the party most likely to tackle climate change will likely be in power again to such a degree so as to affect a resolution to the matter.

[Pragia]

Exactly. We don't have an unlimited amount of time. Kids are not infinitely educable, especially if their parents are part of the problem. If push comes to shove, if there's no longer enough time for up to keep trying to educate people, are we seriously supposed to resign ourselves and all humanity to doom simply because people who knew what was going to happen nevertheless insisted on using a hammer to tighten a screw?

I refuse to have humanity survive if it has to do so under tyranny. I'd rather have the ship sink with decency thanks.

I second this and am all against this.
To take away rights to further agendas is totalitarian, and to do so for a cause that is not definite is just stupid. You wonder why people call this ideology as enviro-nuts. People are allowed to vote however they want. Maybe we could take away the rights of anyone trying to remove rights of others because they go against the idea of freedom?

[Free Soviets]

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?

Perhaps if the Democrats had used their time with 60 in the senate to focus on Climate change rather than mandating healthcare.

even during the month of so they actually had that number, there are some in the party who like coal and oil a bit too much to ever support action.

[Madistania]

i know, right? check this out (from a different paper - there are like a hundred of them out now):


([url=http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4884/figure1b.png]Image)[/url]
“Scientists predict that global warming may soon have big effects on the polar regions. I will describe some of these possible effects and, for each one, please say whether it would bother you a great deal, some, a little, or not at all if it actually happened.”

the more scientifically literate the conservative, the less concerned they are about what would happen with a 20 foot rise in sea levels. and not less concerned that it will happen, which would be bad enough, but less concerned by it.

The fall off in concern for conservatives is lower than the increased concern for liberals and moderates over science literacy. Concerns stem from beliefs. Conservatives are less variable in their beliefs over time and educational attainment than liberals.

The concept of 'concern' is defined a little vaguely in this exercise though. It is never mentioned what the individual asked should be concerned for. I think that most conservatives will interpret this to mean concern for themselves and those close to them. liberals will perhaps interpret this to mean concern for the world in general and those least capable of adapting.

As a conservative I believe that I and societies close to me can survive and thrive in adversity. I suspect many other conservatives hold this opinion. Some may go as far as to believe that they are incapable of thriving or surviving in a world without adversity. This would help to account for some of the findings of this report. I am not convinced that it is unbiased though.

[Free Soviets]

i know, right? check this out (from a different paper - there are like a hundred of them out now):


([url=http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4884/figure1b.png]Image)[/url]
“Scientists predict that global warming may soon have big effects on the polar regions. I will describe some of these possible effects and, for each one, please say whether it would bother you a great deal, some, a little, or not at all if it actually happened.”

the more scientifically literate the conservative, the less concerned they are about what would happen with a 20 foot rise in sea levels. and not less concerned that it will happen, which would be bad enough, but less concerned by it.

The fall off in concern for conservatives is lower than the increased concern for liberals and moderates over science literacy. Concerns stem from beliefs. Conservatives are less variable in their beliefs over time and educational attainment than liberals.

being less variable than others in the face of better information means you are worse at thinking.

The concept of 'concern' is defined a little vaguely in this exercise though. It is never mentioned what the individual asked should be concerned for. I think that most conservatives will interpret this to mean concern for themselves and those close to them. liberals will perhaps interpret this to mean concern for the world in general and those least capable of adapting.

this, of course, paints the conservatives as being monsters. the more scientifically literate they are, the less likely they are to give a shit about anyone other than themselves?!

I am not convinced that it is unbiased though.

of course you aren't

---

i would again like to mention that i haven't seen a satisfactory answer from a democracy purist to the asteroid counterexample.

[Madistania]

Because climate change is a political issue and not an educational issue.

or, rather, because conservatives have a very difficult time seeing anything as something other than a political issue, and so what is a simple matter of fact becomes a matter of power struggle and tribal identity to them.

Power struggle and identity influences liberal thought as well. They just tend to be on the opposite side of the fence.

Simple matters of fact do influence political issues.

[Shadowlandistan]

Yes, we definitely should remove them from the political process. Remove ALL corporations from the political process.

[ThuggMart Incorporated]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... ?mobile=nc

[Madistania]

being less variable than others in the face of better information means you are worse at thinking.

For a being to be of free will there must be a disconnect between knowledge and belief. If belief is just a natural extension of knowledge then the being is just a complex reaction to the nature of universe and is nothing of worth.

this, of course, paints the conservatives as being monsters. the more scientifically literate they are, the less likely they are to give a shit about anyone other than themselves?!

Charity starts in the home and all that.

"i would again like to mention that i haven't seen a satisfactory answer from a democracy purist to the asteroid counterexample."

What is the "asteroid counterexample"?

[Objectiveland]

Objectively we can say the climate is changing. Always has and always will. Nothing else can be stated.

[Free Soviets]

or, rather, because conservatives have a very difficult time seeing anything as something other than a political issue, and so what is a simple matter of fact becomes a matter of power struggle and tribal identity to them.

Power struggle and identity influences liberal thought as well. They just tend to be on the opposite side of the fence.

when you inform a leftist about the science of nuclear power or genetic modification, they tend to get less opposed. when you inform a conservative about the science of evolution they tend to become even more hardened creationists.

these things are not equal.

[Raeyh]

Objectively we can say the climate is changing. Always has and always will. Nothing else can be stated.

Well, that's a completely useless observation.

[Greed and Death]

Perhaps if the Democrats had used their time with 60 in the senate to focus on Climate change rather than mandating healthcare.

even during the month of so they actually had that number, there are some in the party who like coal and oil a bit too much to ever support action.

Not my problem they can't get their ducks in a line.
If the Democrats have such a hard time maintaining party cohesion I think you would more logically be served by supporting the GOP and hope they one day on a whim pass something that remotely helps fight climate change.

[Objectiveland]

Objectively we can say the climate is changing. Always has and always will. Nothing else can be stated.

Well, that's a completely useless observation.

To make the claim humans have changed the cilmate is a useless observation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, that's a completely useless observation.

To make the claim humans have changed the cilmate is a useless observation.

By itself it would be.
However that isn't the claim.
It's that particular actions of ours cause climate change of a particular kind. And that is a totally useful observation.

[Objectiveland]

To make the claim humans have changed the cilmate is a useless observation.

By itself it would be.
However that isn't the claim.
It's that particular actions of ours cause climate change of a particular kind. And that is a totally useful observation.

I will stipulate that that is an incorrect observation and therefore useless.

[Ostroeuropa]

By itself it would be.
However that isn't the claim.
It's that particular actions of ours cause climate change of a particular kind. And that is a totally useful observation.

I will stipulate that that is an incorrect observation and therefore useless.

Well, the scientific consensus disagrees. And your opinion on the subject is worth absolutely nothing until you change theirs.
Go away and perform some experiments and publish the results.
You disagreeing with scientific consensus when you lack credentials is EXTREMELY arrogant by the way, and says a lot about you.

[Free Soviets]

even during the month of so they actually had that number, there are some in the party who like coal and oil a bit too much to ever support action.

Not my problem they can't get their ducks in a line.
If the Democrats have such a hard time maintaining party cohesion I think you would more logically be served by supporting the GOP and hope they one day on a whim pass something that remotely helps fight climate change.

i'd rather take my chances with the party that actually has solving climate change in its platform, i think. absent the filibuster, we'd already have a cap and trade system. with a second obama term, the EPA's new carbon regulations might actually get into effect.

[Bafuria]

I'd rather live in a polluted desert than a country where the government decides who can vote and who can't.

[Farnhamia]

I'd rather live in a polluted desert than a country where the government decides who can vote and who can't.

The government already decides that. In the US, you have to be a citizen and 18 years of age or older. Being an incarcerated felon may also deprive you of your voting rights, too.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd rather live in a polluted desert than a country where the government decides who can vote and who can't.

The government already decides that. In the US, you have to be a citizen and 18 years of age or older. Being an incarcerated felon may also deprive you of your voting rights, too.

This is somewhat bending the objection meant, though you are technically correct
It's more that no IDEOLOGY should cause someone to lose their vote.
Their age or mental stability? Sure.

[Sleethper]

I think leftist/communist/fascist ideologies are dangerous, but I wouldn't advocate silencing them. You know how I combat these mindsets? I vote, I volunteer, I debate and I do all I can to push my cause. We need to allow all points of view to participate in the process otherwise we become the very evil we wished to fight. If you or I can't win in the realm of ideas why should we believe the next logical step is to take away the rights of those who disagree with us? He can sugarcoat it all he wants but what Bluth is advocating is nothing short of tyranny.

[Farnhamia]

The government already decides that. In the US, you have to be a citizen and 18 years of age or older. Being an incarcerated felon may also deprive you of your voting rights, too.

This is somewhat bending the objection meant, though you are technically correct
It's more that no IDEOLOGY should cause someone to lose their vote.
Their age or mental stability? Sure.

Sure, but that's not what he said.

I don't think that your mental state prevents you from voting, by the way. Goodness knows, some election results call the mental state of the voters into serious question.

[Raeyh]

This is somewhat bending the objection meant, though you are technically correct
It's more that no IDEOLOGY should cause someone to lose their vote.
Their age or mental stability? Sure.

Sure, but that's not what he said.

I don't think that your mental state prevents you from voting, by the way. Goodness knows, some election results call the mental state of the voters into serious question.

I would be interested in knowing the number of write-in votes for "the voice in my head."