Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Ostroeuropa]

Here you are.

Nope. Moochers given a wage to write for looters.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&newwindow ... 36&bih=771

Had you actually looked you'd realize there are thousands of studies that are not government funded.

[Samuraikoku]

Nope. Moochers given a wage to write for looters.

Conspiracy theory.

[Divair]

Is your memory really that bad?

Nope. Moochers paid to write for looters.

Still haven't proven that.

[Choronzon]

Nope. Moochers paid to write for looters.

So, whose puppet are you?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

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

Well said. Nothing more needs to be added here.

No, it's not well-said at all. It's completely context-free. It's based on some naive assumptions about how the world works that, unfortunately, do not jive with what those of us in reality have learned over the past 200 years.

[Farnhamia]

Nope. Moochers given a wage to write for looters.

You asked for evidence. Now present yours that refutes his evidence.

That is his refutation, the immortal and eternal principles of Objectivism as propounded by Ayn Rand. You're not paying attention.

[Mavorpen]

Nope. Moochers paid to write for looters.

Still waiting on your evidence that it isn't

Email | Cite |
evidence Pronunciation: /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
Translate evidence into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of evidence
noun
[mass noun]
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

Surprise, you can't read dictionaries.

[Inyourfaceistan]

IKR!

We should take away the rights of a particular group of people because of what they beleive, and it's totally OK because it's all for the greater good of humanity, right?

Gee... Now doesn't that logic sound familiar...

The franchise isn't a right. Freedom of speech and assembly are rights. The franchise is merely a socially-constructed tool granted to you for the betterment of society as a whole, and when your use of it instead becomes a hindrance to society society is perfectly entitled to take it away from you.

Cool. So if one society is trying to defend its borders from another society, and a select group of people decide that they don't think the other society is enemies and we shouldn't fight them, said society is entitled to take away their ability to participate in governing because their actions and veiws inherently threaten the larger group as a whole?


Isn't it an equally great idea when it's applied to your beleifs?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

You asked for evidence. Now present yours that refutes his evidence.

That is his refutation, the immortal and eternal principles of Objectivism as propounded by Ayn Rand. You're not paying attention.

He'll come around eventually and become an Objectivist.

Hell, I did.

[Divair]

Nope. Moochers paid to write for looters.

So, whose puppet are you?

Ask the mods? Doubt they'd tell us, though.


Maybe HE is the one being paid to write crap.

[Samuraikoku]

You asked for evidence. Now present yours that refutes his evidence.

That is his refutation, the immortal and eternal principles of Objectivism as propounded by Ayn Rand. You're not paying attention.

Am I the only one here who has to insist on the usage of sources to Objectiveland?

[Farnhamia]

That is his refutation, the immortal and eternal principles of Objectivism as propounded by Ayn Rand. You're not paying attention.

Am I the only one here who has to insist on the usage of sources to Objectiveland?

You may well be. I'd give it up, frankly.

[Divair]

Am I the only one here who has to insist on the usage of sources to Objectiveland?

You may well be. I'd give it up, frankly.

By this point I'm convinced he is being paid by someone to promote his agenda.

[Samuraikoku]

Am I the only one here who has to insist on the usage of sources to Objectiveland?

You may well be. I'd give it up, frankly.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator

Only in death does duty end.

[Mavorpen]

I think I won using the dictionary...

[Objectiveland]

Ok lets recap. The climate is changing, always has and always will. Man is not responsible for this fluctuation now anymore than he was 5 million years ago. Scientist sluts provided with a lab by the looting government have tried to create man made climate change in order to fleece industrialists. Finally the government can use this stolen property to buy more votes and and ensure everyone's burdens are paid for by someone else's fair share. This sums it up.

[Divair]

Ok lets recap. The climate is changing, always has and always will. Man is not responsible for this fluctuation now anymore than he was 5 million years ago. Scientist sluts provided with a lab by the looting government have tried to create man made climate change in order to fleece industrialists. Finally the government can use this stolen property to buy more votes and and ensure everyone's burdens are paid for by someone else's fair share. This sums it up.

You're just repeating the same crap without evidence. I'm beginning to think this dude is being paid to push an agenda of some company or organization.

[Mavorpen]

Ok lets recap. The climate is changing, always has and always will. Man is not responsible for this fluctuation now anymore than he was 5 million years ago. Scientist sluts provided with a lab by the looting government have tried to create man made climate change in order to fleece industrialists. Finally the government can use this stolen property to buy more votes and and ensure everyone's burdens are paid for by someone else's fair share. This sums it up.

So you're wrong.

[Mavorpen]

Ok lets recap. The climate is changing, always has and always will. Man is not responsible for this fluctuation now anymore than he was 5 million years ago. Scientist sluts provided with a lab by the looting government have tried to create man made climate change in order to fleece industrialists. Finally the government can use this stolen property to buy more votes and and ensure everyone's burdens are paid for by someone else's fair share. This sums it up.

You're just repeating the same crap without evidence. I'm beginning to think this dude is being paid to push an agenda of some company or organization.

Actually about to take this to moderation...

[Divair]

You're just repeating the same crap without evidence. I'm beginning to think this dude is being paid to push an agenda of some company or organization.

Actually about to take this to moderation...

I'd recommend it. He never posts sources, obsessively quotes the same philosophy, and repeats his argument in every thread he posts in. If that doesn't sound like advertising, I don't know what does.

[Ostroeuropa]

We shouldn't disenfranchise objectiveland for being a terrible objectivist

[Objectiveland]

You're just repeating the same crap without evidence. I'm beginning to think this dude is being paid to push an agenda of some company or organization.

Actually about to take this to moderation...

Someone disagrees so you want them silenced? How predictable.

[Mavorpen]

Actually about to take this to moderation...

Someone disagrees so you want them silenced? How predictable.

Go look at the thread and realize how stupid this post is. I actually SPECIFIED that I'm NOT expecting them to silence you. Please, get over yourself.

[Objectiveland]

Someone disagrees so you want them silenced? How predictable.

Go look at the thread and realize how stupid this post is. I actually SPECIFIED that I'm NOT expecting them to silence you. Please, get over yourself.

The why whip out the hall monitor badge?

[Raeyh]

What purpose would disenfranchising them accomplish, anyway? Do you anticipate a sudden rise in Green Party votes to avoid being denied the right to vote or something?