Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

by **Objectiveland** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:10 pm

Man made climate change is a farce. You can either believe my truths or someone else's lies but it doesn't change the facts.

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:10 pm

Objectiveland wrote:Man made climate change is a farce. You can either believe my truths or someone else's lies but it doesn't change the facts.

For a nation called Objectiveland you're pretty... biased.

by **Mavorpen** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:13 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:Man made climate change is a farce. You can either believe my truths or someone else's lies but it doesn't change the facts.

For a nation called Objectiveland you're pretty... biased.

No, just completely hypocritical.

by **Objectiveland** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:15 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
For a nation called Objectiveland you're pretty... biased.

No, just completely hypocritical.

How so?

by **Ethel mermania** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:16 pm

people who advocate disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, should be disenfranchised themselves

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:16 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:No, just completely hypocritical.

How so?

You're not being objective on climate change.

You can't possibly know that man-made climate change is false, and yet you decry it as such.

by **Mavorpen** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:17 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:No, just completely hypocritical.

How so?

Your claims that no evidence has been presented when you're the only one that has given none.

by **Costa Alegria** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:18 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:people who advocate disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, should be disenfranchised themselves

Quite, although some people obviously think they pose some sort of threat.

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:22 pm

Costa Alegria wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:people who advocate disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, should be disenfranchised themselves

Quite, although some people obviously think they pose some sort of threat.

If a bunch of stupid voters equalize out a bunch of smart voters, I'd say they pose a threat.

by **Objectiveland** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:22 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
How so?

You're not being objective on climate change.

You can't possibly know that man-made climate change is false, and yet you decry it as such.

You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true

by **Mavorpen** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:23 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
You're not being objective on climate change.

You can't possibly know that man-made climate change is false, and yet you decry it as such.

You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true

It's called research.

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:23 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
You're not being objective on climate change.

You can't possibly know that man-made climate change is false, and yet you decry it as such.

You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true

So it's immediately false?

You can't possibly know the Bible is true. I got bad news for all Christians by your logic...

by **Mavorpen** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:24 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true

So it's immediately false?

You can't possibly know the Bible is true. I got bad news for all Christians by your logic...

Please don't do that. Not the thread for it.

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:24 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
So it's immediately false?

You can't possibly know the Bible is true. I got bad news for all Christians by your logic...

Please don't do that. Not the thread for it.

But... But...

The logic. It's so horrible ;-;

by **Saruhan** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:26 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
You're not being objective on climate change.

You can't possibly know that man-made climate change is false, and yet you decry it as such.

You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#References

Ask for proof, and ye shall receive

*Edit: as soon as I posted proof, he went offline, convenient

by **Costa Alegria** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:26 pm

Agymnum wrote:If a bunch of stupid voters equalize out a bunch of smart voters, I'd say they pose a threat.

And what if it's the opposite?

by **Ethel mermania** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:27 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Costa Alegria wrote:
Quite, although some people obviously think they pose some sort of threat.

If a bunch of stupid voters equalize out a bunch of smart voters, I'd say they pose a threat.

in a democracy, people have the right to be wrong, those who are unable to persuade the majority are at fault.

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:27 pm

Costa Alegria wrote:
Agymnum wrote:If a bunch of stupid voters equalize out a bunch of smart voters, I'd say they pose a threat.

And what if it's the opposite?

Well, the smart voters don't trump the stupid voters, they just equalize them out.

Regardless if the stupid voters get their laws passed, the smart voters DON'T get their laws passed. That's the problem.

by **Raeyh** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:30 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Costa Alegria wrote:
And what if it's the opposite?

Well, the smart voters don't trump the stupid voters, they just equalize them out.

Regardless if the stupid voters get their laws passed, the smart voters DON'T get their laws passed. That's the problem.

The voters don't get laws passed, the politicians do.

by **Agymnum** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:31 pm

Raeyh wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Well, the smart voters don't trump the stupid voters, they just equalize them out.

Regardless if the stupid voters get their laws passed, the smart voters DON'T get their laws passed. That's the problem.

The voters don't get laws passed, the politicians do.

Correct, but if stupid people vote for stupid politicians, guess whose policies get pushed?

by **Ethel mermania** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:31 pm

Saruhan wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#References

Ask for proof, and ye shall receive

unitl 1978 if you said moons can have volcano's you would have been laughed out of any science symposium, and would not have been able to earn a Ph.d in astrophysics, Because everyone knew moons were cold dead worlds,.... then came voyager, and oh look at Io..... Science was completely and utterly wrong.

by **Costa Alegria** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:31 pm

Agymnum wrote:Well, the smart voters don't trump the stupid voters, they just equalize them out.

Regardless if the stupid voters get their laws passed, the smart voters DON'T get their laws passed. That's the problem.

And with relation to the OP, should people that don't believe in climate change be disenfranchised, even if they are a minority in many countries?

For instance, in a European wide survey conducted in 2009, 87% of Europeans think that climate change is a serious problem and 10% think that it isn't. If the OP and various other proponents are to be believed, the 10% should not be able to vote.

by **Mavorpen** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:32 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Saruhan wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#References

Ask for proof, and ye shall receive

unitl 1978 if you said moons can have volcano's you would have been laughed out of any science symposium, and would not have been able to earn a Ph.d in astrophysics, Because everyone knew moons were cold dead worlds,.... then came voyager, and oh look at Io..... Science was completely and utterly wrong.

The fuck are you talking about? You could still receive a Ph.D.

by **Ethel mermania** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:34 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
unitl 1978 if you said moons can have volcano's you would have been laughed out of any science symposium, and would not have been able to earn a Ph.d in astrophysics, Because everyone knew moons were cold dead worlds,.... then came voyager, and oh look at Io..... Science was completely and utterly wrong.

The fuck are you talking about? You could still receive a Ph.D.

for not understanding something as simple as how a moon works? i think not.

by **Mavorpen** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:35 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:The fuck are you talking about? You could still receive a Ph.D.

for not understanding something as simple as how a moon works? i think not.

Right, because EVERY single question on EVERY single exam was about moons. Seems legit.

Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

Who is online