Should CC deniers be given space to air their views?

[Little John]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

I'm specifically not saying anything about expressing things in an intellectual manner or any other, nor am I saying anything about arguments I agree with or suggesting I'm the one to decide what arguments are valid or not! Not sure how you inferred that from what I wrote.

I misspelled "intellectual". I meant to say "ineffectual".

In other words:

"....What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely ineffectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?...."

And so my point stands. Specifically in relation to your re-assertion:

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

You may wish to re-address it given my earlier spelling mistake

That's a little clearer now.

However, let's be clear, what I'm saying as nothing to to do with whether or no I agree with it. I'm talking about whether what's being published has significant negative impact. If it does then there's argument to ban it.

You've merely reiterated that which my criticism was aimed at without in any way addressing the criticism. If you consider a contribution, in advance of it being made to a debate, to have a negative impact on that debate, then you have made an a-priori assumption as to what constitutes a negative impact. In other words, you have decided, a-priori, what is and is not a valid argument and, consequently, who gets the right to public discourse.

I repeat, who are you to do that?

[biffvernon]

you have decided, a-priori, what is and is not a valid argument and, consequently, who gets the right to public discourse.

The law does that in respect to incitement to racial hatred, so there is precedence.

Not quite a parallel, but the law also does that in circumstances where what is written is a libel.

[Little John]

you have decided, a-priori, what is and is not a valid argument and, consequently, who gets the right to public discourse.

The law does that in respect to incitement to racial hatred, so there is precedence.

Not quite a parallel, but the law also does that in circumstances where what is written is a libel.

And there you go again. What the F--k has an argument about climate science got to do with incitement to racial hatred? I have absolutely zero respect for you Biff Vernon when you pull this kind if pathetically shitty and underhand debating tactic. Or, if you really are ignorant of the kind of bollocks you are engaging when you pull this kind of conflationary nonsense, then you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are. The thing is, though, I know you are not thick, so what does that make you?

And I say all of the above as someone who has a firm belief in the climate science pointing to severe climate change.

[clv101]

You've merely reiterated that which my criticism was aimed at without in any way addressing the criticism. If you consider a contribution, in advance of it being made to a debate, to have a negative impact on that debate, then you have made an a-priori assumption as to what constitutes a negative impact. In other words, you have decided, a-priori, what is and is not a valid argument and, consequently, who gets the right to public discourse.

I repeat, who are you to do that?

I'm not doing that. I haven't decided what is or isn't a valid argument, I certainly haven't decided who gets the right to publish anything. Please reread what I've written in this thread. I have not said that folk shouldn't publish on climate change denial! All I've said is that if publishing something (anything) causes significant negative impact (not in my personal opinion but in public opinion - like with racial hatred) then there's argument to ban it.

I don't quite understand why three quarters of my posts on this thread have needed to clarify what I've already clearly said.

I think the more interesting discussion might be had around whether Nigel Lawson, for example, publishing his views on climate change does cause significant negative impact. Is it more like racial hatred (publicly accepted not to be okay) or creationism (publicly accepted to be okay).

[biffvernon]

And there you go again. What the **** has an argument about climate science got to do with incitement to racial hatred? I have absolutely zero respect for you Biff Vernon when you pull this kind if pathetically shitty and underhand debating tactic. Or, if you really are ignorant of the kind of bollocks you are engaging when you pull this kind of conflationary nonsense, then you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are. The thing is, though, I know you are not thick, so what does that make you?

And I say all of the above as someone who has a firm belief in the climate science pointing to severe climate change.

Since you have absolutely zero respect for me I don't expect a reply, however, since you ask, the connection between writing things that incite racial hatred and writing things that incite global warming denial, is that both could both be subject to being deleted from internet social media platforms. Inciting racial hatred is, in my opinion, really bad and is rightly against the law of this land. It upsets people and could result in people being violent. It might even lead to warfare. Inciting denial of global warming could lead to policies that result in the extinction of the human race. So it's even worse.

Steve, if you do feel like responding, despite my deserving of absolutely zero respect, it would be really nice if you could stick to asterisk-free rational debate based on testable evidence and logically deduced conclusion.

[extractorfan]

Inciting racial hatred is, in my opinion, really bad and is rightly against the law of this land. It upsets people and could result in people being violent.

I don't accept that the incitement to religious hatred law is necessary, it's too much a grey area as to what constitutes religious hatred. We had a perfectly good law against inciting violence, which should have been used more effectively. Religion should not have special privilege.

Inciting denial of global warming could lead to policies that result in the extinction of the human race. So it's even worse.

Some people, myself included, find it easier to form opinions based on the arguments people have, so in my view inciting denial of global warming can be useful. I at one time doubted it was human caused, over time I've come around. So I don't think inciting denial of global warming could lead to the extinction of the human race, even people who accept it, still contribute to that quite well.

[biffvernon]

I didn't say anything about religious hatred but inciting denial of global warming could conceivably lead to the extinction of the human race if, as a consequence, the likes of Nigel Lawson were to win popular approval and prevent the world's governments coming to agree a climate treaty.

[extractorfan]

I didn't say anything about religious hatred

oh no, so you didn't!

[woodburner]

I have looked at the forum registration agreement and it says:

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit.

There are a couple of posters who regularly ignore this requirement. One has recently become more moderate and acceptable, but everybody agreed to a standard of behaviour at the time of registering. Don't you think it's about time you honoured that agreement? Your persistent outbursts are tediously boring.

[snow hope]

Shame on those who selectively quoted to draw false inferences.

No, Biff, Shame on you for comparing AGW deniers to holocaust deniers or racial hatred - you are the one who made that core statement.... don't try to wriggle out of it.

Of course the AGW deniers round here will now attack. Never mind, I have a stout tin hat. :tinhat

No attacks necessary, when you make such absurd statements.......but you certainly need a tin hat!

[biffvernon]

Q.E.D.

[woodburner]

In the end, nothing matters. The sea levels have been way higher than they are today, and the ice sheets have waxed and waned several times before.

It's not worth getting worked up about. There will be a mass extinction sooner or later. No melodrama, it'll just happen, then there will be space for different life forms.

[RenewableCandy]

And a Merry Christmas to you, too

[3rdRock]

In the end, nothing matters. The sea levels have been way higher than they are today, and the ice sheets have waxed and waned several times before.

It's not worth getting worked up about. There will be a mass extinction sooner or later. No melodrama, it'll just happen, then there will be space for different life forms.

...... and the meek shall inherit the earth. Sounds good to me!

[woodburner]

There will be very few left, meek or not.