|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists.
Pretty sure the court of public opinion doesn’t like oil companies and believes they lie to us all the time. And we all know how well science of dangerous behaviors has been treated by the court of public opinion. But hey, whatever keeps the money flowing in and snowballs on the senate floor.
And its cool that states rights are only a think when its suits you. Exxon is free to not operate in the state of MA if they don’t like our AG.
And remember, Trump is the fascist. He wants to deal with the "liberal press" through expanding liable laws.
|
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists.
? Is there more to his "point" then is on this page? His point is in response to one semi flippant comment and had 1 person reply to his comment. Hardly some large scale attack on freedom. He is arguing against something that basically no one is advocating for so. His point is basically just changing the argument. But once again its playing the victim game to die on some hill that no one is invading.
|
On July 28 2016 04:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 04:32 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 04:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 03:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 03:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Democratic attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are refusing to comply with House Republicans’ subpoena over their climate change investigations.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wrote letters to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Tuesday saying that the subpoenas issued this month fall outside of the panel’s authority and violate their states’ rights.
In a letter to Smith, Schneiderman’s counsel Leslie Dubeck called his subpoena an “unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement” operation and said that if enforced, it would “would have the obvious consequence of interfering” when Schneiderman’s investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. illegally lied about what it knew about climate change.
“The subpoena brings us one step closer to a protracted, unnecessary legal confrontation, which will only distract and detract from the work of our respective offices,” Dubeck said.
She offered to meet with Smith or his staff to discuss the committee’s requests, though she asked that representatives of the Democrats on the panel, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), be present as well.
Richard Johnston, chief legal counsel to Healey, wrote that she “objects to the subpoena as an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation,” and “a dangerous overreach by the committee and an affront to states’ rights.”
He said that Smith and his colleagues ignored Healey’s offer to discuss the issue, as well as her objections to his authority and assertions that the documents are privileged.
“This sequence of events suggest that the majority had no intention of considering the substance of Attorney General Healey’s objections.”
Wednesday is the deadline Smith gave Schneiderman, Healey and numerous environmental groups to respond to wide-ranging subpoenas about their Exxon investigations. Source roflmao, the irony of state AGs telling Congress a subpoena is outside Congress's authority when their entire investigation is an illegitimate affront to the first amendment, an attempt to use the coercive power of government to stop the expression of opinions the government does not like. because the issue is just TOO IMPORTANT. what other issues are TOO IMPORTANT to allow people and organizations to exercise free speech regarding them? Fraud and free speech have very little to do with each other. Companies are allowed to express their opinion. And the states are allowed to investigate fraud. The federal government can come for our AG, she is doing what we pay her for. You pay your state AG to violate the first amendment? I'm glad you agree that someone should come after your state AG, because your state AG should be in jail for civil rights violations. The argument that they are investigating fraud and not trying to chill free speech is laughable. It is based on the very tenuous premise that global warming will significantly harm these companies in the future, so their "denial" of it in the past and today will harm shareholders in the future, and they know this, so they are committing fraud to line their pockets in the past and today, and thus leave their shareholders in the future with nothing. That might be plausible but certainly not in the sense of justifying legal prosecution. You can't legally prove harm that hasn't happened just because you really, really, really, really believe it will happen. It's astonishing that with all the controversy over global warming that has been a huge issue for 25 years, no one thought to do this before the last year if it is so cut and dried justifiable. It's political coercion by the government to chill the right to free speech and association. You better not vigorously oppose the government or you're gonna get subpoena'd out the ass and threatened with prosecution and generally harassed and obstructed by the agents of the state. They did it in Wisconsin before they got slapped down and their entire unconstitutional apparatus dismantled, they did it with the IRS and Tea Party groups (still haven't managed to find a single left-wing group that had its application for tax-free status delayed or had the IRS demand its membership and donor lists or copies of its emails), they're doing it now with these authoritarian investigations and their subpoenas. Maybe some Republican state AGs or Trump once he wins can start some investigations into companies that advocate wealth redistribution and other socialist policies since the evidence is solid that socialism is a fraud that significantly harms human civilization everywhere it is attempted. Far more solid than the evidence that global warming will significantly harm human civilization. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to stamp out this fraud being perpetrated on shareholders by, say, Ben & Jerry's, because my opinion is now fact and yours is now fraud. Or perhaps Unilever since Unilever owns Ben & Jerry's. In fact, the rather unique ownership agreement between Unilever and Ben & Jerry's could be a way to shield Unilever from the legal consequences of Ben & Jerry's fraudulent statements and activities and that is simply unacceptable. Corporations can't shield themselves from the consequences of fraud by putting up a legal wall between themselves and their subsidiaries. Now all this is true because I said so and can point to evidence that seemingly backs up my opinion but really does not and in no way justifies my allegation that your political opinion or Ben & Jerry's political opinions are legally fraud. Which is why the government has no business getting involved in political opinions. Oh, you don’t believe in climate change or think its up for debate? My bad. Carry on. The government is coming for you and your ability to deny science to the extent that it will harm others. Feels before science. Prove the harm. You can't. Show me where in the Constitution, federal or state, or in any criminal statute, federal or state, that "deny[ing] science" (which is an opinion, that someone is "deny[ing] science") is a crime. You can't. Again. You are the one putting your feels before the law. Your feels about "science." You want to be able to investigate and potentially prosecute based on your feels of future harm. There is zero evidence that scientific predictions about the future re: global warming are accurate. How could there be? Only the future can provide such evidence. Any half-decent lawyer would demolish in court a contention that scientific predictions are a valid basis for legal action simply by pointing out how often the climate change models have been revised, or by pointing to the long and extensive history of accepted science or specific scientific predictions on a matter being later proven to be incorrect. Provide your time machine and I'll drop my objections. You can't. Again. Your elevation of "science" to the position formerly occupied by God in society is not wise. Are you saying that the concept of "predicting things based on evidence" does not exist, lmao You heard it here people, physics is obviously only about the past, because to say something about the future it would have already needed to happen. This might legitimately be the stupidest post on TL
He meant that predictive models cannot constitute legal evidence, not that things cannot be predicted based on evidence.
|
United States43536 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists.
You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in?
It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea.
|
On July 28 2016 05:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:53 Nyxisto wrote:On July 28 2016 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 04:32 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 04:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 03:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 03:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Democratic attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are refusing to comply with House Republicans’ subpoena over their climate change investigations.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wrote letters to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Tuesday saying that the subpoenas issued this month fall outside of the panel’s authority and violate their states’ rights.
In a letter to Smith, Schneiderman’s counsel Leslie Dubeck called his subpoena an “unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement” operation and said that if enforced, it would “would have the obvious consequence of interfering” when Schneiderman’s investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. illegally lied about what it knew about climate change.
“The subpoena brings us one step closer to a protracted, unnecessary legal confrontation, which will only distract and detract from the work of our respective offices,” Dubeck said.
She offered to meet with Smith or his staff to discuss the committee’s requests, though she asked that representatives of the Democrats on the panel, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), be present as well.
Richard Johnston, chief legal counsel to Healey, wrote that she “objects to the subpoena as an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation,” and “a dangerous overreach by the committee and an affront to states’ rights.”
He said that Smith and his colleagues ignored Healey’s offer to discuss the issue, as well as her objections to his authority and assertions that the documents are privileged.
“This sequence of events suggest that the majority had no intention of considering the substance of Attorney General Healey’s objections.”
Wednesday is the deadline Smith gave Schneiderman, Healey and numerous environmental groups to respond to wide-ranging subpoenas about their Exxon investigations. Source roflmao, the irony of state AGs telling Congress a subpoena is outside Congress's authority when their entire investigation is an illegitimate affront to the first amendment, an attempt to use the coercive power of government to stop the expression of opinions the government does not like. because the issue is just TOO IMPORTANT. what other issues are TOO IMPORTANT to allow people and organizations to exercise free speech regarding them? Fraud and free speech have very little to do with each other. Companies are allowed to express their opinion. And the states are allowed to investigate fraud. The federal government can come for our AG, she is doing what we pay her for. You pay your state AG to violate the first amendment? I'm glad you agree that someone should come after your state AG, because your state AG should be in jail for civil rights violations. The argument that they are investigating fraud and not trying to chill free speech is laughable. It is based on the very tenuous premise that global warming will significantly harm these companies in the future, so their "denial" of it in the past and today will harm shareholders in the future, and they know this, so they are committing fraud to line their pockets in the past and today, and thus leave their shareholders in the future with nothing. That might be plausible but certainly not in the sense of justifying legal prosecution. You can't legally prove harm that hasn't happened just because you really, really, really, really believe it will happen. It's astonishing that with all the controversy over global warming that has been a huge issue for 25 years, no one thought to do this before the last year if it is so cut and dried justifiable. It's political coercion by the government to chill the right to free speech and association. You better not vigorously oppose the government or you're gonna get subpoena'd out the ass and threatened with prosecution and generally harassed and obstructed by the agents of the state. They did it in Wisconsin before they got slapped down and their entire unconstitutional apparatus dismantled, they did it with the IRS and Tea Party groups (still haven't managed to find a single left-wing group that had its application for tax-free status delayed or had the IRS demand its membership and donor lists or copies of its emails), they're doing it now with these authoritarian investigations and their subpoenas. Maybe some Republican state AGs or Trump once he wins can start some investigations into companies that advocate wealth redistribution and other socialist policies since the evidence is solid that socialism is a fraud that significantly harms human civilization everywhere it is attempted. Far more solid than the evidence that global warming will significantly harm human civilization. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to stamp out this fraud being perpetrated on shareholders by, say, Ben & Jerry's, because my opinion is now fact and yours is now fraud. Or perhaps Unilever since Unilever owns Ben & Jerry's. In fact, the rather unique ownership agreement between Unilever and Ben & Jerry's could be a way to shield Unilever from the legal consequences of Ben & Jerry's fraudulent statements and activities and that is simply unacceptable. Corporations can't shield themselves from the consequences of fraud by putting up a legal wall between themselves and their subsidiaries. Now all this is true because I said so and can point to evidence that seemingly backs up my opinion but really does not and in no way justifies my allegation that your political opinion or Ben & Jerry's political opinions are legally fraud. Which is why the government has no business getting involved in political opinions. Oh, you don’t believe in climate change or think its up for debate? My bad. Carry on. The government is coming for you and your ability to deny science to the extent that it will harm others. Feels before science. Prove the harm. You can't. Show me where in the Constitution, federal or state, or in any criminal statute, federal or state, that "deny[ing] science" (which is an opinion, that someone is "deny[ing] science") is a crime. You can't. Again. You are the one putting your feels before the law. Your feels about "science." You want to be able to investigate and potentially prosecute based on your feels of future harm. There is zero evidence that scientific predictions about the future re: global warming are accurate. How could there be? Only the future can provide such evidence. Any half-decent lawyer would demolish in court a contention that scientific predictions are a valid basis for legal action simply by pointing out how often the climate change models have been revised, or by pointing to the long and extensive history of accepted science or specific scientific predictions on a matter being later proven to be incorrect. Provide your time machine and I'll drop my objections. You can't. Again. Your elevation of "science" to the position formerly occupied by God in society is not wise. Are you saying that the concept of "predicting things based on evidence" does not exist, lmao You heard it here people, physics is obviously only about the past, because to say something about the future it would have already needed to happen. This might legitimately be the stupidest post on TL He meant that predictive models cannot constitute legal evidence, not that things cannot be predicted based on evidence.
That is fine, but it also doesn't make you immune to discovery requests for correspondence about global warming. This isn't about science. Its about an email that says "Please hire some people to get results that show this isn't an issue."
|
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists.
Your presidential choice is Trump or Hillary, both of whom won by popular vote in their own primaries. Does that not raise alarms with you about the public opinion deciding important things?
|
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
He literally said that the reliable explanations that science provides can't have prediction power, which is literally the point of science- to explain our universe and to use the past and present to predict the future.
Quoting him:
There is zero evidence that scientific predictions about the future re: global warming are accurate. How could there be? Only the future can provide such evidence.
Provide your time machine and I'll drop my objections.
There is no such certainty in science
|
On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea.
I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have the unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years.
|
Neat, Trump forgot that he claimed to know Putin very well and is now claiming he doesn’t know him and they never met.
|
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort.
|
United States43536 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years.
We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society.
However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
|
On July 28 2016 05:24 Plansix wrote:
Neat, Trump forgot that he claimed to know Putin very well and is now claiming he doesn’t know him and they never met.
That must be why he won't release his taxes until the audit's up, he doesn't want to disclose that he's on the KGB payroll. Let's keep investigating and crack this.
|
On July 28 2016 05:28 biology]major wrote:
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort.
As long as everyone else is waiting for the others to start, nothing will happen. And there is a lot of evidence we could create a lot of new industries and infrastructure around other forms of energy. And we can market those skills abroad. We can get ahead of the curve if we start pushing away the denial based on entrenched financial interests.
|
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists.
Mindless mob rule is closer to fascism than actually having an intellectual foundation to how your country operates. I am not a constitutional scholar but I believe that the much celebrated founding fathers had similar ideas in mind when they created a constitution. If the marketplace of ideas is so great we should just strawpoll every political decision
On July 28 2016 05:28 biology]major wrote:
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort.
we have created this last year, the first time in human history. It's called the Paris climate change agreement and is signed by 196 countries on this earth. Needlessly to say Trump wants to pull the US out of it
|
On July 28 2016 05:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:24 Plansix wrote:
Neat, Trump forgot that he claimed to know Putin very well and is now claiming he doesn’t know him and they never met. That must be why he won't release his taxes until the audit's up, he doesn't want to disclose that he's on the KGB payroll. Let's keep investigating and crack this.
Yeah he could release his tax returns even if they were under an audit the IRS has said as much. He won't release them as they will reveal he is not as rich as he said he is and also that he probably didn't any taxes via Real Estate losses.
|
On July 28 2016 05:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:28 biology]major wrote:
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort. As long as everyone else is waiting for the others to start, nothing will happen. And there is a lot of evidence we could create a lot of new industries and infrastructure around other forms of energy. And we can market those skills abroad. We can get ahead of the curve if we start pushing away the denial based on entrenched financial interests.
And to be clear, the standard Republican position on climate change isn't "we accept the facts and are just waiting for other people to join in the effort"; it's "we don't accept the facts so there's no reason for us- or anyone else- to act at all".
|
Canada11404 Posts
The interesting thing with Trump's attack on Kaine is it really depends on how you frame the facts. So it is true that Virginia's unemployment rate doubled during his term as governor. However, it was the 08/09 Great Recession and Virginia's unemployment rate was better than the national average both before and after the Recession. I guess it depends on how much you think a governor of one state could reasonably counteract the Recession
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/possible-hillary-vp-pick-tim-kaine-brings-solid-economic-record.html
|
On July 28 2016 05:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years. We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society. However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
I'm not saying that people should simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed. They are free to advocate (even aggressively) their position. What they cannot do, however, is use the force of government to silence their opponents. That is fascist.
The unfortunately reality of an open and democratic society is that there will be bad results in the court of public opinion. However, what truly matters is the sanctity of the process, not the results themselves. Once you start focusing on the results, then you're on the path to something totalitarian.
Speaking of all of this, whatever happened to paralleluniverse? Historically, he was the champion of this issue around here (and he and I disagreed over damned near everything).
|
United States43536 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:29 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years. We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society. However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you. I'm saying that people should simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed. They are free to advocate (even aggressively) their position. What they cannot do, however, is use the force of government to silence their opponents. That is fascist. The unfortunately reality of an open and democratic society is that there will be bad results in the court of public opinion. However, what truly matters is the sanctity of the process, not the results themselves. Once you start focusing on the results, then you're on the path to something totalitarian. Speaking of all of this, whatever happened to paralleluniverse? Historically, he was the champion of this issue around here (and he and I disagreed over damned near everything).
Imagine a hypothetical case in which a company publicly stated belief in one model to their shareholders regarding a controversy while privately maintaining another, much more scientifically rigorous, stance which projected a much less profitable outcome. Their public stance was not the one that they privately believed in but it was the one that was likely to cause least damage to the share prices, until reality caught up. Would you agree that in that case the shareholders were being defrauded by the board? I would argue yes.
|
Hearing about Trump's plea to have a crypto-fascist state commit espionage against our government, I'm reminded of that letter the GOP wrote to Iran in the midst of an important multinational negotiation.
It seems treason is just a word, nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
