Lock em up

[woodchip]

Well the whack job warmers are getting geared up to put you in jail for disagreeing with them. I'm just waiting for Algore to side with this nutty professor:

"The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus."

Excuse me, but how would you like for someone to write that anyone recieving fubding to promote man made global warming should also be locked up?

"We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept."

So who determines this? You? I bet the politicians will like your concept of free speech very much.

"What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly."

https://theconversation.com/is-misinfor ... gent-23111

Careful there bud, what happens when your “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”
falls apart? Should you and all the warmer promoters then be locked up?

[snoopy]

It's interesting that I see this sort of trend cropping up in more contexts than just global warming. From my perspective, it amounts to trying to make it illegal to disagree with [some entity]. Sounds a lot like communism to me. They also justify their draconian ways with the idea of the betterment of mankind. If we want to value free speech, then we have to understand that people will have their wrong opinions, and other people can potentially be hurt by those wrong opinions. If we're not going to value free speech, then we might as well all line up for the gulags.

[callmeslick]

all it is seems to be ONE INDIVIDUAL, shooting off his mouth and expressing a completely unrealistic level of frustration with others('they should be locked up'). Come on, folks, don't you all hear similar "they should go to jail" exclamations around nearly everything on a pretty common basis? I know I do, and never take them seriously.

[Tunnelcat]

Hmmm. Sounds just like McCarthy wanting to send all those who were perceived commies to jail for sedition.

[callmeslick]

Hmmm. Sounds just like McCarthy wanting to send all those who were perceived commies to jail for sedition.

except, McCarthy was an elected official, head of a committee in the House, and actually had some powers to do so. This guy does not. Sheesh, you folks jump to bizarre conclusions and comparisons sometimes.

[woodchip]

all it is seems to be ONE INDIVIDUAL, shooting off his mouth and expressing a completely unrealistic level of frustration with others('they should be locked up'). Come on, folks, don't you all hear similar "they should go to jail" exclamations around nearly everything on a pretty common basis? I know I do, and never take them seriously.

Yet you have no problem with posting some off the wall comment by a conservative as though it means something

[Z..]

Yet you have no problem with posting some off the wall comment by a conservative as though it means something

Didn't read much of the article because it seems pretty silly, but I'll bite on this and say the difference is your article is written by an assistant professor with no meaningful impact. The conservatives that you speak of are senators, congressmen, judges, and high level policy people that actually impact everyday life.

No one cares about the crazy guy walking around downtown wearing a sign that says the rapture is coming, but people are more inclined to worry when that crazy guy is the Speaker of the House or a Texas senator. You know, for a guy with a "science degree", you're fairly dense woodchip.

[woodchip]

And yet Zuruck a politician can be de-elected or forced to recant by his peers (nice how you didn't mention Reid or Pelosi) while the Nuttu Professor can go on to influence students and others by having the word "professor" by his name. I would suggest you take off the blinders.

[Z..]

Well he has assistant professor next to his name. You mentioned conservatives sir, why would I include Democrats in that?

And to this you must agree, the GOP today has more people saying dumb ★■◆● than the Democrats. You may not agree with their politics, but they don't say stuff like "the female body has a way of shutting pregnancy down when someone is raped". And that came from a ★■◆●ing doctor!!

[callmeslick]

all it is seems to be ONE INDIVIDUAL, shooting off his mouth and expressing a completely unrealistic level of frustration with others('they should be locked up'). Come on, folks, don't you all hear similar "they should go to jail" exclamations around nearly everything on a pretty common basis? I know I do, and never take them seriously.

Yet you have no problem with posting some off the wall comment by a conservative as though it means something

It isn't that I view it as any threat, nor have I remotely suggested any threat to anything past the long-term viability of the GOP.

[callmeslick]

And yet Zuruck a politician can be de-elected or forced to recant by his peers (nice how you didn't mention Reid or Pelosi) while the Nuttu Professor can go on to influence students and others by having the word "professor" by his name. I would suggest you take off the blinders.

and, as someone with a 'science degree' you must, no doubt, be aware of how little real effect the more nutty professorial rants have, right? I mean, I've heard some real doozies during my times in higher ed, and never even imagined them as anything of a directive.

[Spidey]

I don’t take that guy as a threat, but I bet there are plenty of people who agree with him.

[callmeslick]

I don’t take that guy as a threat, but I bet there are plenty of people who agree with him.

maybe you encounter them, but I can't think of many quite that severe. I spend a lot of my charitable effort around protection of the Chesapeake Bay. Now, most of us involved are pissed as hell that 23 states(only one of which borders the Bay) have filed suit to block environmental regs and rulings that benefit the bay. The reason given? That if the regs that WE fought for 15 years to put in place go forward, it might influence legislation and rulings on other watersheds(as if such is a bad thing). Now, as I say, this pisses me off, but I can't say I've heard anyone suggest criminal action against polluters.

[Spidey]

Yup...I stand corrected by Mr. Knowitall

[Tunnelcat]

Hmmm. Sounds just like McCarthy wanting to send all those who were perceived commies to jail for sedition.

except, McCarthy was an elected official, head of a committee in the House, and actually had some powers to do so. This guy does not. Sheesh, you folks jump to bizarre conclusions and comparisons sometimes.

Just an example of one nutcase, with power, trying to tell others what's right for everyone. Thank God he was "de-elected".

And yet Zuruck a politician can be de-elected or forced to recant by his peers (nice how you didn't mention Reid or Pelosi) while the Nuttu Professor can go on to influence students and others by having the word "professor" by his name. I would suggest you take off the blinders.

Most professors have a political slant, usually leftie, which creeps into their teaching. As a student, you have to take that into account and do a little thinking for yourself, when some professor injects his or her politics into their lectures.

[callmeslick]

Yup...I stand corrected by Mr. Knowitall

thanks....seriously, do you think there is some serious number of people THIS radical out there? I don't.

[snoopy]

Most professors have a political slant, usually leftie, which creeps into their teaching. As a student, you have to take that into account and do a little thinking for yourself, when some professor injects his or her politics into their lectures.

The problem that I have is that us people really aren't all that creative - so if all of the authoritative people in our lives consistently present a certain message most of us are going to buy into that message. One of the values and draws of university is the promise of better rounding, better critical thinking, broader intellectual exposure - but if the professorship of universities is increasingly monotonic, it's harder to justify the idea that college will make you a more rounded person. It's an issue that tends to go around the board - conservative christian universities are just as guilty as ivy league.


I'll stand corrected on my comment about this being a trend that cropping up: I think it's a human condition that's nothing new. People just keep on coming up with new ways to try to disguise it. The scary part is that I think there's some of this in all of us. It's the nut jobs (or the ones that think they have attained the power to pull it off) that go out on a limb and try to make it a reality - but there are ways that I see myself wanting to suppress the voice of the people that I disagree with.

This topic also made me think of that ethanol side effects article that came up a while ago - a few years back someone (nut job) could have made a similar argument for how anyone who doesn't support mass ethanol production hates the earth and wants to endanger the future of the race.... but now it seems that all of the extra corn production is having a negative environmental effect that wasn't fully expected. All of the environmental discussions lead me to the same conclusion: human footprint has a negative effect on the environment. There are things we can do to mitigate our effect... but I think the only real "solution" is to limit our population so we have a smaller footprint - and I'm not interested in proposing that as a solution. Maybe the sci-fi ideas are right... maybe we'll get to the point where we swallow hard and dump the money into space colonization because of population pressure.