donnystills Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? My girlfriend is taking a critical thinking class through the philosophy department at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The general theme of the course is about pseudoscience (astrology, cryptozoology, UFOs, etc.). It appears that global warming skepticism (or "denialism", as the professor is putting it) has made the list. The above link is to a blog post written by another professor within RIT's philosophy department advocating for criminal sanctions against organized global warming skepticism. Read the blog post; it isn't long. So the professor (of a critical thinking class, remember) is proceeding under the assumption that global warming skeptics are in the same category as astrologists, and the discussion is currently focused on whether criminal sanctions are justified for those who speak out against the narrative. How would you all respond to something like this? I haven't had a detailed discussion with her about this just yet. I got the email this morning, so I apologize for shooting from the hip. I'll be back with more information about the classroom content. For now I'm just looking for reactions to the blog post, and how you would respond to it if you were in that class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I don't even wanna go into the details, but it's just the usual double standard going on when it comes to statism (imo obviously). A gang of people committing mass armed robbery to fund environmetal activist to produce a global warming scare is apparnetly completely moral, but other interest groups funding skeptics is evil...But it also just goes to show how even people who do know how to think critically can just go on with confirming whatever emotional bias they have without even needing to expose themselves to valid ciritcism of their point. Also scary to see how, practically every kind of skepticism can presented in such a way by those academics to make it look like a bunch of crazy people who want everyone to die. (Then again, that's apparently to modus operandi of the left as it seems...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 If your position needs to be enforced via gunpoint, you're wrong. Why isn't he advocating using force against the UFO people as well? Oh, because that doesn't interfere with the narrative... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKPgamer Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Well I think he sets up "the people" as being stupid and ignorant. If "the people" are so easily swayed why doesn't reason and evidence convince them? And I know the guy writing believes in a govt that can be virtuous...but he's advocating that people can't make decisions for themselves. If someone wants to take a risk and live somewhere you wouldn't that's their own choice. If people really care about the long-term consequences they will research it themselves. And what cracks me up is the Defense Minister was saying there is no risk...so the govt said, "hey it's fine...live here...there's no imminent earthquake." And the professor's response is, "We clearly need more govt here to solve the problem." Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 How would you all respond to something like this? Fraud is sinister, but it is cooperative. Each and every one of us has the responsibility of fact checking, research, etc. It's underhanded to stand before an audience and make false truth claims, but it is hardly criminal. That's what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipeline_mike Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 It can be criminal(maybe not illegal according to the gangsters du jour, but certainly criminal by any common law sense of the word) to make false truth claims. For instance, what if the person is making the false truth claim about the instance of rape? The question may be, to what extent do the people in question understand or not understand the consequences of their falsehoods? Would understanding change the position they espouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The right got terrorism and the left got global warming. Daddy state keeps us safe from bad man. Mommy state keeps us safe from our bad selves. They'll never make laws against climate change skepticism because then they'd be forced to prove their claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts