Yeah we should wait till there's a scientific consensus before we try doing anything.

_________________

So you are saying that people should be jailed for disagreeing with Bill Nye?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

it sounds like RFK jr. is the one who wants to imprison climate deniers.

he's not the one who'd be prosecuting anyone. he wouldn't have the power. so who cares what he "says"?

it's also a crime to be a holocaust denier.

Bill Nye also wants to, at a very minimum, have a conversation about imprisoning climate change deniers. That's pretty clear here.

It's not a crime in the United States to deny the Holocaust. I don't give a shit about European laws because I don't live there.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I don't care if he has the power or not. He's still a fucking fuck. Not having the power to enforce your fucking fuck thought process does not exclude you from being a fucking fuck.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

it's "being talked about" in the US just like climate denial "laws".

OK. And if a prominent public figure comes out endorsing that I will nominate them too. Two wrongs dont make a right here.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

then go after the political figures who are legislating this stuff. it's like people who get all bent out of shape about what cat scratch fever says. if you don't give a shit about european laws because you don't live there, why do you care what bill nye the science guy thinks? unless he's the one with the power to put these laws into practice...which it doesn't sound like he is.

guys that have tried to push their way into politics like al franken and the governator...yeah that makes sense. but just a regular celebrity...blah. don't sweat it so much.

Well, it doesn't really take a lot of energy to create a DBOTW thread. I'm not going out of my way to protest Bill Nye and shit on him on social media and stuff. I'm not extremely worried that this is actually going to become a law. It's just a pretty horrifying opinion from a very prominent public figure. It stood out as douchebag worthy.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Well these are sad times then if bill nye is considered a "prominent" public figure. I guess that is fucking fuck worthy.

I'm going to withhold judgment until I speak to my own expert who is both a prominent BBDoT and a Shaman. His answer will determine who should get fucked.

_________________
DRINK BƎTTƎR. @theRIPH

the data is proven, we just dont know whats really going to happen either sooner or later.

if we try to clean up the environment, and we end up being wrong about the end of the world, the result will be a cleaner world to live in. its utterly stupid to not do anything.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

Of course not. But the tenor of your post seems to suggest that we don't really know if humans cause climate change and because we don't know that that nothing should be done until we know for sure. If I'm reading more into your post please let me know.

_________________

I haven't suggested anything about actions or lack thereof.
Really... all I want to say is its bullshit to support putting people in jail for not agreeing with something.
Just insane in my opinion.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Unless I'm becoming legally retarded or blind, (Be SURE to tell me) where in your original post did Bill Nye, in his own words, say that climate change deniers "should be jailed"..........I surmised that he only said 'we'll see what happens'..........but I've got my Old Style blinders on - anyway, some of you take yourselves way too seriously. Fuck it. This board is is so full of vitriol, it's not even worth the effort anymore. And I don't even know who the fuck this julie Decaro person you geniuses keeping talking about........I'm out of touch, you're out of time, shirtless out.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

Let's start with this: In a vacuum, it is unquestionably anti-free speech to advocate the incarceration, or any formal or informal punishment, of someone for what they have said. That is a fact of the case, and it is undisputed.

Now, is Nye advocating for the formal punishment of climate deniers in line with other kinds of speech our society has deemed unreasonable and thus "unprotected"? Is "denying" climate change akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Certainly not in immediacy, or of real, imminent danger. And what of "denying"? What of "skeptical"? Would it be a crime--a misdemeanor, perhaps--to merely be skeptical of climate change rather than be outright in denial of it?

Mr. Nye's propositions don't pass the smell test, at least not for me, and sound a lot like alarmism attempting to uproot a right we hold almost absolutely sacred, in the interest of quieting dissent on something he himself claims is decided anyway. What's next, punishing people for not wanting to even listen to the consensus? If humanity has elected representatives so stupid and in love with their own professional power, that they would simply ignore an impending apocalypse in favor of a few shares on Facebook, then the apocalypse is just what humanity, as a whole, deserves. May the next species have a bit better luck.

This isn't about Nye being right or wrong on climate change, it's about him being in favor of suspending certain aspects of people's constitutional rights so that he doesn't have to hear dissent, at least until he lines up a series of branded debates on YouTube.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

He's got his own words? I've been using the ones everyone else's been using.




Come on, that's more than a bit disingenuous given this is a quote:



Nye answers a question about jailing climate change deniers with rhetorical questions about jailing other people that have committed crimes in the face of the public (Enron and tobaccoo execs)...is his implication here not painfully obvious yet? He thinks those that deny climate change should be imprisoned, or the discussion at least had. That is bone chillingly stupid.

Late.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

When any of you geniuses can posit an original thought....I'm all ears.
All I'm seeing is the classic cut/copy.
I thought you were better than that, Darkside...........

whatever. so fucking what?

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

Back.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

What the hell are you mumbling about?
I'll just assume you're just trying to cast out some bait here.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Psh, come on DS, the things you've said about drummers?

I could assume that you're a flag wavin' dick in the wind bbq squirrel eating redneck wife beater - would that make me any more right? No.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

I appreciate you re-printing Nyes quote. Now that I see it in context it actually makes more sense. He isn't saying that he "thinks those that deny climate change should be imprisoned." His implication in reference to Enron and tobacco would be those that intentionally mislead the public with known disinformation (the key being the word "known"). That is different than "climate change deniers". Again, I mentioned a movie in a previous post which provides insight into this exact question (Merchants of Doubt). When big industry pays outside groups to provide "expert" opinions which contradict scientific evidence, should that be legal? When does propaganda cross the line? I'm not talking about a difference in opinion. Im talking about intentional deception. Tobacco certainly did it. Obviously some execs at Enron did as well. Big oil has a huge interest in the climate change arena and they are a primary funding source for much of the anti-climate change talking points which are repeated ad nauseum on talk radio until they become accepted as fact.

If you have some time to kill, watch the movie. Even if you disagree with the concept of man-made climate change I think it provides some interesting perspective.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

I don't believe anyone with the slightest knowledge of the topic could doubt that man has some effect on the climate. The question is, how much of an effect is it, and even if everyone acknowledges and agrees upon the effect, what can be done to reverse or stop it. For example, nobody wants a hole in the ozone, but not many people seem to want to stop driving their SUVs either. Never mind emerging world economies that are experiencing their own industrial revolutions.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

/

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

I'd like to think that your 1st statement were true but all you need to do is to listen to talk radio to see that a significant number of Americans dismiss the concept of global warming entirely - regardless of the human link.

As for the rest of the post, I don't disagree that major changes in regulations to address the issue are a difficult sell. The argument that China and other large manufacturing bases will not follow the same same protocols and thus why should we be at a disadvantage is a powerful one. On the other hand we are widely viewed as the world leader on these types of issues. Ignoring the situation is certainly not the correct approach. Further, the SUV example in many ways shows how regulations can be beneficial without draconian measures. Look at the mpg of an explorer today vs 15 yrs ago. In fact look at mpg across the board. It is a complex issue but there are a lot of very smart people that can develop solutions if the resolve if there.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

I think Ted Cruz was watching The Day After Tomorrow the night before that interview.

_________________

I'm pretty sure Ted Cruz might also actually believe the earth is 5000 years old.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don