RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change?

RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/6/2016 6:30:44 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But I have evidence, something as far as I am aware, you do not. The only evidence you have presented proves that you are dumber than a post and ignorant as a stone.

Lucylastic -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/6/2016 7:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: Lucy oh FFS ken no I dont, but the situations are miles apart, not even relevant. you just want to seem to deny you could be wrong or misinformed.. you are like that with all of your "conspiracies" that aren't I don't see it as a conspiracy. I see fraud as a violation of the law. Big/little doesn't matter. Convict when possible. What I see as disturbing is using the expression of belief and the prescident that they want to set for this as a bigger issue. Doesn't make any difference whether they go after the big guy first. Once they get thru them, then go after the little guy. Ever hear of ISIS. Basically they do that only I don't think they use a viable judicial system to justify their actions (the difference) like we do. how do you feel about the PP video conspiracy??? do you think CMP should be prosecuted for their fraud? Or do you still believe PP slow spits living babies for tissue and other body parts? Convict when possible??LMFAO why not instead convict when there is cause/evidence/wrongdoing to do so. isnt that supposed to be the rule of law???? rules dont apply to the rich like they do the poor, as we have already seen millions of times you wanna support exxons fraud, go ahead, but please dont make it a conspiracy thought police theory, cos then I have to consider you do not have the ability to tell facts from fiction and fantasy.

Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/6/2016 7:11:16 AM)
Thought, speech and action are three different things. People can think however they want, they can say whatever they want, and they can do whatever they want. No matter what you think there is no law or consequences, but if you say it especially in a very large public arena, that deals with the huge issues of public/private funds and environment, one is treading on thin ice. If you then knowing take action to break the laws, absolute prosecution.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/6/2016 2:33:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is dangerous territory. Yes indeed it is dangerous territory. On one hand it could be argued that this issue involves important issues of free speech, the public's right to know and the right to engage in perfectly legal political argument without fear of prosecution. On the other hand, it could be argued that Big Energy has a huge financial interest in ensuring particular political outcomes that are contrary to the public interest and that they knowingly promote falsehoods and lies with the intention of obtaining a financial benefit ie they perpetrate a fraud. For many years, tobacco companies knowingly promoted the notion that smoking didn't cause cancer, even when they were in possession of information and data that led to the opposite conclusion. They deliberately withheld this information and made millions on the back of that deception. The cost to the public, in terms of lives lost and ruined as well as the $ cost, was incalculable but enormous. The benefit to the tobacco companies was also incalculable but huge. To my mind, the tobacco companies perpetrated a gigantic fraud on the public and are legally liable for their actions. If fraud was committed, I absolutely believe the punishment should fit the crime. But, it's a big "IF." And, what these AG's are doing, is attempting to make it illegal to not believe that humans are the cause of global warming/climate change. THAT is scary shit. In no way, should it be illegal for me to disagree, or a company to disagree. quote: Are we going to repeat the mistakes of the tobacco case? The critical fact to be established is this: Is it reasonable for an expert in the field to be of the view that it is a fact that AGW is not human caused? Big Energy companies have the resources to access the best information available so the threshold is that of an expert view, not a reasonably well informed individual view. As the scientific consensus is that human caused AGW is real, and this view is supported by mountains of evidence, it does seem to me that it would be rather difficult for Big Energy to sustain the argument that an independent objective expert in the field would be of an opposite view. Just because I like to tease you, I must point out that anyone that things AGW isn't caused by humans is an absolute moron. I mean, AGW is "Anthropogenic Global Warming." I mean, "Anthropogenic" itself means, "caused by humans." Thus, anyone that believes AGW (aka global warming caused by humans) isn't caused by humans needs to have his/her vocabulary checked. Teasing over... no matter what anyone says, it's not "settled science" that climate change is caused by humans to the extent humans are being blamed. There are those that believe that and those that don't. These AG's want to criminalize those that disagree with them. Therein lies your dangerous territory. What happens once a new regime (and it'll be a regime) comes in and believes the opposite? Will the tide turn and those who support the idea of AGW will end up being the ones afoul of the law?

Awareness -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/9/2016 12:35:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. The author is a member of the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank designed to broaden the influence of the conservative movement on public policy. He is also part of the foundation's participation in attempting to deny voters from various underclasses the right to vote through the use of voter ID laws which specifically aim to reduce the participation of non-Republican voters in elections by putting obstacles in their way. To say the guy is a liar is a massive understatement. Now, as to climate change. It pretty much has widespread scientific consensus. So we can confidently say that - bar the rantings of right-wing conspiracy theorists - the effect of anthropomorphic climate change has been documented to the satisfaction of the science of the day. This particular initiative is designed to prevent the misuse of corporate power to manipulate the public on an issue which has widespread effects upon the health and prosperity of millions. Corporations have repeatedly demonstrated their focus on short-term thinking and profits at the expense everything else including infrastructure and public health. Consequently the spreading of misinformation in an effort to defy government regulation is being explicitly targeted by these Attorney's General. As for first amendment rights... well as far as I'm concerned, corporations aren't entitled to them anyway. Corporations are legal fictions which are not subject to corporeal law. Consequently they cannot be detained, imprisoned or executed. They can be dissolved to avoid the legal ramifications of the actions of their board and shareholders and reincorporated with a new identity and the same set of vices. Granting corporations person-hood status is one of the most grievous and far-reaching mistakes the US legislature has ever made.

bounty44 -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/9/2016 4:49:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The author is a member of the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank designed to broaden the influence of the conservative movement on public policy. He is also part of the foundation's participation in attempting to deny voters from various underclasses the right to vote through the use of voter ID laws which specifically aim to reduce the participation of non-Republican voters in elections by putting obstacles in their way. or "a think-tank designed to broaden the influence of the conservative movement on public policy. He is also part of the foundation's participation in attempting to protect voters rights and the integrity of elections for all people through the use of voter ID laws which specifically aim to reduce fraud at the polls by assuring that people who are voting are allowed to vote."

mnottertail -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/9/2016 5:34:53 PM)
Oh, so he is a constitutional terrorist then. Typical nutsucker.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/10/2016 5:19:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The author is a member of the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank designed to broaden the influence of the conservative movement on public policy. He is also part of the foundation's participation in attempting to deny voters from various underclasses the right to vote through the use of voter ID laws which specifically aim to reduce the participation of non-Republican voters in elections by putting obstacles in their way. or "a think-tank designed to broaden the influence of the conservative movement on public policy. He is also part of the foundation's participation in attempting to protect voters rights and the integrity of elections for all people through the use of voter ID laws which specifically aim to reduce fraud at the polls by assuring that people who are voting are allowed to vote." Don't give in to the left side, bounty. Notice that the rebuttal to the message wasn't about the message, but about the messenger. It's a diversionary tactic.

mnottertail -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/10/2016 7:02:46 AM)
The message is fucking useless propaganda,without foundation or fact, and I rebutted the message, he is a constitutional terrorist and typical nutsucker.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875