Distinguished scientists call for RICO prosecution of climate deniers

[Mausium]

@dobby

A civil/human rights bending expedient drug war/prohibition era law for busting Mafia leadership who were sneaky enough to order the breaking of law at arms length and with a corporate code of honor and silence among criminals is being suggested as a remedy for climate change denial, is that not mission creep and unintended consequences which defines slippery slope?

No, that sounds pretty much in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law.

[arthurapplebee]

@wysinwyg

A “lie” is a deliberate falsehood. If you can demonstrate that party A knew that X, and yet party A says “not X” then A has lied. That’s a bright, clear line.

Wow! I wish I lived in that world where you have “bright, clear lines”. I don’t defend corporations that lie, I defend against censorship - but you go ahead and put words in my mouth.

[arthurapplebee]

LOL! Was there a question there?

[wysinwyg]

@arthurapplebee

but you go ahead and put words in my mouth.

Where did I put words in your mouth?

You asked where was the line that determined whether something was a lie. I gave you about as precise a definition of the word “lie” as you could possibly ask for. So what are you on about now?

[Mausium]

@arthurapplebee

I don’t defend corporations that lie, I defend against censorship

One and the same. You are a corporatist, in practice you care nothing for any abstract appreciation of “science” and give equal weight to science and literal propaganda operations. You appear to not know the difference between astroturfing and the scientific method.

[wysinwyg]

I asked you three or four times to acknowledge that your first comment was untrue and to explain why you are accusing people of censorship when there is actually a little more nuance to the discussion. Can you discuss this like an adult or are you going to continue becoming more childish?

[arthurapplebee]

In a court of law, it can be very, very difficult to determine your “bright, clear line”.

[arthurapplebee]

Asked and answered.

[wysinwyg]

And yet it’s done thousands of times every day. Murderers lie about murdering. Thieves lie about stealing. Embezzlers lie about embezzling. Drug dealers lie about dealing drugs.

And yet they are frequently convicted anyway. Why? Because a courtroom is often the correct setting in which to determine a person is lying about some state of affairs.

Simply saying, 'Well that can be pretty hard sometimes" is not really a counterargument. Would you accept the argument that science is hard to do sometimes so we shouldn’t bother?

[wysinwyg]

Actually you never answered that question. I haven’t seen any explanation of why you accused people of censorship instead of acknowledging the actual level of nuance in this discussion.

[arthurapplebee]

I think this thread has completely jumped the shark. I am “a corporatist”? I “care nothing for any … appreciation of science”? Etc. etc.
OK, I’m done. You want to have a discussion with your little strawman, go ahead. I’m not participating with your weird charade. Have fun.

[arthurapplebee]

I’ll let your srawman answer that.

[chenille]

There were two questions in your post, wysinwyg. The first may have been evaded, but I feel the second has been thoroughly addressed.

@wysinwyg

Can you discuss this like an adult or are you going to continue becoming more childish?

@arthurapplebee

Asked and answered.

[wysinwyg]

Can you point out even one time here where I’ve engaged in the so-called “straw man” fallacy, or are you just making up excuses why you shouldn’t have to defend your arguments?

[ocschwar]

@arthurapplebee

I don’t defend corporations that lie, I defend against censorship - but you go ahead and put words in my mouth.

We are specifically talking here about corporations that lie, and about a proposal to prosecute them. If you’re not talking about that, then please fuck off, as that means your comments are off topic.

[dobby]

@Mausium

No, that sounds pretty much in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law.

RICO is a weapon which in the hands of the wrong W on steroids executive/AG could just as easily be used to kill environmental and educational organizations who teach AGW. The propaganda war is hard to win even if you have the truth but not enough dollars. RICO is a law which should have never been passed much less survived SCOTUS. It’s use, especially in a debate which requires the willing and informed participation of the voting and carbon using human population, is my objection. The right wingers who are just ignorant will simply harden their incorrect position when they see a debate solved with a RICO lawsuit rather than a reasonable argument.

A Strange Game. The Only Winning Move is Not to Play.

[wysinwyg]

@dobby

The right wingers who are just ignorant will simply harden their incorrect position when they see a debate solved with a RICO lawsuit rather than a reasonable argument.

They hardened their incorrect position when they saw a debate carried out with a reasonable argument. Do you have any reason to believe the reasonable argument will ever “solve” the debate?

Seems to me the only thing that could ever “solve” the debate is the inundation of several US coastal cities.

[Mausium]

@dobby

The right wingers who are just ignorant will simply harden their incorrect position when they see a debate solved with a RICO lawsuit rather than a reasonable argument.

Rightwingers who are just ignorant want the Palins and Trumps to tell them things that work with their preexisting frameworks, they are practically allergic to any reasonable argument. Their positions self-calcify.

[Mausium]

How dare we post on the actual topic, I guess?

He seems to maliciously recontextualize the target of this story while at the same time accusing others of creating straw positions.