Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Criticizing the Dishonest Media (Pt. 3) | Andrew Klavan | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Not paying people to spread dangerous nonsense is not a stiffing of free speech. People would protest about hiring people to write anti-vaxxer misinformation too. ... Some kinds of pseudo-science is actuall dangerous. People die when pseudo-science gets too wide spread. Measles is not a harmless problem - neither is climate change.
    4
  2. > "First, false equivalency. There's absolutely no person in the world that has died or suffered any negative impact due to climate change." Apart from being demonstrably false (*) ... the whole logic construction of that statement is absurd. That's like sitting in a car running 100 km/h against a brick wall and trying to refute the passengers protest with "No one in this cars has ever suffered any injuries". Your statement assumes at least a linear extrapolation of "the past" - an assumption which does not in ANY WAY take into account the problem as it is described. > "Second, who gets to decide what's dangerous nonsense? You?" No. Science. You know ... the same process which decided the earth was not flat - and not less than 10.000 years old. *: Just one example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/18/alaska-shishmaref-vote-move-coastal-erosion-rising-sea-levels
    2
  3. > "you are advocating to curtail free speech in the interest of protecting human life" No, I'm not. I EXPLICITLY stated that not paying someone to spread misinformation is NOT curtailing free speech. "Free speech" is not your right to get paid for nonsense. It's your right to not have the government silence you. Second... Permafrost thawing in the arctics IS a result of human behaviour. Third: In science there is such a thing as BEING WRONG ... believing in a flat earth, homeopathy, creationism or denying anthropogenic climate change ARE examples of that. > "Who decides who is a proper scientist " ... bla bla bla.... What constitutes scientific fact is decided by the accumulated weight of all evidence. It has nothing to do with persons. - or ideology for the matter (as you seems to indicate you believe is relevant when you dismiss the guardian as a source)
    1
  4. "Free speech is not just the fact that the government can't silence you, it's the ability to express your thoughts and opinions in society. " Bret Stephens can publish his nonsense as he see fit ... go write a book. Make a movie. bla bla bla.Free Speech does not give him the right to demand others publish him.Just as no one has the right to demand to come on "The Rubin Report" ... what's wrong with you ? I though you were in favor of people deciding them selves who they want to employ or publish? NYT decided it was not in their interest to employ him anymore ... end of story. It has nothing to do with Free Speech. Second: It most certainly is... Temperature in the Artics has risen drastically. - as predicted Third: No one takes away anybodies free speech. Get over it... Snowflake. > " it does, when you propose to make a governmental regulation it has everything to do with ideology because you need people to create it and enforce it." Fine ... then ... IF THATS" your problem, then STOP DENYING THE SCIENCE and propose your ALTERNATIVE solution to this very serious problem which doesn't involve regulation.
    1
  5. +Gabrial Sáenz What is not what I claimed?
    1