US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, I think his issue is the distinction between "dishonest fraudulent propaganda" and "factual propaganda". That you dismiss his concern and replace it with "propaganda paid for by a for profit corporation" and "political agenda seeking fairness" proves his point that he is liberal and you are not.

 

[Bomb#20]

Big Oil is giving money for fraudulent propaganda purposefully. They are not the same kind of "backers."

Nobody said they were the same kind of backers. Whenever somebody wants to apply one rule to his ingroup and a different rule to his outgroup, he can always find some difference between them. Then he can claim that that difference is what justifies the different rule. But the actual reason for double standards is whose ox is being gored.

They're labeled "out for material advantage" because they're out for material advantage.

... They are for fairness. You can try to argue they are looking for more, but that is not their motivation.

You judge fairness by religious criteria. They appear to judge fairness by whether they get more.

And you're wrong: I'm promoting no "liberals are just as bad" argument. I have no reason to, since as far as I can tell I'm the only liberal in this thread. (Not sure about JonA.) It's not a question of which side is worse; it's a question of which side wants to set up a legal regime in which people who lie to obstruct that side's political agenda get prosecuted for it but people who lie to promote its agenda are immunized from prosecution. Social democrats and progressives and what-have-you who want to do that are bloody well not liberals.

You're not a liberal, you just call yourself one. If you were a liberal, you'd recognize facts like that fraudulent propaganda paid for by a for profit corporation is not the same as a political agenda seeking fairness.

But I do recognize they're not the same. Nobody said they were the same. No doubt there are a hundred differences between fraudulent propaganda paid for by a for profit corporation and fraudulent propaganda paid for by a political agenda that imagines it's seeking fairness; and you picked one of those difference to use as an excuse. The reason you think whether fraudulent propaganda is legal ought to depend on "for profit corporation" vs. "political agenda seeking fairness" is because what you call "political agenda seeking fairness" is your tribe, and "for profit corporation" is the enemy tribe, and philosophy of law is subordinate in your mind to tribal identity.

 

[JonA]

I have no reason to, since as far as I can tell I'm the only liberal in this thread. (Not sure about JonA.)

I consider myself liberal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nobody said they were the same kind of backers.

Not only are they not the same kind of backers, but trying to do the comparison is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Whenever somebody wants to apply one rule to his ingroup and a different rule to his outgroup, he can always find some difference between them. Then he can claim that that difference is what justifies the different rule. But the actual reason for double standards is whose ox is being gored.

What you do with your ingroups and outgroups is up to you, but in my case you don't know what you're talking about.

You judge fairness by religious criteria.

No I don't.

They appear [to me] to judge fairness by whether they get more.

FIFY.

They are clearly seeking fairness of pay and always have been.

The reason you think whether fraudulent propaganda is legal ought to depend on "for profit corporation" vs. "political agenda seeking fairness" is because what you call "political agenda seeking fairness" is your tribe, and "for profit corporation" is the enemy tribe, and philosophy of law is subordinate in your mind to tribal identity.

No that's not true at all. It's actually the philosophy of law as it has evolved empirically in the United States since its inception that makes a distinction between political free speech that can lead to trickery and for-profit corporate speech that can lead to trickery such as fraud, false advertising, and this case.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20]
Nobody said they were the same kind of backers.

Not only are they not the same kind of backers, but trying to do the comparison is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

But I wasn't doing a comparison; I was doing a counterexample. Having to deal with people who can't tell the difference is an occupational hazard of applying logic in a political debate. Go look up "counterexample".

The reason you think whether fraudulent propaganda is legal ought to depend on "for profit corporation" vs. "political agenda seeking fairness" is because what you call "political agenda seeking fairness" is your tribe, and "for profit corporation" is the enemy tribe, and philosophy of law is subordinate in your mind to tribal identity.

No that's not true at all. It's actually the philosophy of law as it has evolved empirically in the United States since its inception that makes a distinction between political free speech that can lead to trickery and for-profit corporate speech that can lead to trickery such as fraud, false advertising, and this case.

But the philosophy of law as it has evolved empirically in the United States since its inception has never endorsed the legal theory behind this case -- the theory that government authority to regulate what you can say to your customers to persuade them to buy your product magically implies government authority to regulate what you can say to your rulers to persuade them not to hurt you. You are advocating a novel encroachment on freedom of speech. The fact that your encroachment is deliberately constructed not to be content-neutral between opposing political agendas is evidence that it is motivated, not by the empirically evolved American legal system's philosophy of law, but by the partisan feeling that the goal of the government should be to hold down your side's enemies.

 

[repoman]

This was a comment for an Alex Jones conspiracy video about why global warming is garbage:

Wait, so InfoWars believes humans can affect the weather through Geo-engineering; but they do not believe that humans can affect an entire planet on a global scale by pumping out pollution? Aluminum and whatever other metals dumped on me by the government in planes is bad. Pollutants dumped on us by corporations is okay for my health. Uh, does not make much sense.

 

[maxparrish]

I can't believe there is this much exchange over something from a Reich wing source. Or actually I can believe it based on other threads...Conservatives constantly get their panties in a twist because of the Republican propaganda machine...and also Libertarians who are not the same thing.

I suggest for everyone when you start with a questionable source to verify it first and then following that discuss. In this case, I went to the first link Breitbart which had "prosecute" in the title. They gave a source and link which I followed to the next Reich wing website. This next one had "pursue civil action" in the title. First, note the difference.

The second site had some excerpts from convo between Lynch and a senator...nothing that really implicates a criminal case or a civil case but that it had been discussed as something. So now you've all discussed it, too. So you're all guilty. Guilty of trying to take away corporations rights to free political speech. It's in the Constitution!111!!11! [Insert rest of paranoid rant here that I am too lazy to write.]

Thank you.

I am gratified to learn that we live in the Matrix, and that none of the events, fears, or nefarious intentions to repress froms of speech through RICO prosecution and/or civil action really exists. Among the crazy far-right stories and sources making it all up:

https://archive.is/YMe9V - Jagadish Shukla, four associates at his George Mason University-based Institute of Global Environment and Society, NCAR and 14 climate scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/shut-upor-well-shut-you-down-1444429915

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ll-for-using-rico-act-for-climate-skeptics-is

http://350.org/the-department-of-justice-must-investigate-exxonmobil/ - (Group of 50 including Sierra Club, Audubon, Environmental Defense Fund, and Greenpeace.)

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112015/congressmen-SEC-invesitigation-exxon-climate-risks-XOM

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/05112015/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-subpoena-E

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...ubpoena-attorney-general-climate-change-exxon

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/3...n-exxon-eric-shneiderman-18-attorneys-general

And, as I recall, both Democratic Presidential candidates.