• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Warmists Assault the First Amendment

jmotivator said:
"That which defines everything defines nothing".

Everything is toxic in sufficient quantities. Ban everything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's why I was against calling CO2 a poison in the first place. Because at the levels that are relevant to discussing climate change, CO2 isn't poisonous. But then ocean515 flipped his lid and went YUH HUH ITS A POISON LOOKMTHE EPA SAYS SO. It's technically correct, but not useful for this discussion.

Nobody is trying to ban or tax breathing, which is absolutely what ocean515 was trying to imply when he brought up exhalation, which is what started this stupid derail in the first place.
 
Buzz! said:
For God's sake... why can't you stop with this stupidity. This is about businesses and organizations who spread misinformation about climate change for the purpose of getting an unfair advantage. Both have to apply.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point. In light of the menacing language of the pleading, there can be no doubt that "misinformation about climate change for the purpose of getting an unfair advantage" targets climate dissent.
 
Deuce said:
The pleading never entered into law because the bill didn't pass, and which would never have been legally binding if it had passed? That pleading?

So, what, your local sewing club is going to be targeted by false advertising laws?
Click to expand...

I suspect the bill's sponsors had WUWT and Climate Audit and GWPF, among others, in mind.
 
Jack Hays said:
I suspect the bill's sponsors had WUWT and Climate Audit and GWPF, among others, in mind.
Click to expand...

Of course you do.

But then again, you think there's legal grounds on which to charge them too.
 
Deuce said:
Ok.

I can only conclude that Ocean515 still rejects California's conclusion that CO2 can be toxic in sufficient quantities.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ocean515 has concluded that a discussion with someone who avoids facts and does nothing but obfuscates and avoids is not worth continuing.
 
American said:
Why are you trying to convince one of them of the error of their ways.
Click to expand...

I suppose to illustrate how indoctrination shuts down the logic and truth circuits and to allow them to demonstrate in their own words that it does.
 
ocean515 said:
I suppose to illustrate how indoctrination shuts down the logic and truth circuits and to allow them to demonstrate in their own words that it does.
Click to expand...

Good luck.
 
O.K... I have to hopefully end this stupid thread with an admittion. I was wrong about not citing a blog. I thought it was a Newspaper when it wasn't. But what it is, is a pro-business/anti-litigation blog created by one of the biggest lobbying groups in the States. Specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So... Yeah. That link I provided on the first page of this thread that debunked this misinformation was, in fact,a right wing blog.

Now that would be just one of the several times that this thread has been debunked. And all of the denialists in this thread who have actually attempted to defend it have come up with nothing that isn't essentially logical fallacy!
 
Buzz! said:
O.K... I have to hopefully end this stupid thread with an admittion. I was wrong about not citing a blog. I thought it was a Newspaper when it wasn't. But what it is, is a pro-business/anti-litigation blog created by one of the biggest lobbying groups in the States. Specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So... Yeah. That link I provided on the first page of this thread that debunked this misinformation was, in fact,a right wing blog.

Now that would be just one of the several times that this thread has been debunked. And all of the denialists in this thread who have actually attempted to defend it have come up with nothing that isn't essentially logical fallacy!
Click to expand...

Well, no. What is beyond dispute is that the bill aimed to make it easier to sue organizations holding skeptical views about AGW. That's the suppression of dissent.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. What is beyond dispute is that the bill aimed to make it easier to sue organizations holding skeptical views about AGW. That's the suppression of dissent.
Click to expand...

Yes... We know Jack. You think that since the law intends to make dissent the same as unfair competition some time in the future you can just declare that it would now. Just another fallacy.
 
Buzz! said:
Yes... We know Jack. You think that since the law intends to make dissent the same as unfair competition some time in the future you can just declare that it would now. Just another fallacy.
Click to expand...

It's in the pleading written by the bill's authors. Address your complaint to them.
 
Cool!! another fallacy.
 
Yes... and I explained what a pleading is to you. And that it has no force of law.

Around and around we go... WEEEEEEEEE!
 
Last edited:
Buzz! said:
Yes... and I explained what a pleading is to you. And that it has no force of law.

Around and around we go... WEEEEEEEEE!
Click to expand...

I agree it has no force of law, but it shows the authors' intent.
 
weeeeeeeeeee!!!!

483c554ea0c97eee0a0d5e46ec45c33c.jpg
 
for once... you are right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom