168
Third of UK teenagers believe climate change exaggerated, report shows
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
168 points (98.3% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You haven't paid any attention to the conversation you entered. I'm not your opposition. I've got nothing against climate change. I'm here to point out how your tactics for convincing people are fascist and wrong. It's also just as possible that we are wrong and silencing our opposition is NOT science.
Calling something a fact didn't mean it's not debatable. Facts are literally the only thing that can be debated. I can say that the ocean has no water. That's a fact. That doesn't make the fact true or undebatable.
You need to learn how logic works before bringing your language to a compiler.
I read that: sorry if I phrased it like you were a climate change denier. It was meant to be more general.
Definition of the word fact:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_(disambiguation)
A fact needs to be true to be called "fact", therefore a fact cannot be false as long as it is a fact. Of course, facts can later be proven wrong revoking their status as a fact.
With debate I meant subjective opinionated debate. My bad, I should have made that more clear. Objective debate & research is what makes science science.
Ofc we can debate, whether it is good to censor information. Censorship is / has been done by almost every country (democratic or not), mainly in times of war, during a dictatorship, or in a (political) crisis as a measure of directing the political course and to gain stability. Of course, restrictive censorship may lead to dissatisfaction or dumb decisions by the government if criticism is silenced.
The way I see it, the discourse should be held freely as long as it isn't harmful for anybody. An example, if someone says murder should be legalized or that killing a certain ethnicity is the right thing to do, censorship and exclusion is in my opinion the right thing to do since you are taking measurements to protect lives.
Climate change (if not stopped) is very likely to pose a direct or indirect threat to millions of people and every year of discussion brings us closer to the climate crisis resulting in: 1st mass migration (with the current sentiment towards migration worldwide it's likely those people won't be helped), 2nd war on resources and 3rd a global financial crisis. And this is why I think censoring climate change denial is correct (there's nothing wrong with objective criticism, I am talking about outright denial).
But I gotta admit it's hard where to draw the line.
If climate change kills everyone, everyone will be better off. Can't suffer when we don't exist.