Why denial is an attack on intelligent people

imo Uninformed denial is an attack on informed individuals. When you make a comment like Sandy Hooke didn't really happen, you insult the people who know it did and attack their feelings of empathy for all of those lost children and those who suffered

Some deniers might think that when they post denial they are lampooning their target. But if they are going to lampoon, they should at least have some idea of how incredulous their satire sounds, in the case that they are wrong on the subject at hand.

Here are some analogies to illustrate my meaning.

Hahahaha Anti gun, anti 2nd amendment socialist liberals, trying to convince the public that Sandy Hooke Hoax actually happened.

LOL Climate Change Suckers, trying to convince us real Americans that people may die from drought.

hahaha The holocaust never happened.

Ho ho ho DDT is good for you.

Yippy Kigh Yeah Muther fluffers, 9/11 was pulled off by President Bush.

When you post such things, as are in the above, you are starting your thread by insulting anyone with knowledge and intellect, and rubbing the salt of your celebratory ignorance in their face.

 

Actually deniers insult their own intelligence as much as anyone else.

 

And then there are entire threads which insult the intelligence.

 

True. However you can't insult someone, by telling them they have an ugly girlfriend if they don't have a girlfriend.

 

The OP might explain why his recreational flamebait posts aren't trolling.

 

Sure, such ridiculous claims may prove offensive to people who know better, but an offense of the emotional kind is all it is likely to be. Listener and reader beware.

 

Well, there are conspiracy theorists that deny easily proven facts like Sandy Hook and the Holocaust, then there are scientists with opposing viewpoints oppressed and ridiculed (such as the term denier) by the current political agenda of global warming that has absolutely no proof to back it up other than computer models that so far have failed to predict the current hiatus. Trying to equate the two as the same is intellectually dishonest.

 

There is a huge difference between being a troll and being a gadfly.

Free speech entitles a person to say something stupid, so that society can rebuke them.

In other words I make very sure that when I respond to something in a satirical manor, that what was said was close to reprehensible.

However if one can be offended by what I say, that person would possess a very delicate hide.

In which case I would hope that they would inform me that they bruise easily, I am not here to harm anyone.

 

Well, taking some things out of context and claiming it as truth is actually flame baiting.

 

Even if Climate change science was in dispute ( which it isn't ) can you not see how the language you used was offensive to the informed?

Current Political agenda = conspiracy to defraud

Absolutely no proof = Really Absolutely? So those of us who spent years in University paid for a load of crap?

Intellectually dishonest -> Really, pushing people into gas chambers, is different than causing a world wide drought that could starve billions to death? The only difference, is from what point of history you are looking.

I asked you a very simple question, which you never answered. I said "forget all of the charts and article, simple use your knowledge to tell me why extra co2 won't cause a further retention of energy?".

 

Okay then. I will try to adapt to the sensitivity of the members here.

I came from a site where you would be called a "f-ing" "f got" for typing "your" instead of "you're".

 

Intellectual dishonesty is not the same as sensitivity.

 

I don't know guy, disagreeing with someone is not biconditional with an attack on someone. Even if someone does feel attacked, the feeling of being attacked is not biconditional with the existence of an attack. They simply are not the same.

 

I see, so would you agree that socialism and socialist programs are world-class historical failures? Would you agree that free market capitalism is the system that produces the most prosperity in country after country? Would you agree that the family, as opposed to the government, is the proper locus for morality and child-rearing? Would you agree that government should be much more local than central? Would you agree that strong property rights are the basis for the highest human achievements and innovation? Would you agree that our capital markets are a big part of the reason for US success?

Or would you... drumroll... -deny- the above?

Or is it really that only people who disagree with your personal POV are necessarily "in denial?"

 

So the African leaders of many nations, for decades now, who have been saying that banning DDT is killing tens of millions of their citizens, are wrong and/or celebrating their ignorance? It appears to me that yes, DDT is actually good for many millions of people. They are brutally suffering over malaria, for many years now. I think it celebrates ignorance to laugh at people who say DDT is good for people. It clearly is. What is bad for is a couple species of fish.

 

If Africa has a need for more DDT why don't they just manufacture it themselves?

 

So where are you headed here? That DDT doesn't save lives? I still maintain my position that it does, and that tens of millions have died from malaria, that would not have died if DDT was in use.

 

Good news! Fracking slashes emissions more then government. Halliburton has done more to save the world from carbon then all the greens.

The right wants a prosperous America. The left wants the climate to stop. We can agree here. Frack baby frack.

- - - Updated - - -

You can say that about roads there and mosquito tents and food and medicines and consumer goods and everything else.

- - - Updated - - -

Letting them die is the only way to show compassion to the african people.

Save the mosquito!

 

I don't even need to make that judgment to hint to the OP why some people seem to "deny" global warming claims. There is a question as to whether allowing DDT use is worth it in the bigger picture, due to impacts it may have on the environment. I don't pretend to know its effects, because like I said, I don't need to balance them in this thread to make my point. But there is no question as to whether its ban has contributed to the death of tens of millions. The point is that even though DDT has environmental effects, the tens of millions of people suffering with malaria must be considered in the balance. But like I see so often with environmental causes, the harm caused by the regulation is not even considered. The OP flippantly dismisses those tens of millions dead from malaria, as if there is no drawback whatsoever to environmental regulations. And you see the same situation with global warming. Almost all that I discuss it with do not consider the downside of regulations at all. In fact they ridicule the existence of downsides, as if there is nothing to consider except what they say we should do. I targeted his DDT comment for a reason. And that is honestly answering what his questions seem to be, which is why people are so quick to deny climate change. It's because of the attitude with which it is often promoted. I immediately become suspicious of people who refuse to discuss obvious and major downsides to an issue, especially when they go further to conceal the fact that those downsides even exist.

 

I think this illustrates the OPs point perfectly.

 

It's a serious and simple question. If Africa wants DDT why don't they manufacture it? It's banned in the US but it's not banned worldwide. India for one still uses it. Africa can make all the DDT they want.

 

I don't believe that intelligence affects personality at 100% rate and proof is that many smart people can still believe in BS .

 

In smaller concentrations DDT is fine and doesnt danage sparrow eggs. The subject of that book silent spring which caused all this trouble and millions dead. It is always fine around people. In the 50s they used to sit in clouds of the stuff in Florida for mosquito relief.

 

Name one product with high processing costs that is made in Africa for largely domestic consumption. They don't have the money to make it worthwhile. DDT needs to be sprayed from mosquito trucks to do a decent job. That would be a large risk of capital for small potential payout with governments that could make it a total loss. I wouldn't invest in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh your just jealous that Haliburton slashed emission more then Kyoto and your dumb EU lost hundreds of billions on that mess.

 

I was hoping before I clicked on this thread that it'd be about how every level of government around the world issues denials to the media and general public that fly in the face of common sense and the truth.

But, alas, it isn't