• 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 Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics

jmotivator said:
Why should the state be allowed to punish a company on assumed future damage of a product?
Click to expand...

It's not about future damage, or even the current damage, it's about intentionally defrauding the public into thinking it doesn't occur. Do you think tobacco companies should be able to tell pregnant women smoking is good for their baby and use their own scientific think tanks to back up that claim? If not, why is it ok for the oil companies to do it?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Any corporation intentionally defrauding the public for financial gain should be prosecuted. I'm not sure why you think it should never be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

My question had to do with quid pro quo. Why would you allow any group to intentionally defraud the public when promoting climate change, but encourage prosecution of those who take the opposite approach?

Ignoring this question seriously harms your credibility.
 
ocean515 said:
My question had to do with quid pro quo. Why would you allow any group to intentionally defraud the public when promoting climate change, but encourage prosecution of those who take the opposite approach?

Ignoring this question seriously harms your credibility.
Click to expand...

I answered your question and at no point have I said the opposite shouldn't be true. You're projecting your strawman onto me because you can't actually refute what I'm saying. If there are corporations defrauding the public for financial gain on either side they should be prosecuted.

If you'd like to present evidence of the global conspiracy of climate change being nearly unanimously accepted by scientists as a scheme to make money, please present it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

The bill is unconstitutional visa vi the California and US constitution period. It would be DOA on passage.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I guess you also believe that Obama and several members of his administration should also be prosecuted for telling the American people "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan... PERIOD."


.
 
Anthony60 said:
California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics.

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

You folks on the left pretty good with this? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Given the makeup of the CA state senate, the folks on the left were clearly not OK with it and let it die by not taking it up.

One would think that would have been obvious.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The bill is unconstitutional visa vi the California and US constitution period. It would be DOA on passage.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where in the constitution a corporation has the right to intentionally defraud the public for financial gain? We no longer allow the tobacco companies to lie about the dangers of their product, why would holding the oil companies to the exact same standard suddenly be unconstitutional?

Grim17 said:
I guess you also believe that Obama and several members of his administration should also be prosecuted for telling the American people "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan... PERIOD."
.
Click to expand...

If you'd like to stay on topic and form a coherent thought, I'll be here.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I answered your question and at no point have I said the opposite shouldn't be true. You're projecting your strawman onto me because you can't actually refute what I'm saying. If there are corporations defrauding the public for financial gain on either side they should be prosecuted.

If you'd like to present evidence of the global conspiracy of climate change being nearly unanimously accepted by scientists as a scheme to make money, please present it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying your claim. I believe the lack of quid pro quo in the legislation doomed it from the start.

As to evidence, I'm not interested in posting any of the hundreds/thousands of examples that have already been presented, and which alarmists have already chosen to ignore.

I am glad an attempt to add to the totalitarian State liberal/socialist progressives have created in California was delayed, but I suspect the growing darkness of this type of legislation will resurface again at some later date.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I answered your question and at no point have I said the opposite shouldn't be true. You're projecting your strawman onto me because you can't actually refute what I'm saying. If there are corporations defrauding the public for financial gain on either side they should be prosecuted.

If you'd like to present evidence of the global conspiracy of climate change being nearly unanimously accepted by scientists as a scheme to make money, please present it.
Click to expand...

Should government and government officials who intentionally lie to the public with intent to defraud be prosecutable as well?

By the way the monetary motivations of pro AGW can easily be proven. And the scientific community is not nearly unanimous in agreement with the existence of AGW. But that is just an aside. The real problem is the laws constitutionality, which it is most certainly not.
 
jmotivator said:
Quite frankly I would argue that the the limited scope is the most objectionable is the limited scope. The targeting of specific industries smacks of a witch hunt.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to ignore that this *is* a witch hunt, a designed way to allow California to file suit against the Oil and Natural Gas industry entirely at political whim. It makes it all subject to challenge for the prior discussed reasons.

Our issue is the same, using the power of the government to punish an industry for disagreeing with "science" conclusion. If we question the science then it is painfully difficult (and arguably political motivation) to call that a basis for liability law.
 
Anthony60 said:
California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics.

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

You folks on the left pretty good with this? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Heresy Laws! Hooray!



Now. We know that, because Christ our Lord is the only path to heaven, that those who deflect others from the Path are doing active harm to them by condemning their souls to eternal punishment. Since punishing thought and speech crime is now allowable, we need to do something about these monsters in our midst by actively seeking out and prosecuting those who expound unsound doctrine, especially to malleable and innocent children. Then we can move on to other things, like silencing those who question the Free Market.
 
Anthony60 said:
California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics.

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

You folks on the left pretty good with this? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

The idea is sort of classy. Punish people for the wrong opinion. That is honest liberalism of the present taste.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Can you show me where in the constitution a corporation has the right to intentionally defraud the public for financial gain? We no longer allow the tobacco companies to lie about the dangers of their product, why would holding the oil companies to the exact same standard suddenly be unconstitutional?



If you'd like to stay on topic and form a coherent thought, I'll be here.
Click to expand...

Fraud requires someone to have a loss, ie money was gained directly though deception. You cannot prove that any company gained directly monetary gain EVEN if they lied about AGW. Oil companies sell oil and oil products unless proven otherwise the product they sell is as advertised, hence no fraud. I would go further and say that companies can say whatever they want about AGW, any attempt to prosecute for fraud would be pointless as they would most likely be tossed out of court.

The major tobacco companies signed agreements with the various attorneys generals of the states and the United States. A new tobacco company is not obligated or bound by agreements. Existing tobacco companies that did not sign the agreements are also not obligated by said agreements.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Should government and government officials who intentionally lie to the public with intent to defraud be prosecutable as well?

By the way the monetary motivations of pro AGW can easily be proven. And the scientific community is not nearly unanimous in agreement with the existence of AGW. But that is just an aside. The real problem is the laws constitutionality, which it is most certainly not.
Click to expand...

Lol. I like how none of you actually address the topic of the thread, you just talk about all of the other injustices in the world that are ignored so we should let corporations do whatever they want. Please present your evidence that preventing corporations like the tobacco or oil companies from intentionally defrauding the public about the harms of their product violates the constitution.

ocean515 said:
Thank you for clarifying your claim. I believe the lack of quid pro quo in the legislation doomed it from the start.

As to evidence, I'm not interested in posting any of the hundreds/thousands of examples that have already been presented, and which alarmists have already chosen to ignore.

I am glad an attempt to add to the totalitarian State liberal/socialist progressives have created in California was delayed, but I suspect the growing darkness of this type of legislation will resurface again at some later date.
Click to expand...

So can I safely assume you also think that tobacco being harmful is a government conspiracy and shouldn't be regulated in any way, shape, or form?

PirateMk1 said:
Fraud requires someone to have a loss, ie money was gained directly though deception. You cannot prove that any company gained directly monetary gain EVEN if they lied about AGW. Oil companies sell oil and oil products unless proven otherwise the product they sell is as advertised, hence no fraud. I would go further and say that companies can say whatever they want about AGW, any attempt to prosecute for fraud would be pointless as they would most likely be tossed out of court.


The major tobacco companies signed agreements with the various attorneys generals of the states and the United States. A new tobacco company is not obligated or bound by agreements. Existing tobacco companies that did not sign the agreements are also not obligated by said agreements.
Click to expand...

LOL. Now you're claiming their's no financial motivation for the oil companies to lie about the harms of their product and fighting a greener economy? Seriously? You're going to sit there with a straight face and say something that monstrously stupid? Jesus H. Christ. They haven't lost a dime from solar or other green technology, have they?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Lol. I like how none of you actually address the topic of the thread, you just talk about all of the other injustices in the world that are ignored so we should let corporations do whatever they want. Please present your evidence that preventing corporations like the tobacco or oil companies from intentionally defrauding the public about the harms of their product violates the constitution.



So can I safely assume you also think that tobacco being harmful is a government conspiracy and shouldn't be regulated in any way, shape, or form?
Click to expand...

Ok let me make stupid simple for you, you seem to require that today. Fraud is NOT constitutionally protected. Speech is. Now for the part you seem to not get, for an oil or tobacco company to commit fraud the product they sell must not be as advertised. Otherwise NO fraud will have occurred. Good luck proving fraud in either case. The products they sell are and perform as advertised.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So can I safely assume you also think that tobacco being harmful is a government conspiracy and shouldn't be regulated in any way, shape, or form?
Click to expand...

:shock:

And you attempted to claim I presented a strawman?

:lamo

:screwy
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's not about future damage, or even the current damage, it's about intentionally defrauding the public into thinking it doesn't occur. Do you think tobacco companies should be able to tell pregnant women smoking is good for their baby and use their own scientific think tanks to back up that claim? If not, why is it ok for the oil companies to do it?
Click to expand...

Which would require proof that damage is currently being caused. Since thhere is no direct evidence, the case is dead in the water. Also, why limit this to a specific industry?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Ok let me make stupid simple for you, you seem to require that today. Fraud is NOT constitutionally protected. Speech is. Now for the part you seem to not get, for an oil or tobacco company to commit fraud the product they sell must not be as advertised. Otherwise NO fraud will have occurred. Good luck proving fraud in either case. The products they sell are and perform as advertised.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They are intentionally misleading the public about the harm of their product. It would be no different if a lead-based paint company was trying to spread misinformation about lead being good for you or a tobacco company spreading misinformation that smoking is good for fetal development. Speech is definitely protected, but this is not speech and it is not an individual. It is intentionally misrepresenting the harm and effects of their product to protect their bottom line. You made the ridiculously laughable claim that it's unconstitutional to challenge such companies and haven't presented any evidence or reasoning to back that fantastical claim up.

jmotivator said:
Which would require proof that damage is currently being caused. Since thhere is no direct evidence, the case is dead in the water. Also, why limit this to a specific industry?
Click to expand...

Oh look, someone who thinks climate change is a conspiracy thinks there's no direct evidence of climate change.

ocean515 said:
:shock:

And you attempted to claim I presented a strawman?

:lamo

:screwy
Click to expand...

Well, you support the exact same thing from the oil companies so why not the tobacco companies? You guys seem to be telling me that a corporation can misrepresent their product any way they damn well please and that's their constitutional right.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Incorrect. They are intentionally misleading the public about the harm of their product. It would be no different if a lead-based paint company was trying to spread misinformation about lead being good for you or a tobacco company spreading misinformation that smoking is good for fetal development. Speech is definitely protected, but this is not speech and it is not an individual. It is intentionally misrepresenting the harm and effects of their product to protect their bottom line. You made the ridiculously laughable claim that it's unconstitutional to challenge such companies and haven't presented any evidence or reasoning to back that fantastical claim up.
Click to expand...

Good luck proving their products do not perform as advertised.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Good luck proving their products do not perform as advertised.
Click to expand...

Cigarettes and lead paint work exactly as they advertise. That doesn't mean they don't have harmful side effects and if the company goes out of their way to try to suppress the public knowledge of those side-effects they deserve to be prosecuted. This is like the 5th post and you've still refused to explain how not letting corporations do and say anything they please violates the constitution.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh look, someone who thinks climate change is a conspiracy thinks there's no direct evidence of climate change.
Click to expand...

Oh look everyone, RabidAlpaca is building straw men!

I never said there wasn't direct evidence of climate change, I said there is no direct evidence of damage from climate change. Climate is always changing.
 
jmotivator said:
Oh look everyone, RabidAlpaca is building straw men!

I never said there wasn't direct evidence of climate change, I said there is no direct evidence of damage from climate change. Climate is always changing.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that man-exacerbated climate change is real, you just don't think there are any negative consequences to it? Fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom