Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

No it doesn't bother me much, but misinformation on too large a scale stifles proper debate. Throw in the desire to exercise one's right to free speech without also taking on board any responsibility for what gets said and that proper debate gets buried for good. And right now we do need to properly debate a few issues we are collectively facing.

Well said. Rights come with responsibilities. But too many just demand "My Rights!" and ignore the second half of the deal.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

There used to be a 'censor' that took care of that. It was called non-survival.

Now ignorant people are supported on all sides by an even more ignorant group of people and factors who are unable to realize the difficulty, if not impossibility, of synthesizing a coherent strategy of, at minimum, even addressing the myriad problems caused ultimately by an owner-based society.

HMMMMMMM you would prefer a society where the state owned your sailboat? Or what exactly do you mean by a lot of problems caused by a owner-based society/ Could it be linked to a slave/owner thingy?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yup. This thread has mainly shown that some trolls' self-pleasuring can drown out any conversation. A peril of free speech, I guess.

Yeah.. I've noticed that..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well said. Rights come with responsibilities. But too many just demand "My Rights!" and ignore the second half of the deal.

You still don't get it..
You have no rights outside what is permitted.. your Constitution is just toilet paper if push comes to shove..

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yeah.. I've noticed that..

most people from the USA think free speech think, free speech is part of their citizenship-- those from areas linked to Britan and related areas dont exactly think this . They to this day do not have free speech guaranteed in their laws . Americans fought for free speech and will fight for it as long as there is a USA.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

I guess this thread goes to show that misinformation and harmful content online are hard/impossible to address... big problem really since content created by a handful of individuals, content which at best is nonsense, is nevertheless available, unfiltered, to the entire internet community....

You are correct- it is "impossible to address' as its all just a BS notion the title of this thread.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

You still don't get it..
You have no rights outside what is permitted.. your Constitution is just toilet paper if push comes to shove..

Uhmmm, yes... All rights are granted by our fellow citizens. I didn't realize we were discussing that aspect, but OK... lets go at it.

BTW, I didn't realize you were up on the Canadian Constitution boatie. Much like the UK, a lot of it isn't even written down, so hard to wipe with .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Uhmmm, yes... All rights are granted by our fellow citizens. I didn't realize we were discussing that aspect, but OK... lets go at it.

BTW, I didn't realize you were up on the Canadian Constitution boatie. Much like the UK, a lot of it isn't even written down, so hard to wipe with .

Yeah well we all know how personal freedoms gone over the last year..
As for a Constitution in England, we did have one, the Magna Carta but over time all but 3 rights have been repealed and whittled away.
As for free speech in the US.. is that why Donkeys are calling for Elephants to be reprogrammed.. wake up folks, your freedoms are only on license to you toeing the line.

[GordMay]

FWIW: Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Bill Gates says he loves his guilty pleasures spewing carbon while telling the poor to do without simple guilty pleasures. Will Bill defend his guilty pleasures with his vast fortunes when the government cracks down as his guilty pleasures are not solvable by voluntary action?? What say you. Throw in Kerry and all the other climate phony s like Megan and Harry.

Branding climate activists hypocrites, for wanting to decrease fossil fuel consumption, while [they] at the same time burning them, is a logical fallacy.
“Tu quoque”, also known as the appeal to hypocrisy, is one of the more common logical fallacies, and is a classic red herring device, and also represents an ad hominem attack, and a non sequitur.

Tu quoque is the attempt to discredit a person’s logical argument, by pointing out said person’s apparent hypocrisy, with regard to the argument’s conclusions.

It's the go-to criticism, incessantly spat at environmentalists: if you produce even a modicum of greenhouse gases, you can't say anything about climate change.
An example of tu quoque, is when opponents point to Bill Gates’ or Al Gore’s multi-million dollar homes. or their frequent air travel, as means to discredit global warming. Even if these things qualify as hypocritical, they do not disprove climate science or global warming.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy, but you are committing a logical fallacy if you believe your opponent’s hypocrisy is the prescription to disprove your opponent’s argument.


Here's an interesting treatise, on the subject:
“Why Don't You Act Like You Believe It?: Competing Visions of Climate Hypocrisy” ~ by Shane Gunster et al
“This paper interrogates how the notion of hypocrisy is invoked in relation to climate change and offers two key findings. First, it demonstrates that invocations of hypocrisy are not only deployed by conservative opponents of climate action, but also by progressive proponents of such action. Second, this article shows that while hypocrisy discourse is used to support both anti- and pro-climate change perspectives, its nature and function fundamentally differs depending on who is using it ...”
➥ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...018.00049/full

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Branding climate activists hypocrites, for wanting to decrease fossil fuel consumption, while [they] at the same time burning them, is a logical fallacy.
“Tu quoque”, also known as the appeal to hypocrisy, is one of the more common logical fallacies, and is a classic red herring device, and also represents an ad hominem attack, and a non sequitur.

Tu quoque is the attempt to discredit a person’s logical argument, by pointing out said person’s apparent hypocrisy, with regard to the argument’s conclusions.

It's the go-to criticism, incessantly spat at environmentalists: if you produce even a modicum of greenhouse gases, you can't say anything about climate change.
An example of tu quoque, is when opponents point to Bill Gates’ or Al Gore’s multi-million dollar homes. or their frequent air travel, as means to discredit global warming. Even if these things qualify as hypocritical, they do not disprove climate science or global warming.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy, but you are committing a logical fallacy if you believe your opponent’s hypocrisy is the prescription to disprove your opponent’s argument.


Here's an interesting treatise, on the subject:
“Why Don't You Act Like You Believe It?: Competing Visions of Climate Hypocrisy” ~ by Shane Gunster et al
“This paper interrogates how the notion of hypocrisy is invoked in relation to climate change and offers two key findings. First, it demonstrates that invocations of hypocrisy are not only deployed by conservative opponents of climate action, but also by progressive proponents of such action. Second, this article shows that while hypocrisy discourse is used to support both anti- and pro-climate change perspectives, its nature and function fundamentally differs depending on who is using it ...”
➥ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...018.00049/full

The Fallacy Fallacy

Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong.
There are few things rnore frustrating than watching someone poorly argue a position one holds Much of time a debate is won not because the Victor is right but because he is better at debating than their opponent
Recognising that Amanda committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because It was popular.. Alyse resolved to eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day,

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The Fallacy Fallacy ...

Indeed, even a stopped clock can be right, twice a day.
Just because an argument is fallacious, doesn’t mean that its conclusion is necessarily false, just that the reasoning behind the conclusion is fallacious [wrong]. So, we just can’t be sure whether the conclusion is true, based only on the information in the argument.
However, [especially when the fallacious argument is the only one presented], we should be careful to not to let that ‘inclonclusivity’ lead us into another fallacy - the appeal to ignorance, where the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Uhmmm, yes... All rights are granted by our fellow citizens. .

Well Canada is an alien planet to the one I live on if that is the case. The Proletariat (if you think you are otherwise you are either one of the elite or delusional) have no so in any rights.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by geoleo

.......... Americans fought for free speech and will fight for it as long as there is a USA.

Be a good chap and try to keep all your free speech fights constrained within your homeland.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed, even a stopped clock can be right, twice a day.
Just because an argument is fallacious, doesn’t mean that its conclusion is necessarily false, just that the reasoning behind the conclusion is fallacious [wrong]. So, we just can’t be sure whether the conclusion is true, based only on the information in the argument.
However, [especially when the fallacious argument is the only one presented], we should be careful to not to let that ‘inclonclusivity’ lead us into another fallacy - the appeal to ignorance, where the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

And here we come to the Born Again argument..
Dinosaurs never existed, the remains were placed there by god as a test of your faith.. you can't prove they were not and can only justify your blasphemy by making assumptions to back up your claims that god does not exist.. nor that the earth is older than 6000yrs.
This does nothing to prove he does not exist.. ergo god is real.
I don't dispute climate change, it has been with us since the beginning of time.. I just don't get my knickers in a twist thinking it can be reversed.. call it lack of ego.