Germany Threatens Naomi Seibt With Prison Over Climate 'Denialism'

submitted by hennaojichan from technocracy.news

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Red23 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

At what age does talking total nonsense become unacceptable?
If she denied the Holocaust happened, would she be excused because of her age?

[–]GroundZero 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The truth fears no censorship...at least that's how it should work. If they have real evidence that it happened then they should have released it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Who gets to decide what is nonsense and what is not? Donald Trump says climate alarmism is nonsense, should he be allowed to make it illegal?

[–]Red23 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's common sense really.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What you and I think of as common sense, another person may think idiotic. If they are the ones in power, are we now supposed to fall in line "because it's common sense"?

[–]Red23 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well, denying the Holocaust happened is nonsense, you realise that surely?

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not really talking about denying the holocaust or climate change or anything specific. My point is that if those in power are allowed to punish their people for questioning or denying certain things, then it will always eventually be used to oppress and push the party line.

So even if you think that holocaust/climate/whatever denial is evil, reprehensible, or whatever other adjective you want to stick in front of it, the people doing it should have every right to do so, and must have that right if your society is going to remain free. All things should be questioned, and anything that cannot be questioned is dogma.

[–]Red23 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I totally disagree. For example, people questioning vaccinations are putting lives in danger.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, people refusing to be vaccinated for deadly and historically prevalent diseases with tried and true vaccines (polio, measles, DPT, etc) put others at risk due to the fact vaccines are not 100% effective. But people questioning vaccinations puts nobody at risk directly. Likewise, it is well documented that vaccines can have adverse effects in a very small number of cases, so by the same logic, it would not make sense to give people unnecessary vaccines as they are being put at risk for no good reason. Should we vaccinate Americans against ebola or smallpox when neither is present on the continent? If we, by law, were not allowed to question vaccines we would not be able to have that conversation and having that conversation puts nobody at risk.

When a vaccine for COVID-19 comes out, should it be mandatory in 2021 despite most clinical trials before declaring a vaccine as safe taking years? Should people who don't want an untested vaccine be fined or imprisoned?

To be clear, I am not an anti-vax, but I also will not be getting a vaccine for COVID until it has been properly tested and shown effective. To try and shut down questioning and debate about vaccines, climate change, or the holocaust will only lead to further censorship. If the prevailing viewpoint is true, it will come out on top in these debates, if not it will be discarded as it should be.