AIBU in thinking that all readers (and writers) of the Daily Mail should be put to death?

[TiggyD]

Well?

Right-wing, over-reacting, paparazzi funding, health scare loving, minority hating sub-literature for busy bodies, racists and little Englanders who live in the past?

You can assume that the people in the BNP who can read both buy the Daily Mail.

Be nice; you just know that somebody at the Mail will read this

Why the need for a proxy battle though? What is the advantage of making an argument for Global Warming over Resource use reduction? There must be at least a credible case for resources being an issue, as Global Capital believes it, and presumably they aren't stupid to be in this position of power, so why not just make that case?

Because the people won't accept it. They are calling us flat-earthers now when we don't believe their global warming stories, even though the polls show that the majority of us disbelieve them. They think it's easier to hoodwink us than to try to take money out of our pockets and tell us how many kids we can have. But they are coming out in the open with Porritt's article, because they have to in order to meet their targets. The global warming stuff was softening us up, they will have to start selling the family reduction stuff afterwards.

Their worry is that they will lose control if the population keeps rising. I think that is their main worry rather than the resource problem, because we know that human ingenuity will be able to find solutions for resource problems if we apply our minds to it.

It makes no sense that there would be a conspiracy to create a false Global Warming Crisis in order to address a resource issue sufficiently persuasive to have convinced the conspirators.

And for that reason I'm out.

Good point. I think it is possibly because if they told you to cut back because resources were running out, then you wouldn't do it. But if they told you that the planet would be destroyed, that enormous tidal waves would destroy your house and that your garden would become a desert, then you'd be more likely to do as they say.

And for that reason I'm with Duncan Ballantyne, and I'm out as well.

LOL,mn loves the dm.links it daily.all agahast and protestations and denials of reading it.yet when dm namechecks mn all the gums get bumping at seeing mn in print

not that anyone on mn admits to reading it - all found in cafe/at gp/parents house

?The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter? (or in this case Claig)

Churchill.

that's just trying to remove Mail readers from the process, same old Guardian game.

Actually, Churchill was a Tory. Certainly not a Guardian Reader.

Why did you quote the Catholic Church? They get their ideas from a two thousand year old book of fairy stories.

Churchill's quote shows his underlying disdain for democracy and the ordinary people. It's implying that the average voter is too thick to be allowed the vote. The reason for that is that the average voter won't agree with him and he doesn't like it. He was a very privileged man from an aristocratic family and he wasn't too keen on oiks spoiling the party. You, even though you read the Guardian, agree with him on this.

I mentioned the Church, because I noticed it in the Mail article. I was surprised that it was the Church who was opposing the Greens and the Marxists. I thought it was interesting. I'm not a Catholic by the way.

I don't read the Guardian. I scan it along with most of the other papers online (including the mail and Telegraph).

I buy the Independant.

I find the Guardian preachy. I find the Mail depressing. The Times is owned by Murdoch (who is out to destroy the BBC) as is The Sun and The Telegraph is too right wing for me. Hence the Indy

Do you think that evolution is made up too? A lot of the climate change denial ideas are starting to be associated with the anti-evolution stance. It's all very worrying.

I am not an expert on climate change denial, I don't about any anti-evolution arguments being linked to it. What is that all about?

I don't know about

blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/03/us-creationists-adopt-climate-change.html

You should know who you are aligning yourself with.

Amber - I prefer Sid Viscous take on the Churchill quote: "I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt"

I don't align myself with anyone. I just try to figure things out for myself.

I think that article is over sensationalist. It is a humanist magazine and is therefore anti the Bible-thumping creationists and is trying to smear them for daring to disbelieve Al Gore. But this is nothing new. We all know that in America, the evangelicals are Republicans and distrust liberals such as Al Gore and his "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD which is going into every school.

From a quick browse of that article, all the creationists seem to be asking for is for the pros and cons of global warming to be taught in school, so that the children don't only receive Al Gore's side of the story. I can't really see what the problem is. Education is about an open discussion of ideas. If it turns out that climate change denial is all a load of bunkum, then this should be an easy argument to counter. So I can't see what the humanist is worried about.

amusing quote by Vicious, but he should have looked in the mirror

No, the Creationists are attacking science iteself. They object to science because it proves everything they believe in to be twaddle, creationism, climate change denial... It makes them look like fools.

ooojimaflip

Reading this
"the NYT, "adopted language requiring that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming", and now a bill is passing through the Kentucky legislature that would "encourage teachers to discuss 'the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,' including 'evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning'."

it looks like the want both sides of the argument looked at. This bit about discussing the ''the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories' sounds suspect. I don't know what they mean by advantages and disadvantages, that doesn't sound very scientific.

But anyway we can't be guilty by association. Just because David Cameron and Gordon Brown both absolutely love the Arctic Monkeys, doesn't mean no one else should.

Yes they should all be killed horribly horribly

AIBU in thinking that all readers (and writers) of the Daily Mail should be put to death?

I must say that in itself the above statement is a very Daily Heil Mail type headline.

Yes, let's put them all to death. SURELY READING A PARTICULAR NEWSPAPER IS ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY KILL SOMEONE?!