Subscribe: Comments on Old Misery Guts: Julian Burnside -Enemy of Free Speech?
http://justasuburbanboy.blogspot.com/feeds/5619719176670144927/comments/default
Preview: Comments on Old Misery Guts: Julian Burnside -Enemy of Free Speech?

Comments on Old Misery Guts: Julian Burnside -Enemy of Free Speech?





Updated: 2017-03-29T21:54:40.783+11:00

 




2007-06-02T03:20:00.000+10:00

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.



Given that manmade global warming has not been pro...

2007-05-22T13:06:00.000+10:00

Given that manmade global warming has not been proven is Burnside prepared to argue for the conviction of politicians who claim it is a fact, when it is clearly not, because of persuasion by lobbyists?
Anyway, rationalists wouldn't give the time of day to hyperbolic, patronising grandstanders like Burnside. He's a conceited fool.



I have received a reply from FSV and they say they...

2007-05-21T10:11:00.000+10:00

I have received a reply from FSV and they say they will consider publishing my letter to them - with a response, fair enough.

Mr Burnside has seen my opinion and has posted a comment (above). He seems to be saying that politicians will tell lies to further a lobbyists argument. I find that proposition difficult to accept, I would believe that a politician could agree to a lobbysists argument and then argue that position themselves but to argue a point you believe is a lie would require some other motivation possibly bribery. Either way you are going down the path of corruption and there are means to address that problem.
Another aspect of Mr Burnsides proposition would be lawyers presenting their clients arguments. Surely every legal practioner has at times strong doubts about the veracity of their clients defence. Whilst I accept that the lawyers and barristers must do their best to put their clients case they must at times have difficulty believing the defence. If they doubt it and put that argument surely they are lying to themselves and the court, if so how would you prove it and what could be done about the problem.

The whole problem of people lying and what to do about it is more difficult than I can handle. My point is advocating the locking up of people for arguing a point whether they believe it or not is wrong. That sort of practice is really only accepted in totalitarian regimes if politicians and others are found to acting corruptly then that is a whole different game and there are existing ways to address that problem.



You have not understood my point.I accept that peo...

2007-05-19T09:56:00.000+10:00

You have not understood my point.
I accept that people can say that climate change is nonsense: they can say there is no connection between smoking and lung disease, they can say the earth is flat. I support their right to say such things. But only if they truly believe it.
If politicians say global warming is not real, and they say it because lobbyists have persuaded them to say it rather than out of a belief that the science is wrong, then that is a lie.
Free speech does not justify lying and it does not justify misleading the electorate to appease vested interests. If you want to protect free speech, it is important to understand what the speaker is doing. If you want to criticise my views, it is important to understand what I am saying.
---Julian Burnside