You miss precisely the point I was making. I said: “They would be people who believed in white supremacism, but who chose not to do anything about it, since they know that the other people in their country don’t want it.”

To which you responded by talking about the set who would do something about it.

The same applies to any of the other belief systems I mentioned. If a “left-wing supremacist” believes that those with left-wing beliefs should run the world, I have no objection. Should they, like Bill Ayers, choose to use violence to bring that about, then obviously I do. But it would be wrong to use the existence of groups like the Weather Underground to assert that left-wingers cannot therefore be normal and civilised.

In this case, all we are told is that a white supremacist posted pictures of the climate scientists labelled with the word “Jew”. No mention of a threat. No mention of “targeted assassinations”. All of that is pure speculation and pre-judgement. It is entirely possible, and I suspect more common than not, for white supremacists to be all talk and no action. They have their opinions, which we don’t like, but to which they are entitled.

The sole point of bringing it up was to point out that certain elements on both sides in this fraught debate commonly make deliberately disturbing/scary statements, at a roughly equivalent level, and that Chris gives a misleading impression that it is only the climatologists who have to put up with this, and that this is part of some sort of “war” on them. (A conspiracy theory? It’s not clear.) I don’t condone it. The ongoing war on sceptics doesn’t justify scaring the climate scientists. And violence is by no means justified.

But I think the point was acknowledged in #12 sufficiently (as much as one could expect) that there’s no point in pursuing the point any further. This is what being civilised is all about – disagreeing, but finding a way to get along with one another nevertheless.

The “strawman” above is perfectly applicable argument without being a strawman in the sense of the threat: White Supremacist Groups (e.g., the KKK, Aryan Nation) have frequently threatened, often with bodily harm or extreme violence and dischord, the public safety of various other groups, but not limited to, black churches, Jewish synagogues, Islamic mosques, etc.

The definition of “civil” does not apply to groups like this. They are classified as terrorist organisations in the FBI in the USA, as has Greenpeace. Actions undertaken by the latter (e.g., threats, done by nonscientists, I might add, which makes me wonder why its being included here) include the destruction of broad swaths of property and the potential threat of life that engenders.

If anyone here (like perhaps Nullius) thinks that groups like the KKK are civilized, they should visit their websites for while, view their videos, and examine what separates terrorist organizations from civilians (note that this involves the paraphrased definition of terrorism that goes “martial effort expended against civilians”).

Well played!

Yes, enough people have misused the word that way for the dictionary makers to take note.

I happened to pick an example notable more for who said it than the extremity of what was said. But there are thousands of other examples from the less literate. Sceptics are insulted, threatened, derided, excluded, and ignored. Sceptics have lost their jobs over their views. There is, and has been for many years, a “war” against sceptics.

One learns after a while not to take it seriously. Frankly, I don’t think the climate scientists take it seriously, either. It’s just a handy excuse to garner some much-needed sympathy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilized

But to answer your question – yes, of course there are. They would be people who believed in white supremacism, but who chose not to do anything about it, since they know that the other people in their country don’t want it. It’s the same with Islamic supremacists, left-wing supremacists, or anybody else with firm ideas about how the world should be run.

It’s not illegal to hold such views, and it’s not illegal to express them. I’ve even heard it said that one of the currently elected Senators of the United States government was once a Klan Kleagle. It wasn’t illegal for all those people to vote for him, either. Are you saying a Senator might not be civilised and normal?

Civilised isn’t about being polite, or being friends with everybody, it’s about finding a way to be able to live along side people you don’t like. It comes from the Latin word for ‘city’, and means the behaviour appropriate to a city dweller. It’s about tolerance of differences of view – and that doesn’t mean just tolerance of people you like, or don’t mind, which scarcely count. It means tolerance of people you violently disagree with.

#10 – Yes alright, fair enough I overstated my point and by that kind of shot myself in the foot. But you presume some kind of equivalence in threats and targeted harassment that isn’t there. It’s the old false balance fallacy you are trying to pull and it’s not working.

Are you suggesting that there are “normal, civilized” white supremacists?

It might have been normal back in the days of slavery, but it’s considered a backwards trait these days. It has never been “civilized” because there are numerous ways to be uncivil to those you perceive to be of lesser value. Not all of them involve violence.

What on Earth are you talking about? I see no conspiracy to commit mass murder. Is this some sort of desperate strawman argument, or do you know something we don’t?

And I’m not sure what you’re talking about with the ‘white supremacist’ thing, either. There is no suggestion above of white supremacists intending targeted assassinations, either. Especially the normal, civilised ones.

Why is it always the AGW believers who come up with the crazy conspiracy theories?