- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 196
Editor's Choice: 19
so maybe I have misunderstood the article here. So I may come back later and amend my comment. But for the moment, I am gobsmacked.
Someone went to court to challenge the fact that they were discriminated against because they believe in anthropogenic climate change. The argument was made on philosophical grounds because human-rights regs don't protect against discrimination on the basis of scientific views.
Why don't human rights regs protect against science discrimination? Well, it could be that the framers of those regs deliberately chose not to protect scientific belief.
Or it could be that it never occurred to them to do so because ANYONE WHO FIRES SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN SCIENCE IS FUCKING INSANE!
Imagine all the things they would have had to go out of their way to protect. "Better make sure you can't be fired for believing that 2+2=4." "Oh, and for believing that babies come from mommies and daddies, not the stork--better make sure that belief is protected."
While we're at it, we'd better make a law against sticking a fork in one's eye, arguing with leprechauns or using your own feces as hair gel.
"A blow to Dubai's reputation as Las Vegas, Wall Street and Los Angeles all rolled into one..."
And this changes that reputation how, exactly?
