Why do SOME GW proponents block your postings?

Question

Well I just received my first ever "block" on Yahoo Answers-- I am very curious why folks who are so certain of their position must BLOCK those that disagree with them-- I always try to disagree in a tactful manner--- usually with links posted.

Seems funny to me that "free speech" is NOT a part of "some" proponents vocabulary. Why does this happen on Answers?

Answer 1

So your 'some' is 'one'?

I've been blocked by about a dozen AGW 'skeptics' over time.  Randall has blocked almost every AGW proponent.  There's no reason this question should specify AGW proponents just because you've been blocked by one.  As Ken notes, if this is your first time being blocked, that simply proves the 'skeptics' block a lot more than the proponents.

Answer 2

Free speech....also give one the freedom to edit or block....if you don't like being blocked then perhaps you shouldn't be such an ***. I have followed a few of your so called non aggressive responses.

Belittling a kid and his question I would hardly call no aggressive or fair.  

Answer 3

I am a skeptic/doubter..... I've never blocked anyone, but I have been blocked a couple of times.  I think that most of the time those doing the blocking..... whether Pro or Con...... are simply having a bad hair day.  Don't take it seriously............  

Answer 4

If you acknowledge that both sides do it, why are you surprised that AGW proponents do it? Some people do not want to hear opinions or facts that contradict their own beliefs, some of these people also believe in AGW.

Answer 5

I've never blocked anyone, but I was blocked for a while by someone. Funny thing is now that person has a different account they didn't reblock me. The only frustrating thing for me at the time was that I just like to read the questions and answers and when your blocked by that person you can't do that. I also don't have the foggiest idea on why the person blocked me.  

Answer 6

I block those who use personal attacks to argue their point rather than enter into a logical and intelligent discussion of their views.

I think it a shame that there are people who use this argument by intimidation to defend their position on so-called "global warming".

These tactics just reinforce my view that "global warming" is a socialist political agenda rather than a scientific viewpoint.

If these people I have blocked would indicate that they are able to have an intelligent discussion, I would gladly unblock them.  But the way I figure it, if I want to hear someone bit(h at me, I would still be married.

Answer 7

Jello blocks all mine. I've never blocked anyone. I enjoy the comedy.

Answer 8

I've been blocked by several of the more vocal deniers on this forum. I've never blocked everyone.

I think that most of the blocks are because that person doesn't like your sources or want to hear the counter arguments.

Answer 9

I've been blocked by a few of the proponents (or should i say alarmists or zealots to bring back the childish name-calling tactic?) and have not blocked anyone yet.  I enjoy the debate from the smarter bloggers and enjoy the laughter of the bloggers who are trying to act smart.  

The astronomy section does have some good information in it.

Answer 10

it's my guess that it's not only proponents.

i've heard of such recently.

i've heard that if you complain, the post gets restored.

i've not been successful in getting any restored, but you should try.

the bad news is that the society in general is getting more .... mean.

sorry.

edit:  interesting difference in the tenor of the replies, isn't it?

edit again:  what do you mean by block?  someone won't let you look at their answers?  or you get a question or reply removed?  i'd assumed you got a post removed.  i note that jello blocked me - won't let me reply, or even see qusetions.  i'm assuming that is a compliment -- he doesn't have a good response to what i might say.  in other times, when people have not liked my response, i've asked them to block me, so that i don't see, and won't answer their posts.

Answer 11

I would like to see less blocking by both sides, as long as we can remain civil. Its OK to attack an idea but something very different to attack a person. The latter is what I don't like to see on any side.

Answer 12

And "free speech" is not in some of the skeptic or denier vocabularies. I was blocked by evans michael, then I in turn blocked him, but that was the only reason why I would block someone.

So, it goes both ways. I don't agree with HALF of what you post, but I wouldn't block you.

Answer 13

It's my fault.  I set the trend by blocking anyone that preached socialism as an answer to global warming in the questions I asked.  Within weeks I'd blocked most of the proponents on here.  It's kind of nice now being able to ask questions and getting real answers.  

As far as I can tell, only two of them have returned the favor.  I agree with them on this one:  We skeptics do a LOT more blocking.  Heck, I've got 5 of the 7 people who've answered this question blocked, and 1 of those 7 is me!

;-)

Answer 14

If you just received your "first" block, then that proves the Doubter crowd are much more aggressive at blocking people who don't agree with them.  I've long been blocked by several of the most vocal Doubter posters.

Edit:

Evans wrote: "I set the trend by blocking anyone that preached socialism as an answer to global warming in the questions I asked"

Then why did you block me?  I've never advocated socialism. Nor have I promoted a carbon tax, or any other governmental solution to global warming (though nothing should inherently be removed from the table if the threat and solution are appropriately matched).  Could it be that you wrongly assumed everyone convinced by the science that AGW is real, must therefore advocate increased governmental control as the solution?  Because that would be a rather simplistic and wrong view of reality.

Answer 15

I reciprocate only as a secondary response.

Answer 16

Because their main argument relies on the fact that there will be no debate or dissent.  If someone dare disagree with their stance, they attempt to ridicule, discredit, or block you from disagreeing.  I can think of 3 of the main contributors in this section who do those things (with the exception of blocking).  They will insult and attempt to discredit anyone as they shout consensus and pat each other on the back claiming people who aren't climate scientists don't have a valid opinion on the matter.  But that doesn't stop them from kissing the asses of those that are willing to agree with them.  Kind of hypocritical isn't it?