OK, and how is this distinction supposed to manifest in practice?
One distinction is that someone accused under (2) could defend themselves by showing that they genuinely didn’t believe anyone was paying attention to their expression of disbelief in global warming, whereas that defence presumably wouldn’t be open to them under (1).
[..] in any case when (2) happens who exactly will be forbidden to assert that global worming isn’t real? Does it matter if [...]?
Since it suffices to give one operationalizable difference between (1) & (2) for gjm’s claim of a distinction to go through, it’s not necessary to answer these questions about how a specific practical implementation would work.
Note that the people doing the prosecution haven’t presented any evidence of [...]
To which specific people are you referring? To which specific prosecution are you referring?
Thus it is clear that (2) is little more than a fairly transparent excuse to do (1).
It sure isn’t clear to me. Your basis for saying so is your (implied) failure to think of a difference between (1) & (2) that could manifest in practice; that you don’t know specifically how (2) would be implemented in practice; and an unverifiably generic assertion that unspecified people haven’t presented evidence of “promulgation of assertions [etc.]” “beyond the fact that the people in question are asserting that global warming isn’t real”. Weak stuff.
Given that gjm has just demonstrated that (3) is false,
You do nothing to substantiate that, and in light of your ownrelativelypoortrackrecord, I’m not going to take it on trust. And so...
I’m inclined to believe the real reason for your bias is that you belong to a tribe where agreeing with gjm’s conclusion is high status.
One distinction is that someone accused under (2) could defend themselves by showing that they genuinely didn’t believe anyone was paying attention to their expression of disbelief in global warming, whereas that defence presumably wouldn’t be open to them under (1).
Since it suffices to give one operationalizable difference between (1) & (2) for gjm’s claim of a distinction to go through, it’s not necessary to answer these questions about how a specific practical implementation would work.
To which specific people are you referring? To which specific prosecution are you referring?
It sure isn’t clear to me. Your basis for saying so is your (implied) failure to think of a difference between (1) & (2) that could manifest in practice; that you don’t know specifically how (2) would be implemented in practice; and an unverifiably generic assertion that unspecified people haven’t presented evidence of “promulgation of assertions [etc.]” “beyond the fact that the people in question are asserting that global warming isn’t real”. Weak stuff.
You do nothing to substantiate that, and in light of your own relatively poor track record, I’m not going to take it on trust. And so...
...is not an accusation I take seriously, especially since you’re a sockpuppeteer with a history of downvote rampages, including against gjm. Incline all you want, mate.