It was the way you worded them that did not include defamatory statements, that is what made them different. There are people who present the same theories that you did that are filled with defamatory accusation and racism.
I’m not sure where you got that, unless you are saying that scientists are Trump opponents. Is that what you are saying?
That’s true, but I don’t want this thread to turn into a new place for stuff to be repeated, and I hope you can respect that.
I have one specific person in mind who is repeating defamatory accusations against entire groups of people. He is quoting extremists who have not considered all sides of an issue. He is quoting extremists who make money by putting out extreme positions and rashly judging groups of people.
Wow, this is an excellent example! Can we agree that when a talk show host gains greater audience when he puts out conspiracy theories, that this can be a conflict of interest? Viewers always want to hear the truth, not falsehood, but talk show hosts can rake in more advertising dollars by rashly judging groups of people.
Their intent is good in that they are trying to do what they think is best for a cause or ideology, but in doing so they sometimes make defamatory statements that do not consider ccc 2478.
A “more favorable way” is giving people the benefit of the doubt in terms of motive.
That would be okay if you want to discuss a very well-known example, and that the approach to that example would be one of finding that favorable interpretation of the words, actions, and motives of all people involved.