Persons who dispute or disbelieve any given science or scientific conclusion for any reason should be forbidden from using any technology or service dependent upon or used in the determination of that science, or ultimately deriving from that science. This is to ensure that they remain properly "pure" and are uncontaminated by the false (and possibly satanic) forces behind the lies they wisely refuse to accept. For their safety, of course, the ban cascades as necessary to secondary, tertiary and further technologies.
For example, climate science deniers should be compassionately forbidden the use of (among many other things) weather reports, thermometers, cell phones (because they can display weather reports), long-distance communications (because they are relayed by satellites, which are used to generate false "evidence" for climate change), and refrigeration (because the same principles on which it operates can be used to generate patently false climate change results).
If opposition to a science or conclusion is not explicitly religious but phrased on the grounds that there is not a unanimous acceptance of the results, said person is only permitted the use of technologies the basis of whose function is completely and unanimously agreed upon. If even one expert -- as determined by the protected citizen's own criteria for experts whose opinion matters -- disagrees with the generally-accepted explanation in the smallest degree, the citizen is forbidden the technology for their own good.
Attempts to circumvent these protective strictures should be a class-A felony, punishable by imprisonment in a facility tailored to the citizen's technological restrictions.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
For example, climate science deniers should be compassionately forbidden the use of (among many other things) weather reports, thermometers, cell phones (because they can display weather reports), long-distance communications (because they are relayed by satellites, which are used to generate false "evidence" for climate change), and refrigeration (because the same principles on which it operates can be used to generate patently false climate change results).
If opposition to a science or conclusion is not explicitly religious but phrased on the grounds that there is not a unanimous acceptance of the results, said person is only permitted the use of technologies the basis of whose function is completely and unanimously agreed upon. If even one expert -- as determined by the protected citizen's own criteria for experts whose opinion matters -- disagrees with the generally-accepted explanation in the smallest degree, the citizen is forbidden the technology for their own good.
Attempts to circumvent these protective strictures should be a class-A felony, punishable by imprisonment in a facility tailored to the citizen's technological restrictions.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.