Submitted by ucodegen on March 1, 2007 – 10:14am.
“i believe al gore does not do as he says he does, he’s a hypocrit. i believe he’s a hypocrit because he does not do as he says he does.”
circular argument, self fulfilling argument, whatever. you’re guilty of it.
Your statement fails in that I did not call him a hypocrite..
you did not say this?
“Seems pretty hypocritical to me.”
On top of that, your example is not fall under the grounds of the fallacy of a circular argument. Take a look at the example on the link I provided earlier. There is a very important difference between your statement and the example.
if you say so.
As for “Dr Unkle = drunkle”.. anybody can name themselves anything on this board. I could even name myself Al Gore, but that would not make it so.
as for spelling someone’s login name correctly, a correction was in order.
couching your statement does not make it less egregious or insidious when there’s little to no fact. you even state that his useage of green power needs to be checked. but you still draw a conclusion based on a potentially erroneous comparison of sd vs tenn power rates.
Also it seems that you are weak in math.. I stated that Kenneth Adelman went way overboard. Gore does not have to one half.. Adelman’s production of electricity is more than 45kWh per day. Gore consumes half of that in a month. Gore would only have to match 1/60th of Kenneth Adelman.. a far less daunting proposition (probably around 47 square feet vs Adelman’s 2800 square feet of solar array).
what does math have to do with anything? you used mr solarwarrior as a basis of comparision for which i stated that using an extreme example is absurd. i have no interest in your personal “comfort level” of “greenness”. whether you would be satisfied at 1/60th or 1/100th is meaningless when you don’t accept anything that’s been done to begin with. ultimately, your argument is simply restated as “no *true* conservationist would stop at flourescent lights”.
