Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
drunkle
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on March 1, 2007 – 1:26pm.
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.”
Interesting how you edited this out in your quote..
The only statement that even gets close to that is where I call his behavior as seemingly hypocritical. I did not call him a hypocrite.
Circular logic issue.. remember the context!!!i did not edit you out, i responded separately to your two paragraphs, the first one in which you flat deny, the second one in which you qualify your remark.
talk about being argumenative.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on March 1, 2007 – 1:16pm.I was using it as it shows on Piggington..
check again.
And the claims of some AGW proponents are no less insidious? When I make unsupported statements, I always ‘couch’ my statements when I can’t support them. I also point out what needs to be checked. I feel that you are simply being argumentative here.
you’re right, i’m arguing that you’re jumping to conclusions. what about it?
as for “insidious agw claims”, what, predictions of global catastrophe based on evidence and models? as opposed to your “innocuous” slander based on unsubstantive speculation?
Participantucodegen:
re: math
you’re lost. first of all, the numbers given for gore are meaningless; where is the apples to apples comparison for energy use? the dollar values given aren’t broken down by source, what’s the use? if he wants to spend $1000/min on hamster powered electric generators, that’s his perogative. you can go on ceaselessly, but still miss the point: your calculations are meaningless and speculative.btw, you did in fact say:
“Kenneth Adelman generates more than 45kWh per day, Gore only needs to do half of that per month.”here, you want numbers, you got numbers:
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm
~$4 surcharge per 150 kwhhttp://www.nespower.com/documents/RS-April2006.pdf
7.649 c /kwh/mohttp://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/G/GORE_ELECTRIC_BILL?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
191000 kwh used in 2006191000/12 = 15917 kwh/mo ave use
$1200 /mo ave cost
4 * 1200/150 = $32 green surcharge/mo
1200 – 32/15917 = 1168/15917 = $.073 /kwh/moslightly low but in the right neighborhood.
Participant
Submitted by FormerSanDiegan on March 1, 2007 – 10:44am.
I’d like to bring this back around to something analytical and avoid name calling. Here’s how we can easily bring our carbon footprint to Zero and be like Al Gore.Assumption:
Al uses 20x the average households energy, but buys back carbon credits for about $8,280 per year. Net carbon footprint = ZERO. He’s a hero.Solution:
Let’s have all those average homeowners follow suit and purchase enough carbon credits to bring their footprint to zero. This comes to $8280/20 = $414. For a measly $414 per year for the average household we can all be carbon neutral like Al Gore. Then we are all heroes. Does this solve the problem ?Now I can leave the TV on 24 hours a day and just buy another $20 in credits per year to cover it. Cool. I love this energy conservation thing.
before even getting to that point, you can do things at home. upgrade appliances, upgrade insulation, purchase solar appliances (currently at a 30% fed tax credit), use flourescent or led lights, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle…
these are long lasting, generally one time purchase improvements that will reduce your “carbon footprint” prior to having to purchase credits. not doing these first would be wasteful in itself.
now, i’m not a big fan of carbon credits and “personal responsibility” in an arena dominated by corporate interests and public ignorance. credits work, but they require individual participation, participation that cannot be relied on and participation which amounts to an additional tax. i believe direct regulation of producers and users would achieve emission reductions at *all* point sources, encourage conservation due to price regulation (subsidies or taxes) and encourage renewable r/d due to competitive pricing.
Participant
Submitted by qcomer on February 28, 2007 – 11:52pm.
I can only laugh when I look at so called educated dems/reubs wasting their time over this so called ‘news’. There is an immediate reflex action by the repubs to “intend to believe” the story without really asking for the other side of the story or Gore to explain himself. The dems on the other hand are bent on defending Gore as if he is not fallible or cannot make a mistake? More so they accuse repubs of not checking facts but assume everything contained in Gore’s response is pure truth.Let’s face it, both of you repubs and dems are biased, egoistic bunch and deep down the real motive behind all these stupid blogs and posts is to feed your biases and egos. You are both intolerant and cannot wait to miss an opportunity to rub others noses in any story you can find. Both of you twist facts to serve your political stances. I am sick and tired of seeing adults fighting like kids.
and what are you doing, mr aloof? declaring how you’re so much better than everyone because you’re a “contientious objector”?
cynical observation made by a rep: smart people don’t vote. which is a sad truth, people are disgusted by politics and give up their voice. which is how an entire state took it upon themselves to rewrite biology and discard one of the tenents of life sciences.
ignoring politics wont make it go away. it only allows the greedy or self serving to take control of your life.
this is not news. this is not an intelligent thread. this (is) politics and slander. not standing up to morons is implicit acceptance of moronic behaviour. will they change their minds? doubtful. will you change yours? doubtful. but all the same, perceptions affect peoples’ opinions and “consensus” counts. prime example: the housing bubble.
Participant
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.
The only statement that even gets close to that is where I call his behavior as seemingly hypocritical. I did not call him a hypocrite. Since you seem too lazy to double check what you are claiming that others have said on this post.. I have conveniently given you links to mine below.
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25032
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25075
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25081
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25082
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25086
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25089
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25090
http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25088
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”.
Participant
Submitted by greekfire on February 28, 2007 – 11:17pm.
The point of the thread was to show general hypocrisy that occurs in politics, in this case on the left. It would be similar to hearing Mark Foley (16 year old page scandal) proselytizing about moral Christian values.
awesome. compare a confessed sex offender to.. what? a confessed nerd? great comparison.
I understand that everyone makes mistakes, but you must also lead by example if you are to get your message across. It’s like an ex-convict that speaks to school children about the consequences that come with breaking the law. It would be a different story if that same ex-convict is still dealing crack rock on the side, however.
like… gwb and his botched camping trip in iraq? oil subsidies being granted to companies posting record profits? all the while talking about conservation and renewables in his sotu?
Al Gore’s message about being environmentally aware and conserving energy is a good one, it just doesn’t carry nearly as much weight coming from him.
that’s pure prejudice. not rational behaviour.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 8:57pm.
Al Gore is God to liberals, ucodegen. Did you see how the audience spoke in tongues on Oscar night? They react the same way to criticism the Muslims react to Muhammad being dispicted in cartoons. They are very self-righteous and intolerant of other views. Hence the spittle.I know, that is why I wear a hazmat uniform when talking to some of these people.. the raw vitrol spewed when you disagree.. And some of it borders on being contrary to the spirit of freedom of speech!!
Interesting thing, one of my more liberal friends commented on how the Oscars looked like such a Gore a**-kiss fest. She was quite taken aback. (She is a organic grown food, power conservation etc nut — not all conservationists/liberals are rabidly blind).
and here we see your false sincerity in full force.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 8:48pm.
@dunkleyour comments were your own, i merely emphasized the fact that you were posting pure supposition and then used your suppositions to support your conclusion. this is what they call a “circular argument”.
I think you need to even check on how to do a circular argument, and why you avoid them..http://www.essex.ac.uk/myskills/skills/thinking/identifyEvaluateargument…
it’s *drunkle*, as in Dr Unkle.
“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.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 8:43pm.
Said no such thing.. find where I said that.. it is you sir, who are quoting out of context. If you had bothered to check the link, you would have found that the person kept the original house, and built the solar array near the house. He also went way overboard. Kenneth Adelman generates more than 45kWh per day, Gore only needs to do half of that per month. There are simple rooftop installations that can cut ones usage down significantly!!
and yet you use that guy as the standard of measure. even building out half the capacity is a tremendous effort, certainly one not out of question for a man of wealth, but a tremedous effort all the same. (what is gore worth? 500 mil? 500 mil is an awful lot.) still, you don’t even know if it’s even feasible given the location; tenn’s sunlight days compared to california? weather conditions such as tornados, hail, wind?
and how do you know that he’s not buying his electricity from mr solarwarrior? offset accounts are bullshit to you, but if the end result is the same, what’s the big deal? i suppose you expect proponents of conservation have to produce all of their own food and energy before they get to have a voice. again, how magnanimous of you.
and for a guy who said this:
“I am bothered that the ‘debate’ here is on the two websites as opposed to the underlying references. If the underlying references are used, then the quality of the discussion improves because we are dealing direct with research papers (though it is harder and slower to do).”
i find it ever increasingly hard to take what you say as being sincere.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 8:07pm.
@dunkle
It also seems that you like to theatrically quote out of context too.. Initial fragments of full sentences to try to prove things.
theatrically? flattery will get you nowhere.
your comments were your own, i merely emphasized the fact that you were posting pure supposition and then used your suppositions to support your conclusion. this is what they call a “circular argument”.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 8:04pm.
how magnanimous of you. oh wait. the name calling started from post 1
I was only hoping it would go away, but it continued.. and it seems you like to continue it..!! I don’t call you self serving, arrogant, bull headed, idiotic or asinine.. or other terms I can think of. No where in any posts do I resort to that, nor do I do it here. It seems though, that you like to name-call.. (NOTE: you did not prove how it was self-serving either – assuming because you said so, it is so? the world operates according to ‘dunkle’s precepts??).
so it’s ok to call people hypocrits without any evidence or rational solely on the basis of prejudice?
whether or not you do, it’s self serving to implicitly support those that share your opinion/point of view while critizing those that dont. that you only now complain about “name calling” while it’s been going on for the entire thread (as well as the prior gw thread) is false sincerity.
You have not proven ignorance of the facts, and simply by stating, assume it is proving.. wrong.
i’m going to assume that you’re saying: “You have not proven ignorance of the facts, and simply by stating (that there are no facts) and assume (that) it is (true) is wrong”
your post is full of supposition. there are essentially no facts in this matter. you have gore’s own “press release” like material in which he makes some claims and you have some numbers from the power company. that’s it. no comparison with equal persons (like, per capita comparison?), no actual data on gore’s energy activities, nothing. pure supposition and speculation.
Non sequitur. Does not follow line of reasoning.. try to prove by innuendo or false ‘example’?
your reasoning that only extremists are sincere is what’s flawed; you demand that gore build a full on solar power station, demolish and rebuild his home into a studio condo, turn into a far left tree hugging hippie replete with pachuli and a rusty schwinn before you even give him the time of day. no sir, you and these others are being unreasonable and absurd. and quite truthfully, at that point of extremism, you and these others would simply pan him off as… yep, you guessed it, an extremist.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 7:12pm.
Now you know why I don’t post much when comments get to this stage.. too much name calling (on both sides of the camp).
how magnanimous of you. oh wait. the name calling started from post 1 and yet you only now condemn it when people stand up to the lies and slander. did i say magnanimous? i meant self serving.
I would say…I would find…
I don’t see…
where is the money going…
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
as if people can only be sincere if they are extremists. and yet, i bet you think islamic extremists are terrorist nutjobs and not “freedom fighters”.
given your *opinion* of carbon offsets and your ignorance of the facts, your post seems pretty meaningless to me.
Participant
Submitted by jg on February 28, 2007 – 6:20pm.
Aw, Perry, that’s because you hang out with non-religious types. Lack of practice of religion correlates with all sorts of bad things, including, often, estrangement from one’s parents, higher rates of teenage sexual activity, etc.You’d learn a few new things about human nature if you got married and had kids. Or, became a regular churchgoer. Try ’em; you might like ’em.
you don’t need children or religion to observe childish behaviour in people. case in point, the trite attack on gore.
-
AuthorPosts