AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas - Page 3

post #81 of 115
5/18/07 at 9:03am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Nice try, but your short answer is basically ad hominem.

Actually stating it is, doesn't mean it is and really you should realize that by now.

Quote:
There is no logic or rational in "leading by example." Seriously slave owners and the KKK lead by example. Do anarchist "lead by example?" I guess GWB is "leading us by example." Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Christianity, et. al. all "lead by example?"

Actually those folks don't lead by example. They lead by hypocrisy combined with fear, intimidation and even death for those who do not yield to them. Lead by example is simply another way of stating that golden rule we all learned in Kindergarten and in Sunday School, "Do unto others" aka the ethic of reciprocity.

It is not fair to ask of others, what you do not ask of yourself. The KKK were not asking to be subjugated and strung up. Stalin, Mao and others used good intentions to empower themselves and oppress others.

The very historical examples you cite is why cynicism is a natural inclination when being asked to take actions by those who they are unequal with in terms of interaction with the data and opportunities. They are examples of those who claimed a moral high ground, declared themselves to be working the will or in the interest of the majority and their own actions reflected something very different from their words.

So do Gores, Laurie David's, etc.

Quote:
I guess these "Front People" must lead monk like (or caveman like) existence's in order for us to pay any attention?

Your slippery-slope reasoning is quite amusing. The average American does not live monk-like and he is asking for them to make reductions. If he wants the average American to reduce their carbon footprint by say, 20% then he ought to be able to live with that himself. He should be able to get by on 20% below the average carbon footprint. If this necessitates hardships that he cannot endure, or creates a standard of living that is intolerable, how is it moral of him to ask it of others?

You cannot ask of others, what you will not undertake yourself. That is reality. If he is a big rich boy, who wants big rich boy toys, he has enough money to undertake the very expensive costs of converting things to their most energy efficient versions to stay within this footprint. Being rich isn't an excuse to pollute more. It means you have the possibility of paying for more expensive items that pollute less. I cannot afford the half million dollars of solar panels to keep my household running without the need for generated power. Gore can afford that and ought not be in the position of needing any generated power at all.

If anyone ought to be able to sustain their lifestyles without compromise in the carbon-limited age, it is the rich who can afford to buy more of the more expensive, but less efficient clean energy generation methods.

Quote:
And what of the "rank and file" the thousands of scientists doing the research, seemingly coming to one basic conclusion? They too must "lead by example" or else we all don't need to pay them no mind.

The do need to lead by example and make the demands of themselves that they desire for others. I'm sure they are much better at it than a Gore because their finances and ego do not allow them to indulge themselves the way these "leaders" do.

Quote:
Your canard "lead by example,"

Lead by example is not a canard. It is expressed in similar ways, by almost every faith, every government and every great leader in our history as a moral principle.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 115
5/18/07 at 10:10am
Quote:
Actually stating it is, doesn't mean it is and really you should realize that by now.

ad hominem

Quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

If it looks, smells, tastes, sounds, and feels like like ad hominem, well my Spidey sense tells me it's basically ad hominem!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #83 of 115
5/18/07 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm going to borrow from myself. I posted this on my blog and I think it is a better explanation of what I am trying to explain here. It is helped along by Mr. Al Gore himself who is concerned about reason dying.

Unfortunately, the legacy of the 20th century's ideologically driven bloodbaths has included a new cynicism about reason itself—because reason was so easily used by propagandists to disguise their impulse to power by cloaking it in clever and seductive intellectual formulations. When people don't have an opportunity to interact on equal terms and test the validity of what they're being "taught" in the light of their own experience and robust, shared dialogue, they naturally begin to resist the assumption that the experts know best.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et al rose to power by using seductive intellectual arguments that subverted the very idea of reason?

And here I thought it was because they appealed to the worst impulses of their people, making aggressive use of the concepts of nationalism, external enemies and a return to former greatness. That, and a penchant for brutality and ruthlessness within their own respective hierarchical systems. To the extent that "scientific" claims were made by any of these despots, they were post hoc and secondary to the main process, which was entirely emotional or a product of good old irrational violence.

I don't think too many people, surveying the shuttered death camps, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the gulags of the Soviet Union, or the mass graves of countless petty dictators, felt betrayed by science.

Quote:
Gore should follow his own advice. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of himself and others within the Global Warming Movement. Others dismiss these notations as an attempt to kill the messenger, a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning.

Noticing that you're spending a lot of time belittling people associated with global warming activism as a proxy for belittling the underlying evidence for global warming itself is "a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning"?

Fuck, now I feel betrayed by Latin.

Quote:
However the reality is shown by Gore himself. People do not have the ability to interact on equal terms. We all do not have the ability to go to Antarctica and measure the ice sheet. They do not have the ability to run massive global environmental computer models. Thus, they turn to leaders and experts, those who do get to interact with this information. As Gore noted this one way train of information carries with it, a predisposition toward cynicism by those on the receiving end because it is possible to manipulate and attempt to disguise an impulse for power by those who have the information.

Well OK! Now we're getting somewhere! It follows that rational people will attempt to discern what the preponderance of the ostensibly expert opinion is, right? Since we don't have access to primary sources on a lot of the received information we are obliged to consider as "true", we must form criteria for what constitutes "reliable sources", right?

Since the cynicism engendered by the blood baths of the 20th century have made us very wary of accepting mere rhetoric as a reliable source, we will be especially inclined to familiarize ourselves with at least the mechanisms of science and its means for organizing information. I may not be able to equip myself to be a climatologist, by I can get a sense of how the mechanisms for "truth discernment" in the field of climatology operate, which entities speak for those mechanisms and via which agencies, and thereby form my best shot at an "informed opinion".

That way, thankfully, I need not rely on emotional "persuasion", or appeals to externalities, since, well, you know, Hitler and all.

Quote:
It is because of this natural predisposition, that leaders within such a movement must lead by example.

Uh oh. Is that the sound of grinding gears? Cause I think we just popped into reverse.

Cynicism about leadership, remember? Weariness with the fallibility of nobel crusades, and the men that lead them?

Oh, that's right, you set this up by making the interesting claim that the wars of the 20th century actually embittered us to the notion of science, so I guess charismatic leadership and how it comports itself is all we have left to rely on. Because those same wars left charismatic leadership and how it comports itself unscathed.

Which is an object lesson in why it's a bad idea to allow reasoning backward from your pet peeves to lead you into fanciful rewriting of history.

Hint: you end up not making any sense whatsoever and suggesting that you don't know much about history, science or reasoning.

Quote:
That means no homes that are 10-20 times larger than the typical American home and multiples of those homes on both coasts, in vacation spots, etc. Do not cry for communal solutions while chartering private jets and scooting around in large motorcades often made up of large SUVs. They must not just be messengers, they must be leaders that demonstrate through actions so as to not allow the natural cynicism to crop up.

"Natural" cynicism that has been carefully cultivated by large energy companies and political opportunists. About the nature of the scientific process that undergirds concerns about global warming, and which would be the closest thing we have to an unimpeachable source.

So, to sum up: having twisted yourself into knots to make the case that nobody believes science anymore (on account of Hitler and shit, and certainly not because there are powerful forces at work who don't like what science has to say and relentlessly stuff the discourse with disinformation), you wish to assert that we are therefore left with the behavior of its proponents as the only reasonable criteria for judging the merits of a given cause.

Considering this some needlessly elaborated form of "shoot the messenger" is "a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning"

Hey, remember those irony meters that blew up in my last response to one of your posts? They just rose up from the floor and are staggering around demanding brains.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #84 of 115
5/18/07 at 12:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

ad hominem



If it looks, smells, tastes, sounds, and feels like like ad hominem, well my Spidey sense tells me it's basically ad hominem!

Let me help you sort this out.

Gore proposes everyone reduce their carbon footprint by 20%.

If Gore did this, but I note it doesn't count because he is an asshole. That would be an ad-hom. I would be ignoring the arguments because of the person.

Now Gore proposes everyone reduce their carbon footprint by 20%.

If Gore does not do this, and I point it out. It is not an attack against the argument. It is pointing out that Gore does not follow his own argument.

Now we have to choices from that. Gore is either a bad leader, because he asks of others, what he will not undertake himself. The second choice is that he does not buy into his own argument or else, being a reasonable and rational person, he would act on his own conclusions.

Neither one of those attempt to discredit global warming. Al Gore can be a bad leader. He can be a hypocritical liar. As you and others have noted that doesn't make Global Warming wrong. I've not argued that. I've argued quite the opposite, that since we can prove global warming, we can prove that people are indeed bad, or hypocritical liars with regard to their actions related to it. These labels might be subjective in other human endeavors but here they are objectively true.

The real problem is that people don't want to believe a person or a leader can be bad when he espouses the right thoughts or words but carries out the wrong actions.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #85 of 115
5/18/07 at 12:38pm
Giant Bag of Gas + Global Warming = Energy

Problem solved.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 115
5/18/07 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Let me help you sort this out.

Gore proposes everyone reduce their carbon footprint by 20%.

If Gore did this, but I note it doesn't count because he is an asshole. That would be an ad-hom. I would be ignoring the arguments because of the person.

Now Gore proposes everyone reduce their carbon footprint by 20%.

If Gore does not do this, and I point it out. It is not an attack against the argument. It is pointing out that Gore does not follow his own argument.

Now we have to choices from that. Gore is either a bad leader, because he asks of others, what he will not undertake himself. The second choice is that he does not buy into his own argument or else, being a reasonable and rational person, he would act on his own conclusions.

Neither one of those attempt to discredit global warming. Al Gore can be a bad leader. He can be a hypocritical liar. As you and others have noted that doesn't make Global Warming wrong. I've not argued that. I've argued quite the opposite, that since we can prove global warming, we can prove that people are indeed bad, or hypocritical liars with regard to their actions related to it. These labels might be subjective in other human endeavors but here they are objectively true.

The real problem is that people don't want to believe a person or a leader can be bad when he espouses the right thoughts or words but carries out the wrong actions.

Nick

You ACTUALLY went where I wanted to lead you, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, I understand the definition of ad hominem, FULLY!

Your ploy, subterfuge, endgame, or tactic is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, to cast doubt on AGW, by pointing the finger at the messenger, the "hypocrite" as it were. And since the "hypocrate" isn't following their own advocacy (a value judgement to be sure, since we can't adequately define their energy use behavior in the absence of the prevailing AGW wisdom), AGW MUST be a lie! That's how the MSM plays up the AGW "hypocrite" angle, so the net effect is nothing BUT an ad hominem attack! Anything that casts doubt on the AGW science, from whatever angle, is nothing less than an ad hominem attack on the AGW science. So you can just stop with the trickery/subterfuge, TYVM!

Basically, it amounts to "Look they advocate reducing CO2 emissions, but they don't practice what they preach, therefore AGW isn't true, therefore I'll just bury my head in the sand (be an asshat), and go about my BAU behavior."

So that now in Nick's 0D world view, there are "good" and "bad" people based on some ill defined (per capita (??)) carbon footprint. Given that the US per capita CO2 footprint is about 4x-5X the global average, that pretty much says that ~98% (just my guessing, but it's probably a LOW estimate) of Americans are "bad." I'm bad, you're "bad," so welcome to the club Nick!

Meanwhile, China may pass the US this year in total CO2 emissions, but on a per capita basis, given their 4X-5X population ratio WRT the US, the Chinese people are on average "good" people, by a factor of 4X-5X WRT US people! The African continent population is made up of overwhelmingly "good" people, by your ill defined arbitrary allowable per capita carbon footprint definition.

So in closing, based on your argument, Americans are "bad" in fact they are "very bad" while most of the rest of the world is made up of "good" in fact they are "very good" people, based on an ill defined allowable per capita footprint!

Way to go Nick, your point of debate, will go down as a classic in misdirection!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #87 of 115
5/18/07 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Giant Bag of Gas + Global Warming = Energy

Problem solved.

No, no, your equation is all wrong according to Nick.

This is the CORRECT equation;

Giant BagZ of Gas^(Infinity - 1) (e. g. humanity) * Global Warming^(Infinity - 1) = Planet DEATH!

* The (Infinity-1) term accounts for Nick, you see he's the EXCEPTION!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #88 of 115
5/18/07 at 2:04pm
Ooo, oooo, wait! ... I just had a zen moment...

Al Gore is largely full of shit.
Man Made Global Warming Theory is largely full of shit.
Shit Fullness all around.
Together or apart.

Al Gore largely a statist
Man Made Global Warming solution is statism
Taking all money and power
Together or apart

<Namasté>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #89 of 115
5/18/07 at 2:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et al rose to power by using seductive intellectual arguments that subverted the very idea of reason?

I believe you've just defined communism, so in a word, yes.

Quote:
And here I thought it was because they appealed to the worst impulses of their people, making aggressive use of the concepts of nationalism, external enemies and a return to former greatness. That, and a penchant for brutality and ruthlessness within their own respective hierarchical systems. To the extent that "scientific" claims were made by any of these despots, they were post hoc and secondary to the main process, which was entirely emotional or a product of good old irrational violence.

So basically, their actions didn't match their rhetoric. I think you are again, proving my point. Thanks.

Quote:
I don't think too many people, surveying the shuttered death camps, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the gulags of the Soviet Union, or the mass graves of countless petty dictators, felt betrayed by science.

Then you need to look into your history because many of these actions were taken as "cleansing measures" sometimes for impure ideological stands that might have undermined the collectivist mentality attempting to be instilled. Often though they were genetic as many of these folks practiced and believed in various forms of eugenics.

So yes, they were failed by science.

Quote:
Noticing that you're spending a lot of time belittling people associated with global warming activism as a proxy for belittling the underlying evidence for global warming itself is "a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning"?

Fuck, now I feel betrayed by Latin.

You should feel betrayed by your own brain for such terrible conclusions.

Quote:
Well OK! Now we're getting somewhere! It follows that rational people will attempt to discern what the preponderance of the ostensibly expert opinion is, right? Since we don't have access to primary sources on a lot of the received information we are obliged to consider as "true", we must form criteria for what constitutes "reliable sources", right?

Wouldn't one of those criteria be acts on the conclusions formed from the data?

You really need to stop making my point for me.

Quote:
Since the cynicism engendered by the blood baths of the 20th century have made us very wary of accepting mere rhetoric as a reliable source, we will be especially inclined to familiarize ourselves with at least the mechanisms of science and its means for organizing information. I may not be able to equip myself to be a climatologist, by I can get a sense of how the mechanisms for "truth discernment" in the field of climatology operate, which entities speak for those mechanisms and via which agencies, and thereby form my best shot at an "informed opinion".

Exactly and now you can realize that you can discern truth, and note that some of those also speaking the same truth are not acting on the outcomes of that truth, but merely adopting the rhetoric as a means of empowering themselves instead of as a means of solving the problem.

Welcome to my world. In this world because we can note the difference between rhetoric and action. We can note that even if we agree on the same problem, that not all solutions are going to be the best solutions. Solutions that involve egomaniacs who do not practice what they preach, who must jet around the country and frolic from oversized home to oversized home are not going to be effective. People who can see beyond the rhetoric that they happen to agree with related to the problem we all share, will note that society does not function well when we do not practice what we preach, and do unto others what we would not wish upon ourselves.

Quote:
That way, thankfully, I need not rely on emotional "persuasion", or appeals to externalities, since, well, you know, Hitler and all.

Exactly. So now when the person asking you to reduce your own existence to a "monk-like" state while they indulge themselves in all manner of carbon polluting activities while also enriching themselves more by "increasing awareness", you will realize such a solution as being nothing more than emotional persuasion instead of an actual solution.

Quote:
Uh oh. Is that the sound of grinding gears? Cause I think we just popped into reverse.

Did you just leave my planet? We so enjoyed having you here in the realm of the objective.

Be back in a bit.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #90 of 115
5/18/07 at 3:28pm
Quote:
So basically, their actions didn't match their rhetoric. I think you are again, proving my point. Thanks.

Huh? Oh, because YOU said so!

Quote:
So yes, they were failed by demonstrably FALSE (at that time) science.

TFTFY! Myopic limited one state "science" versus a "global scientific consensus." OK, gotcha.

Quote:
Wouldn't one of those criteria be acts on the conclusions formed from the data?

By the mainstream or majority of all those contributing to AGW, NOT a handful of (you will like this term, I'm sure) statistical outliers that make a virtually insignificant contribution to AGW. And if even a 100X of people listen to them the net effect of that group (in total) will be to lower their total CO2 footprint (as a group). So in fact "hypocritical advocacy" has a net positive effect if the group behavior results in lower CO2 emissions (the group (in total) that listens, that is).

Quote:
You really need to stop making my point for me.

Huh? Oh, because YOU said so!

Quote:
Exactly and now you can realize that you can discern truth, and note that some of those also speaking the same truth are not acting on the outcomes of that truth, but merely adopting the rhetoric as a means of empowering themselves instead of as a means of solving the problem.

I think I'm listening to a BROKEN RECORD!

Don't worry Nick, we can discern the truth, irregardless of your inherently flawed reasoning skills (BTW, because I say so ).

Quote:
Welcome to my world. In this world because we can note the difference between rhetoric and action. We can note that even if we agree on the same problem, that not all solutions are going to be the best solutions. Solutions that involve egomaniacs who do not practice what they preach, who must jet around the country and frolic from oversized home to oversized home are not going to be effective. People who can see beyond the rhetoric that they happen to agree with related to the problem we all share, will note that society does not function well when we do not practice what we preach, and do unto others what we would not wish upon ourselves.

Not again with Nick's merry-go-round of a BROKEN RECORD!

Quote:
Exactly. So now when the person asking you to reduce your own existence to a "monk-like" state while they indulge themselves in all manner of carbon polluting activities while also enriching themselves more by "increasing awareness", you will realize such a solution as being nothing more than emotional persuasion instead of an actual solution.

Once more around the turntable with your BROKEN RECORD!

Quote:
Did you just leave my planet? We so enjoyed having you here in the realm of the objective.

Be back in a bit.

Nick

Please, don't waste your energy!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #91 of 115
5/19/07 at 7:10am
Thread Starter 
You're right. I should not waste my energy on such bad reasoning as what you and Adda display. Everytime you make the logical leap that declaring someone a bad leader means that it is secretly an attack on what the leader represents. I mean sure, using your reasoning every criticism of George Bush is a direct attack on Democracy, but what the hell. It is your insane reasoning.

You both also tend to believe that the most restated and universally acknowledged moral precedent in history is just a bit of rhetoric I'm tossing about.

I'm sure you've convinced many with such lucid thoughts and reasoning.

I'm positive for example that every time one of you would bring up say George Bush, it is because you secretly hate Democracy and America. Neither one of those could possibly be good ideas and have a bad leader misleading people about those good ideas. Every criticism of a leader is really just an ad-hom.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 115
5/19/07 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You're right. I should not waste my energy on such bad reasoning as what you and Adda display. Everytime you make the logical leap that declaring someone a bad leader means that it is secretly an attack on what the leader represents. I mean sure, using your reasoning every criticism of George Bush is a direct attack on Democracy, but what the hell. It is your insane reasoning.

You both also tend to believe that the most restated and universally acknowledged moral precedent in history is just a bit of rhetoric I'm tossing about.

I'm sure you've convinced many with such lucid thoughts and reasoning.

I'm positive for example that every time one of you would bring up say George Bush, it is because you secretly hate Democracy and America. Neither one of those could possibly be good ideas and have a bad leader misleading people about those good ideas. Every criticism of a leader is really just an ad-hom.

Nick

George W. Bush? Lead by example? Yeah, if we follow his lead, we'll lead ourselves straight towards WWIII! His position on AGW, lead by example?

Not to recycle one of your replies but "You just proved my point!"

I for one, don't follow anyone's lead, I look at the underlying arguments, and make an informed decision based on additional information/data not coming from the mouths of talking heads or the op-ed/blog pages, TYVM.

Your Planet Death premise and arbitrary definitions of "objective" and 'bad" are without a doubt one of the loopiest arguments ever put forward in PO!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #93 of 115
5/19/07 at 11:05am
Trumptmann wrote:

"It is not fair to ask of others, what you do not ask of yourself."

Wow. This is fantastic that you said this and every liberal should make note of this to use it later if you violate this rule. I would like to point out that what you are saying means that 98% of Americans are now disqualified for voting against gay marriage, and they are even disqualified for saying that there is anything wrong at all with being gay.

After all, 98% of Americans put up with the vile subhuman garbage that is on TV. Where is the boycott when the media companies sell Jon Benet's and Laci Peterson's murders as entertainment? Where is the boycott when Jerry Springer turns broken lives and broken families into entertainment for people with no conscience?

Why shoud gay people have to change their entire lives in the name of "decency" when 98% of Americans are unwilling to hit the off button on the human sewer system now known as American culture? Is it acceptable to wait 10 minutes for garbage like Dr. Phil to end to get to the normal show that you want to watch?

And no, TV ain't no democracy. It is a product that comes into your house and you have the complete power to force the makers of that product to give you ONLY what you think is acceptable. If they don't then they lose your money, which will make them change their actions to suit your tastes.

So you do agree that unless you have completely disowned TV as vile and anit-American that you are no longer allowed to say anything bad about gays, right?
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 115
5/19/07 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I believe you've just defined communism, so in a word, yes.



So basically, their actions didn't match their rhetoric. I think you are again, proving my point. Thanks.



Then you need to look into your history because many of these actions were taken as "cleansing measures" sometimes for impure ideological stands that might have undermined the collectivist mentality attempting to be instilled. Often though they were genetic as many of these folks practiced and believed in various forms of eugenics.

So yes, they were failed by science.



You should feel betrayed by your own brain for such terrible conclusions.



Wouldn't one of those criteria be acts on the conclusions formed from the data?

You really need to stop making my point for me.



Exactly and now you can realize that you can discern truth, and note that some of those also speaking the same truth are not acting on the outcomes of that truth, but merely adopting the rhetoric as a means of empowering themselves instead of as a means of solving the problem.

Welcome to my world. In this world because we can note the difference between rhetoric and action. We can note that even if we agree on the same problem, that not all solutions are going to be the best solutions. Solutions that involve egomaniacs who do not practice what they preach, who must jet around the country and frolic from oversized home to oversized home are not going to be effective. People who can see beyond the rhetoric that they happen to agree with related to the problem we all share, will note that society does not function well when we do not practice what we preach, and do unto others what we would not wish upon ourselves.



Exactly. So now when the person asking you to reduce your own existence to a "monk-like" state while they indulge themselves in all manner of carbon polluting activities while also enriching themselves more by "increasing awareness", you will realize such a solution as being nothing more than emotional persuasion instead of an actual solution.



Did you just leave my planet? We so enjoyed having you here in the realm of the objective.

Be back in a bit.

Nick

At the risk of being told that I'm "shouting you down", "insulting you" and refusing to "address you points" I'm going to dispense with the point by point again.

The stuff about "communism" (which Hitler apparently helps define?) being a failure of science is just inane. Your original claim is that the abuses of authoritarian states in the 20th century have caused the people of America to lose faith in explanatory power of science so that they require extra hand-holding, or something, when presented with mere scientific evidence.

That is a completely unsupportable conclusion, and unless you have some evidence beyond "is so" you should stop making it. You might as well insist that Mengele caused wide-spread loss of faith in medical science, since he was a doctor and did horrible things. Or that if any prominent doctors fail to leave exemplarily healthful lives it undermines any messages we may receive about what constitutes healthy living.

I say that that the process of evaluating scientific claims rightly involves acquainting oneself with the mechanisms of science, so that I might have some basis for evaluating the quality of science's claims on truth.

You say that this process should, for some reason, include evaluating the behavior of people who claim to accept those claims, which, honestly, is just incoherent. It is fundamental to the nature of science that "behavior of adherents" is irrelevant.

Look, maybe I can help you out here. I think you've backed yourself into a corner and ended up having to make some pretty, uh, far-fetched assertions to prop up what was kind of an ad hoc rhetorical house of cards in the first place.

Maybe all you want to claim is that people who don't, themselves, make a great show of reducing their impact on global warming, make poor PR mouthpieces for encouraging changed behavior.

Which is a perfectly fine thing to claim, and we could debate that. One thing we should bear in mind, though, if we do debate that, is that "poor PR mouthpieces" do not equal any of the following.

-- An indictment of the science that describes the mechanisms and possible consequences of global warming.

-- A legitimate reason to ignore that science.

-- A compelling case against anyone else changing their behavior, or larger institutional entities making systemic changes, as a means of addressing the problem.

OK? Because you're trying to mix in the above as somehow being the inevitable result of "poor PR mouthpiece", and from there into some kind of ill-considered thing about "evil" and parts unknown.

You're trying to do that without actually saying it, because it really doesn't make any sense. As a result, you've been obliged to go all in with this bizarre, simply, obviously untrue claim all we have to go on is the behavior of adherents (because poor old science is in such disrepute owing to communism), and that since behavior is the only game in town it takes on enormous, pivotal importance to the entire idea of global warming-- it's authenticity and possible solutions.

And all because you think Al Gore is a dick and you want to make "being a dick" into "agent of our doom". I think you were better off when you just dismissed the science as being wrong, which at least had the virtue of being relatively straightforward.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #95 of 115
5/19/07 at 1:13pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

George W. Bush? Lead by example? Yeah, if we follow his lead, we'll lead ourselves straight towards WWIII! His position on AGW, lead by example?

Not to recycle one of your replies but "You just proved my point!"

I for one, don't follow anyone's lead, I look at the underlying arguments, and make an informed decision based on additional information/data not coming from the mouths of talking heads or the op-ed/blog pages, TYVM.

Your Planet Death premise and arbitrary definitions of "objective" and 'bad" are without a doubt one of the loopiest arguments ever put forward in PO!

Look, it doesn't matter if Bush takes the wrong actions or demands those actions of others without demanding them of himself. He has the right words and desires the right conclusions so the path to them be damned.

I mean if you even point out that you don't think it is the wrong path or that he isn't executing the plan to obtain that goal as well as someone else might, it is just because deep down we know you really hate Bush, democracy, America, etc.

It could never be because he is a bad leader. By your reasoning, such a thing can't exist as it is just a ad-hom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Trumptmann wrote:
Wow. This is fantastic that you said this and every liberal should make note of this to use it later if you violate this rule. I would like to point out that what you are saying means that 98% of Americans are now disqualified for voting against gay marriage, and they are even disqualified for saying that there is anything wrong at all with being gay.

Yeah, we can all see how 98% of Americans are granting themselves the right to marry the same sex, but denying it to the other 2%. Please try to make sense.

Quote:
After all, 98% of Americans put up with the vile subhuman garbage that is on TV. Where is the boycott when the media companies sell Jon Benet's and Laci Peterson's murders as entertainment? Where is the boycott when Jerry Springer turns broken lives and broken families into entertainment for people with no conscience?

Yes, again we can see how 98% of Americans are denying others the right to watch Springer, Laci Peterson, etc. while granting it to themselves.

You really should understand the point you are trying to find analogies to explain to others.

Quote:
Why shoud gay people have to change their entire lives in the name of "decency" when 98% of Americans are unwilling to hit the off button on the human sewer system now known as American culture? Is it acceptable to wait 10 minutes for garbage like Dr. Phil to end to get to the normal show that you want to watch?

Maybe because the magical linking of these two points only occurs with the voices in your head.

Quote:
So you do agree that unless you have completely disowned TV as vile and anit-American that you are no longer allowed to say anything bad about gays, right?

I think anyone who can even attempt to spit out nonsense like you just typed is making a very strong argument for eugenics.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 115
5/19/07 at 1:52pm
Trumptmann, Americans demand sacrifice from gay people in the name of decency, yet they do not demand anything of themselves in the name of decency. Not even the most tiny sacrifice, like demanding some action against making a joke out of murder.

By your logic, if the 65% of people who are white made laws calling for slavery for blacks, they too would be consistent. After all, the whites have no problem living by those laws.

But I guess you feel like Americans are being consistent because:

(1) Straight Americans get to define marriage in a way that makes them happy and not others.
(2) Straight Americans get to be perverts and get off on the Laci Peterson lifestyle. They allow other Americans to be perverts too. Perfectly consistent.

Wow, I guess Americans are consistent then. They make rules that attack the minority while letting the majority get away with anything they want. I guess that is consistent.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 115
5/19/07 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Look, it doesn't matter if Bush takes the wrong actions or demands those actions of others without demanding them of himself. He has the right words and desires the right conclusions so the path to them be damned.

I mean if you even point out that you don't think it is the wrong path or that he isn't executing the plan to obtain that goal as well as someone else might, it is just because deep down we know you really hate Bush, democracy, America, etc.

It could never be because he is a bad leader. By your reasoning, such a thing can't exist as it is just a ad-hom.

Am I supposed to substitute LD (or AG) for GWB in your first sentence? Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Your second paragraph is a straw man. If you said I dislike humanity (in a George Carlin good natured sort of way), that would be closer to the mark.

You brought GWB into the discussion, not I. Disagreeing with his politics/policy decisions is not an ad hominem. attacking his person/lifestyle/behavior is an ad hominem.

Please see Personal attack;

Quote:
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 115
5/19/07 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Straight Americans get to define marriage in a way that makes them happy and not others.

Marriage is, and has always been, an institution geared towards the creation and stability of the heterosexual family.

When our culture began embracing so-called alternate lifestyles, we were told how different homosexuality was from 'straight' lifestyles. Difference was the key word, and homosexuals, as a valid community of their own, deserved the right not to be pushed into defining themselves by hetero standards and expectations.

Fast forward to the present: The gay community has been ravaged for almost three decades by disease and persistent experimental drug use, and has significantly lesser life expectancy than 'straights'.

This once 'proud' community, having failed to build any meaningful institutions of their own, has been reduced to trying to mimic a heterosexual institution in order to bring some order to the chaos of their own lives.

Whichever side one may be on, this whole episode in our culture has been embarrassing to watch.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #99 of 115
5/19/07 at 6:21pm
Frank777 wrote:

"Marriage is, and has always been, an institution geared towards the creation and stability of the heterosexual family."

I'm not going to argue against the rest of your anti-gay stuff because my argument is straightforward and I don't want to dilute it with anything else. You say "Marriage has ALWAYS been..." Here are some "ALWAYS". Why doesn't everyone get off their lazy self-righteous asses and defend these ALWAYS???:

- From 1776-1985 you ALWAYS had to think that child molestation was the most horrible unimaginable thing. You couldn't make keeping track of it some nasty hobby.
- From 1776-1985 almost all Americans believed that you couldn't just do whatever you wanted as long as you didn't break the law. You ALWAYS had to follow basic rules and handle things like misery and brutality in a serious way.
- From 1776-1985 you ALWAYS had to obey very strict protocol when people died. You ALWAYS had to follow the rule that you don't get too close to death or go into the little details because it trivializes the loss of life when you start interviewing the killer's ex-girlfriends for cheap thrills. You don't interview someone who's husband just died two days ago like they do on CNN or Fox News.
- From 1776-1985 you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS had to at least pretend to feel bad when someone got a divorce. You couldn't have a radio show like Howard Stern (who made $300 million last year) where you laugh at someone for getting a divorce last week.
- ALL people ALWAYS had to follow these and many more rules. It was not only for college educated people or upper income people.

Why don't you conservatives who claim to be so "family-oriented" do something about this stuff? All you have to do is exercise your democratic capability of changing society by putting your little finger on the off button and dialing the cable company and canceling your cable until they give you ONLY was it appropriate for a non-sociopath?

Why don't you clean up your own nasty, filthy, subhuman kitchen before you go worrying about how other people came out of the womb with the wrong characteristics?
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 115
5/19/07 at 11:06pm
I'm not quite sure what this 1776-1985 stuff is all about, but we can discuss gay rights in its own thread.
There's one started every five minutes.

To everyone else, I apologize for taking the bait and derailing this thread.
Please continue with the Global Warming-related discussion.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #101 of 115
5/19/07 at 11:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

To everyone else, I apologize for taking the bait and derailing this thread.
Please continue with the Global Warming-related discussion.

From 1776-1985, volcanoes and natural oil and methane seeps put out more pollution than all humans in all of history to the present.
From 1776-1985, there were no PC viruses
From 1776-1985, the US Senate did not allow debates to be televised
From 1776-1985, popes did not visit synagogues
From 1776-1985, Mike Tyson was not a Heavyweight Champion. Yet.
From 1776-1985, Oliver North had not used a shredder in anger. Yet.

I'm not sure what 1776-1985 really means, or WTF happened in 1985...but wow, this is fun!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #102 of 115
5/20/07 at 6:26am
1985 was the year that television started breaking all the rules that non-trash people followed up until then. If we had fought against this you would remember what 1985 was because you would still be enjoying what I did in 1980. No celebrity gossip, no cheap murder thrills, no broken families, etc. In other words, you would be enjoying the decency and normality that conservatives claim to beinterested when it comes to gay marriage.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 115
5/20/07 at 11:17am
Um, OK. So TV going to hell and carrying offensive and push-the-limit programming makes gay marriage OK? Damn, you are weaving some serious verbage... the only thing is that it still needs to make sense. Who is the "we?" "non-trash?" Cryptic and shit!

OT, looks like Albert Gore takes excess to the pixels as well.. I think, in the spirit of fairness and socialism, that the government should take the two extra that are obviously making him "pixel rich" and give them to others who do not have such means. Come on, Al, that's not faaaaaiiiiiir. How can he sleep at night knowing that there are starving digital artists out there trying to get by on a little bitty MacBook or MBP. We must punish the pixel rich... time for a pixel tax! We also need to take Apple's excess profits because they are making obscene amounts of money in feeding the pixel addiction.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #104 of 115
5/20/07 at 11:31am
"Um, OK. So TV going to shit and carrying offensive and push-the-limit programming makes gay marriage OK?""

No. What I am saying is that before you judge someone's morals based on the way they were BORN, you better have your morals all straight. Before you ask gay people people to change in any way or imply that they are not "decent", then YOU have to have shown that you have some genuine interest in decency.

Americans were to lazy to boycott to save themselves from this Jon Benet garbage. Let me make this clear. There are two sets of people. The people who like this Jon Benet and Laci Peterson garbage simply do not appreciate living in a country that saves us from being randomly murdered by tyrants. If they did, they wouldn't consider murder to be amusement.

The other type of people are those who understand that this Jon Benet garbage doesn't belong in a civilized society, but they allow it to be LEGITIMIZED, because they are too lazy to take a stand against it.

IF Americans, or just Christians had stood up against this garbage, I would have respect for them and think they were being sincere in their attack on gay marriage. But in this case, GAY MARRIAGE WOULD NOT EVEN MAKE THE TOP 50 IN A LIST OF WHAT IS ETHICALLY WRONG ABOUT AMERICAN SOCIETY.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 115
5/20/07 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Before you ask gay people people to change in any way or imply that they are not "decent", then YOU have to have shown that you have some genuine interest in decency.

Well, if there is no indecent material the trigger the "decency freak" in certain people, then of course they will not have reacted previously to meet your standard. Gay marriage is beyond what many of them would abide, when they tolerated many shifts before.

Quote:
The people who like this Jon Benet and Laci Peterson garbage simply do not appreciate living in a country that saves us from being randomly murdered by tyrants. If they did, they wouldn't consider murder to be amusement.

Bovine Scatology. Senseless (non)connection. Randomly murdered by tyrants? I really need to get out to BH and see what is happening. As for the media... It's called being force-fed unique stories by the media who does not want to use their opportunity to tell us what is really going on in the world.

Quote:
The other type of people are those who understand that this Jon Benet garbage doesn't belong in a civilized society, but they allow it to be LEGITIMIZED, because they are too lazy to take a stand against it.

Most people voted by turning off their TVs or changing the channel. Maybe we should have taken to the streets in protest of the coverage which would have meant... more coverage?

Quote:
IF Americans, or just Christians had stood up against this garbage, I would have respect for them...

Respect is a two way street, grasshopper.

I'm starting to think like Frank777 that this sub-thread is a giant bag of gas.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #106 of 115
5/20/07 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Um, OK. So TV going to hell and carrying offensive and push-the-limit programming makes gay marriage OK? Damn, you are weaving some serious verbage... the only thing is that it still needs to make sense. Who is the "we?" "non-trash?" Cryptic and shit!

OT, looks like Albert Gore takes excess to the pixels as well.. I think, in the spirit of fairness and socialism, that the government should take the two extra that are obviously making him "pixel rich" and give them to others who do not have such means. Come on, Al, that's not faaaaaiiiiiir. How can he sleep at night knowing that there are starving digital artists out there trying to get by on a little bitty MacBook or MBP. We must punish the pixel rich... time for a pixel tax! We also need to take Apple's excess profits because they are making obscene amounts of money in feeding the pixel addiction.

Jube, thanks for the link, nice ad hominem BTW! I'm sure you'll be back with more of the same after I post this!

The Last Temptation of Al Gore

Of course the title, in and of itself, will push some MAJOR buttons for those of you on the FAR RIGHT! So let me begin with this quote from the article;

Quote:
He was never quite the wooden Indian his detractors made him out to be in 2000 (nor did he claim to have invented the Internet), but he did carry himself with a slightly anachronistic Southern formality that was magnified beneath the klieg lights of the campaign. And his fascination with science and technology struck some voters (and other politicians) as weird. "In politics you want to be a half-step ahead," says Elaine Kamarck, his friend and former domestic-policy adviser. "You don't want to be three steps ahead." But now his scientific bent has been vindicated. The Internet is as big a deal as he said it would be. Global warming is as scary as he had warned. He wasn't being messianic, as people used to say, just prescient. And today he's still the same serious guy he always was, but the context has changed around him. He used to spend his time in Washington, but now his tech work takes him to Silicon Valley, to the campuses of Apple and Google, where his kind of intellectual firepower is celebrated. At Apple, where Jobs invited him to join the board in 2003, Gore patiently nudged the CEO to adopt a new Greener Apple program that will eliminate toxic chemicals from the company's products by next year. Last summer, Gore led the committee that investigated an Apple scandal—the backdating of stock options in the years before Gore joined the board—and cleared Jobs of wrongdoing. Political people were surprised Gore took that controversial assignment. "That's silly," he says.

Quote:
For now, at least, Gore is firmly in the program. He's working mightily to build a popular movement to confront what he calls "the most serious crisis we've ever faced." He has logged countless miles in the past four years, crisscrossing the planet to present his remarkably powerful slide show and the Oscar-winning documentary that's based on it, An Inconvenient Truth, to groups of every size and description. He flies commercial most of the time to use less CO2 and buys offsets to maintain a carbon-neutral life. In tandem with Hurricane Katrina and a rising chorus of warning from climate scientists, Gore's film helped trigger one of the most dramatic opinion shifts in history as Americans suddenly realized they must change the way they live. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an overwhelming majority of those surveyed—90% of Democrats, 80% of independents, 60% of Republicans—said they favor "immediate action" to confront the crisis.

Quote:
I congratulated him on the poll and mentioned the dozen or so states that—in the absence of federal action—have moved to restrict CO2 emissions. Gore wasn't declaring victory.

Quote:
So Gore is turning up the pressure. He has testified before both houses of Congress, recommending policies and warning the lawmakers that the Alliance for Climate Protection, his nonprofit advocacy group, will be running ads in their districts next year. He has been meeting privately with the presidential candidates (but won't talk about the meetings or handicap the race). He has trained a small army of volunteers to give his slide show all over the world. And on July 7, he will preside over Live Earth, producer Kevin Wall's televised global rock festival (nine concerts on seven continents in a single day), designed to get 2 billion people engaged in the crisis all at once. Since Gore is sometimes accused of profiting from the climate crisis, it's worth noting that he donates all his profits from the Inconvenient Truth movie and book to the alliance. He can afford to: he's a senior adviser at Google and sits on the board of directors at Apple. He's also a co-founder of Current TV, the cable network that was an early champion of user-generated content, and chairman of Generation Investment Management, a sustainable investment fund with assets approaching $1 billion. "I'm working harder than I ever have in my life," he says. "The other day a friend said, 'Why don't you just take a break, Al, and run for President?'"

Quote:
Al and Tipper Gore's home, a 1915 antebellum-style mansion in the wealthy Belle Meade section of Nashville, is laid out a bit like Gore himself: a gracious and formal Southern façade; slightly stuffy rooms when you walk in the door; and startlingly modern, relaxed, informal living spaces to the rear. The Gores bought the old place five years ago and are still retrofitting it, making it energy efficient with new windows, new heating and cooling units, solar panels on the roof. (The anti-Gore crowd zinged him recently because his electricity bill last August was 10 times the local average. The Gores pay extra to get 100% of their power from renewable sources, and their zealous retrofitting will no doubt bring their costs down. But it stung.) A new addition has a slate-floor family room (with a pool table and a flat-panel TV; Tipper's drum set and some nice acoustic guitars are nearby) and a gym and an office suite upstairs; there's a set of his-and-hers hybrid Mercury SUVs in the garage.

So poof, there go your ad hominem attacks "against the man" your arguments of "hyprocacy." So now you can neither attack the man NOR the message!

And finally, some quotes from THE MAN himself, Steve Jobs;

Quote:
No wonder friends, party elders, moneymen and green leaders are still trying to talk him into running. "We have dug ourselves into a 20-ft. hole, and we need somebody who knows how to build a ladder. Al's the guy," says Steve Jobs of Apple. "Like many others, I have tried my best to convince him. So far, no luck."

Quote:
"If he ran, there's no question in my mind that he would be elected," says Steve Jobs. "But I think there's a question in his mind, perhaps because the pain of the last election runs a lot deeper than he lets most of us see."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 115
5/20/07 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Jube, thanks for the link, nice ad hominem BTW!

Nope. Sorry, frank, I don't roll that way. I am pointing out glaring hypocrisy AND ALSO that Man Made Global Warming is bullshit. I'm not using Gore being full of shit to discredit GW. He is discredited on his own. So can global warming be discredited on its own. So quit your incessant squawking about "ad hominem, ad hominem." I trash Gore to point out that HE sucks, not his message. The message of GW itself sucks enough to fall on its own. Who needs ad hominems when BOTH the purveyor and the message are totally full of shit?

I am, however, impressed with how well put together you think your argument is. Go you!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent
Nice try, but your short answer is basically ad hominem.

Actually stating it is, doesn't mean it is and really you should realize that by now.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #108 of 115
5/20/07 at 6:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Nope. Sorry, frank, I don't roll that way. I am pointing out glaring hypocrisy AND ALSO that Man Made Global Warming is bullshit. I'm not using Gore being full of shit to discredit GW. He is discredited on his own. So can global warming be discredited on its own. So quit your incessant squawking about "ad hominem, ad hominem." I trash Gore to point out that HE sucks, not his message. The message of GW itself sucks enough to fall on its own. Who needs ad hominems when BOTH the purveyor and the message are totally full of shit?

I am, however, impressed with how well put together you think your argument is. Go you!

Simple reply, on both fronts is PROVE IT! Disprove the IPCC and disprove that you haven't engaged in an ad homimem. I've already given BOTH definitions to "ad hominem" AND "personal attack" and by either definition, yours (and others) fit that definition.

Sorry for speaking to the TRUTH!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 115
5/20/07 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Simple reply, on both fronts is PROVE IT! Disprove the IPCC and disprove that you haven't engaged in an ad homimem. I've already given BOTH definitions to "ad hominem" AND "personal attack" and by either definition, yours (and others) fit that definition.

I don't need to "prove" my personal opinion to you. It would be useless anyhow. A total and complete waste of time. I will not get you to concede a points, because then you'd have to "lose" or some playground crap like that. I'm not interested in proving to you the unprovable. You can't prove GW or that AL Gore is not a scumbag, and I cannot prove the reverse.

I personally attacked Al Gore because I think he sucks and is a big fat stupidhead.
I think global warming is bullshit, too. Independently. As if one had nothing to do with the other. That is not an ad hominem. Go look for yourself, before you further demonstrate your own squawking silliness:

Quote:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

One more time- global warming is not being discredited because the messenger is an asshole, it is being discredited because it is bullshit. It just so happens that Al Gore is a bullshit artist as well. Got it this time?

Quote:
Sorry for speaking to the TRUTH!

Or at least your version of it...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #110 of 115
5/21/07 at 6:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I don't need to "prove" my personal opinion to you. It would be useless anyhow. A total and complete waste of time. I will not get you to concede a points, because then you'd have to "lose" or some playground crap like that. I'm not interested in proving to you the unprovable. You can't prove GW or that AL Gore is not a scumbag, and I cannot prove the reverse.

I personally attacked Al Gore because I think he sucks and is a big fat stupidhead.
I think global warming is bullshit, too. Independently. As if one had nothing to do with the other. That is not an ad hominem. Go look for yourself, before you further demonstrate your own squawking silliness:



One more time- global warming is not being discredited because the messenger is an asshole, it is being discredited because it is bullshit. It just so happens that Al Gore is a bullshit artist as well. Got it this time?


Or at least your version of it...

Nice EMOTIONAL arguments!

So anything is anything to anyone?

Kinda the definition of anarchy!

So when you don't agree with someone it's because it's "full of bullshit."

Thanks for clarifying ALL human endeavors/thoughts as essentially being "full of bullshit."

PS - Nice comeback on arguing against the objective AGW science! And nice try at separating the man from the argument, however if an opinion poll were taken I am confident that the vast majority of people would share the opinion that your "full of bullshit" argument is CLEARLY a personal attack, TYVM!

So when you see things that you consider wrong with the world, you are just "full of bullshit."

Ironic!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 115
5/21/07 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

.....but we can discuss gay rights in its own thread.
There's one started every five minutes.


Reply
Reply
post #112 of 115
5/21/07 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So anything is anything to anyone?

*yawn*

Are you there, frank... it's me, that little voice inside your head... OK, Jubelum does not like Albert Gore, nor does he believe in man made global warming. I doubt you are going to change his mind on this, really. He does not care about your selectively cited polls, or convenient definitions of this or that. He's not interested. Nor is he buying your fantasy that you are some master of linguistics and discourse. Maybe there is somewhere else we can be more effective...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #113 of 115
5/21/07 at 12:57pm
In other news, and predictably, school children are receiving the PROPER VERSION in schools in Canada. They are showing it here in central Texas as well under the guise of "debate." No word on who produces the film for the other side of the "debate," if such a thing exists.

<looks through rolodex for director>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #114 of 115
5/30/07 at 11:50am
10 years, that's it.

Not Gore, not Laurie, not the Democrats,.....
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 115
6/4/07 at 10:14pm
here is his add on to the movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLW2T...related&search
sometimes
Reply
sometimes
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas