Originally Posted by ShawnJ
Not sure what you're talking about.
You're not sure, but you know that it is wrong. You take a very interesting position.
You appear not to understand that compensating someone for a crime, and then continuing to do the crime is not a good action or even intention no matter how you frame it.
I'm not sure if we're on the same page here, because that goes beyond the more sensible language of the press release.
From the press release, the committee is concerned about the dangers that migration and increased competition for our resources may pose on the most vulnerable nations. War and other violence are among those dangers. So it's more about reducing certain risks that could lead to conflict, than outright "stopping future wars," which is a bit overstated.
Shawn, you are dangerously close to falling below the threshold of warranting a reply.
From the press release....There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
I'm not going to mince words with you. If you can't draw from that stopping future wars, then too bad for you. I mean it is a peace prize and they were the ones who had to come up with the deluded future tense for giving it to Gore. You can take the bad reasoning up with them rather than complaining that you thought the words I used to explain the bad reasoning were less "sensible." The rationale of giving an award for preventing future conflicts in any form or fashion, (or lessing their odds as calculated by the magic 8 ball) is not sensible in the first place.
It makes sense, doesn't it?
No it doesn't which is why the awarding of this has been ridiculed by many. It makes about as much sense as claiming that calling you an editor and a law school student are ad-homs.
How serious can you treat any two quotes that include the word "may" four times in five sentences? It amounts to saying that Gore has worked to prevent an apocalyptic future that he foretells and thus he is a good person even though his predictions and that future haven't proven to be true in any fashion.
Al Gore does not argue that.
Gore does not argue that carbon emissions above 300 ppm are artificial, have never naturally existed and as such are proof that humans have altered the environment? Gore does not claim that we must reduce our emissions to fall back within this upper limit of that natural variability?
Remember what I said about that threshold.... if you are going to ignore the statements of the very people you claim to defend in order to try to win some nonsensical argument, then you can argue alone and go to the ignore list.
You can't use limits and some meaningless platitude. If Gore proposes that we limit carbon dioxide production, that falls on the shoulders of someone, somewhere since we are above those limits now. You can pretend it doesn't, enjoy twisting words, and play games but if you aren't going to admit that a limit and reduction means limit and reduction, then ignored you will become.
Again, Al Gore does not argue that.
You've spent two replies now arguing that you don't like what I equate with Gore, or that he doesn't say what I have typed. You get no more replies until you add something besides critiques of my writing.
Got that Mr. Editor?
What are you talking about?
Since you can't figure it out, either don't reply, or reply and prepare to be ignored.