Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61
  1. #1
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Al Gore's Hypocricy Exposed

    Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

    Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

    For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

    Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

    Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and ins utions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

    But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

    Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

    Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

    Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

    Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

    Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quan ies of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

    The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

  2. #2
    Basketball Expertise spurster's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Post Count
    4,132
    according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.
    There had a signup like this in San Antonio. I didn't sign up because I didn't understand how the green energy was going to be routed to my home in place of the non-green energy. Maybe it's hypocrisy, but if I'm going to donate money, it isn't going to be to an energy company.

  3. #3
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    There had a signup like this in San Antonio. I didn't sign up because I didn't understand how the green energy was going to be routed to my home in place of the non-green energy. Maybe it's hypocrisy, but if I'm going to donate money, it isn't going to be to an energy company.

    Technically, the green energy isn't "routed" to your house. Electrons are electrons when put into the system, they become indistinguishable from those generated by yucky coal power.

    What that green energy does is signal that you are prepared to pay a bit more for green power. More demand for green power=more green power.

    It is a bit like donating money, but in the end the money goes to finance new green power generation.

  4. #4
    Too weird to live, and too rare to die. midgetonadonkey's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    23,737
    Big ing deal, the dude hasn't switched electric companies. It doesn't mean he is wrong about the effects global warming has had on our planet.

  5. #5
    Damn The Man Mr. Peabody's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    4,475
    Wikipedia

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

  6. #6
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    Wikipedia

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
    See also: "American Politics"

  7. #7
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Wikipedia

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
    Dont link Wiki. Automatic dismissal of source.

  8. #8
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Wikipedia

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
    So James Baker was no less an honorable preacher when he banged the hooker?

    You have no problem with Clarence Thomas ruling on sexual harrassment cases?

    People's actions are irrelevent, ONLY words matter?

    Let me know how that works out for you, lemmings.

  9. #9
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

    touche

  10. #10
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Dont link Wiki. Automatic dismissal of source.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

    Description of Ad Hominem
    Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.
    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

    Example of Ad Hominem

    Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

  11. #11
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    So James Baker was no less an honorable preacher when he banged the hooker?

    You have no problem with Clarence Thomas ruling on sexual harrassment cases?

    People's actions are irrelevent, ONLY words matter?

    Let me know how that works out for you, lemmings.
    Al Gore's hypocrisy has absolutely nothing to do with the truth/untruth of his arguments or statements.

    If he said the sky was blue, would he then be incorrect because he is a hypocrite?

    That is the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack. Attacking a person is not the same as attacking an idea.

    If James Baker said adultry was wrong and then James Baker commits adultry. If one were to use the same logical structure as you and your quoted post, then that would make adultry right, simply because Baker is a hypocrite.

    Since this is obviously false, then so is the dismissal of what Mr. Gore says simply because *he* is a hypocrite.

  12. #12
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    touche [in response to being called dumb]

    tou·ché (t-sh) KEY

    INTERJECTION:

    Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.
    http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/entry/touche


    So you are acknowledging that you are dumb????


  13. #13
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    tou·ché (t-sh) KEY

    INTERJECTION:

    Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.
    http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/entry/touche


    So you are acknowledging that you are dumb????

    No, knowing that elpimp wouldn't respond I did so for him, since he partook in an "ad hominem" attack on me - pointing it out was a "direct hit"; when that was the source of his original criticism of me.

    As for what Al Gore is saying; the point of the article is this:

    Al Gore is saying the world is in dire straights and we must all committ to personal sacrifice to save it or we are, in fact doomed.

    Al Gore is NOT (what with over 20,000 square feet of air-conditioned living space divided up over three residences for he and his wife) sacrificing to the level, apparently, he would ask the rest of us to to prevent this (in fact based on HIS consumption, the rest of us need to sacrifice that much more).

    So it is not a criticism of what Al Gore is doing as much as it is an indictment of whether or not he ACTUALLY believes what he is saying. If he did, it would seem logical that he would practice more of what he preached. What he is saying about global warming may be true; but the author questions, based on his actions, whether Al Gore believes his own rhetoric, unless he is anxious to bring about that catastrophic end of the world as we know it?

    It is not an ad-hominem attack as an analysis of an argument being made (by Al Gore) - using all evidence available. Based on his chosen lifestyle, Prius or not, I, too, question whether Al Gore believes the arguments put forward in "An inconvenient Truth", or whether it is simply politically expedient for his to sound like he does (based on his name NOW coming up as a potentially strong presidential candidate now, I think it is working).

    You go ahead and believe everything Al Gore says, he's counting on you to - whether he does or not.

    You obviously believe it.

  14. #14
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    No, knowing that elpimp wouldn't respond I did so for him, since he partook in an "ad hominem" attack on me - pointing it out was a "direct hit"; when that was the source of his original criticism of me.

    As for what Al Gore is saying; the point of the article is this:

    Al Gore is saying the world is in dire straights and we must all committ to personal sacrifice to save it or we are, in fact doomed.

    Al Gore is NOT (what with over 20,000 square feet of air-conditioned living space divided up over three residences for he and his wife) sacrificing to the level, apparently, he would ask the rest of us to to prevent this (in fact based on HIS consumption, the rest of us need to sacrifice that much more).

    So it is not a criticism of what Al Gore is doing as much as it is an indictment of whether or not he ACTUALLY believes what he is saying. If he did, it would seem logical that he would practice more of what he preached. What he is saying about global warming may be true; but the author questions, based on his actions, whether Al Gore believes his own rhetoric, unless he is anxious to bring about that catastrophic end of the world as we know it?

    It is not an ad-hominem attack as an analysis of an argument being made (by Al Gore) - using all evidence available. Based on his chosen lifestyle, Prius or not, I, too, question whether Al Gore believes the arguments put forward in "An inconvenient Truth", or whether it is simply politically expedient for his to sound like he does (based on his name NOW coming up as a potentially strong presidential candidate now, I think it is working).

    You go ahead and believe everything Al Gore says, he's counting on you to - whether he does or not.

    You obviously believe it.
    Not sure where to start on this one. This is such a classic case of faulty reasoning I will be saving it as a text file for future use as a teaching aid.

    You say it is not a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because Al Gore said it.

    Let's fit this into the example of ad hominem posted above.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Person A makes claim X.
    Al Gore ("person A")claims that Americans should live a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle and consume too much per person("X").

    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    The author of the article ("person B") points out the hypocrisy ("makes an attack") of Al Gore ("person A")

    Therefore A's claim is false.
    Therefore, Al Gore's ("A") claim that we should live a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, and attempt to conserve resources is false.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------


    Is this or is this not exactly what you are saying?

  15. #15
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Not sure where to start on this one. This is such a classic case of faulty reasoning I will be saving it as a text file for future use as a teaching aid.

    You say it is not a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because Al Gore said it.

    Let's fit this into the example of ad hominem posted above.
    and you don't seem to be reading anything.

    Do I have to write in crayon?

    It is not I, or the author who is dismissing what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore is apparently dismissing what Al Gore is saying.

  16. #16
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    for those who attack gore and not global warming i have a couple of questions for you. 1. how else is he supposed to get around? 2. i believe global warming is a problem but i have 60 + mile commute everyday to work. since i use all of that gas everyday does that make me a hypocrite? now if there were alternative ways to get around the country other than planes and automobiles this hypocrisy argument might have merit..

  17. #17
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    and you don't seem to be reading anything.

    Do I have to write in crayon?

    It is not I, or the author who is dismissing what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore is apparently dismissing what Al Gore is saying.
    read the definition of an ad hominem again and say that.

  18. #18
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    and you don't seem to be reading anything.

    Do I have to write in crayon?

    It is not I, or the author who is dismissing what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore is apparently dismissing what Al Gore is saying.
    Is this or is this not exactly what you are saying?

  19. #19
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    I fit you and your author's assertions EXACTLY into the model of an ad hominem fallacy.

    So, all you have to do is directly answer the question from my post above.

  20. #20
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    read the definition of an ad hominem again and say that.
    As I said above, this is a textbook case of such an attack. It doesn't get any more clear, but most people who tend to use such tactics aren't intellectually or morally capable of admitting it.

  21. #21
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943


    I'm not saying the color is green, I'm saying the color is a combination of yellow and blue!!!!

    Classic. Nice job, RG.

  22. #22
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121


    I'm not saying the color is green, I'm saying the color is a combination of yellow and blue!!!!

    Classic. Nice job, RG.
    Heh, thanks. Too bad he went offline. I will have to "remind" him of it and bump the thread sometime when he comes back.

  23. #23
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Heh, thanks. Too bad he went offline. I will have to "remind" him of it and bump the thread sometime when he comes back.

    I'm back.

    Again, you dont know where I stand on global warming. I have not taken a position one way or the other in this thread (nor does the author, for that matter).

    The article points out that

    1. The position Al Gore espouses is an extreme one. It leaves no room for the waste of energy - the consequences being incredibly dire; and irreversible in 10 years.

    2. I (and the author) make the assumption that Al Gore doesn't ACTUALLY want those dire events to transpire.

    3. Al Gore does not lead a life, apparently, condusive to preventing those events.

    Therefore:

    4. Al Gore MUST NOT believe what he is saying...OR...Al Gore MUST WANT the dire events to transpire.

    It is not an attack on Al Gore's position, or an attack on Al Gore's hypocricy; it is an observation that Al Gore's hypocricy on this particular position might give a glimmer of evidence as to whether he believes his own rhetoric.

    It is a logical conclusion from the evidence presented NOT an ad-hominem argument.

    An ad-hominem argument would be:

    Al Gore made a movie about global warming.

    Al Gore is a hypocrite.

    Global warming doesn't exist.

    That is non-sequitor & ad-hominem. I make no argument as to the veracity of Al Gore's claims.

  24. #24
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    I'm back.

    Again, you dont know where I stand on global warming. I have not taken a position one way or the other in this thread (nor does the author, for that matter).

    The article points out that

    1. The position Al Gore espouses is an extreme one. It leaves no room for the waste of energy - the consequences being incredibly dire; and irreversible in 10 years.

    2. I (and the author) make the assumption that Al Gore doesn't ACTUALLY want those dire events to transpire.

    3. Al Gore does not lead a life, apparently, condusive to preventing those events.

    Therefore:

    4. Al Gore MUST NOT believe what he is saying...OR...Al Gore MUST WANT the dire events to transpire.

    It is not an attack on Al Gore's position, or an attack on Al Gore's hypocricy; it is an observation that Al Gore's hypocricy on this particular position might give a glimmer of evidence as to whether he believes his own rhetoric.

    It is a logical conclusion from the evidence presented NOT an ad-hominem argument.

    An ad-hominem argument would be:

    Al Gore made a movie about global warming.

    Al Gore is a hypocrite.

    Global warming doesn't exist.

    That is non-sequitor & ad-hominem. I make no argument as to the veracity of Al Gore's claims.
    Your author very clearly did.

    Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.
    You may not have specifically made an ad hominem, but the implication was and is very clear, if you were to be intellectually honest.

    If you had not meant to imply the ad hominem, the intellectually honest thing to do would have been to disclaim it, and merely point out that he is an ass.

    As for climate change/global warming, I would tend to agree with the consensus of science at this point, that mankinds activities are contributing dangerously and unpredictably to a change in our earth's environment. If Al Gore, hypocrite or no, endorses or advocates actions that would mitigate our monkeying around with processes that we don't understand, than I am for that.

    Do I believe it simply because, as you imply, Al Gore said it? No.

    Do I dismiss it, as you imply, and your author clearly states, because Al Gore said it? No.

  25. #25
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    read the definition of an ad hominem again and say that.

    The Definition is Question:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.
    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
    The assertion that A's claim is false is not available in the authors argument. The piece is ONLY pointing out the apparent hypocricy and free-energy spendign lifestyle of Al Gore; not the merits of his argument - therefore no ad-hominem attack.

    Just re-read the piece; the author does make the claim, missed it the first time. RG pointed it out.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •