moraldeficiency
Maxwell's Demon
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 9,471
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
But there's nothing here about believing man has an effect on the ecosystem, this is solely about one man being a hypocrite and getting called on it.
I'm not saying you have, but gore's won a nobel peace prize for this very topic and I'd say that alone would make it relevant and consequential.
I don't remember arguing that.
I don't remember saying he wasn't, I don;t think it's important, like the Wright thing.
it's noise, like always.
people with interests that **** up the world live for this ****, because then, they can point at this as if it WAS important and by endlessly discussin non-issues like these we fall into their game.
I remember when every other article that touted the "global warming hoax" spoke with derision of "gore and his followers" like it was a church galvanizing all sorts of idiots into believing that not doing anything about the environment was a way to stick it to Al Gore.
I wasn't refuting you on this, just stating my feelings. I'm not the best at seperating the two when I'm writting so I apologize for the misunderstanding. And while I agree with you that there are people that salivate for this type of news these are the same that salivate for news of the religious right getting nailed for prostitution.
Personally I think the envirnmental movenment will do better by distancing themselves from gore and making the issue about every day citizens. If you want a symbolic figure pick planet earth, not someone that makes a considerable profit off the envirnment by telling people to do as I say and not as I do.
to be an environmentalist all you have to do is give up a fraction of your convenience like Stormin' Norman said, that's what this is all about, people like their convenience and they don;t like to take responsibility for their actions and their impact on their environment, the best way to continue as such? find a scapegoat.
"well, since I can't do nothin' for the dad gum environment I ain't gonna! a-hiuk!"
the fact that the simple double standard you mentioned applies to every single politician and yet none of them have threads made about them is an example of how this isn't even about Gore anymore.
No, to make change you have to sacrifice. Look at what Jman said about laying off the AC and being responsible several posts back. Being rich enough doesn't excuse you from being held to the same accountability by "buying back" the damage you do. You don't get to murder someone then offset it by saving someones life by paying for their medical coverage.
I don't actually, and maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've never had to look far to find someone bashing damn near everything in existence on here.
Gore would have less importance if he wasn't as recognized and acknowledged by the world scientific community.
And I agree the war is more important, but that doesn't mean nothing else matters.
Again that was more a general comment than directed at you, sorry.
That's your right, it would be more convincing with like facts and evidence but calling ******** is a perfectly acceptable debate strategy. He does make money from the movie and lectures, and he does tell people to modify their behavior and lifestyles in ways he himself outright does not adhere to. He plays this off by using money (some of which is made from the movie and his lectures) to buy his way clean with the envirnment.
). He did not have presidential aspirations in this election (and he would have won. Studies show he would've taken about 30-40 % of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters and basically all Edwards supporters), so why would he do a 180 and become VP again? The prospect of Gore taking the second seat again is nothing more than foolish fantasizing.
t:
