Al Gore uses 18,400 kWh of electricity per month?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you're alleging that in addition to "creating" the internet, Gore transitioned it to the private sector?

Wow! Just Wow! That's all I have to add here...
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that Gore (among others) played a political role in facilitating that transition. But please, continue to intentionally misinterpret things in order to satisfy your pre-existing bias. It's actually amusing.
 
This is the way of the intraweb. There is almost no real point in arguing.
Click to expand...

No point in arguing, maybe, but in looking up info related to points I was making or responding to here I learned quite a bit about Al Gore's environmental record that I hadn't previously been aware of. So obviously not a total loss.

themoreyouknow.jpg
 
The big corporations are "hated" because they are a major source of polution and energy waste...

Al Gore uses far more enregy and polutes far more than nearly every individual...

I don't care about his reasons... they can't be more necessary than anyone else's reasons... :rolleyes:
 
OMG, actual facts, you'll probably be thrown off these boards soon for this offense.

You are indeed correct. And I have yet to find a politician (or even an american) that believes exactly in the same things and has the same priorities at 60 as they do at 21.

Does that make him a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

When he changed his position soley for the purpose of political gain, yes.

And please, don't try to red herring things by expanding the time line here. Gore was consistent on these issues from his election to the House in 1977, through his election to the Senate in '85. He changed in 1988 specifically (and admittedly according to statements he made to the NRA) in order to get the Democractic nomination. So, we aren't talking 39 years as you suggest; we're talking, at most, 3 years.
 
and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.
Click to expand...
I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.
Click to expand...

Back in post #52, you advocated that somebody be banned because you felt they were too insulting. It turns out you’re the biggest offender in this thread. Given your previous position, are you going to do the right thing and ban yourself ? Or are you, like algore, to be given special dispensation because you perceive that the length and verbosity and self-gratification of your expositions outweighs any insults delivered by you, and that you are therefore a “net positive” ?

Just asking.
 
What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet" don’t you understand ?
Click to expand...

The part where a politician claiming he "took the initiative in creating" something during his time in office would be interpreted by a reasonable person as a claim of technical invention.

For instance, if my Governor were to claim he "took the initiative in building additional wind power generation capacity" in my state, I'd not assume he was actually out there physically helping install wind turbines. I'd assume it meant signing bills and securing funding, not turning wrenches.

What part of that don't you understand? In fact, is there some reason you didn't bother to respond to any of the further arguments on the subject, and rather parroted what is basically the starting point from back on page one? Have you nothing else to add?

Back in post #52, you advocated that somebody be banned because you felt they were too insulting. It turns out you’re the biggest offender in this thread. Given your previous position, are you going to do the right thing and ban yourself ? Or are you, like algore, to be given special dispensation because you perceive that the length and verbosity and self-gratification of your expositions outweighs any insults delivered by you, and that you are therefore a “net positive” ?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

Hey, wow...maybe you do get the idea of a net positive. Check this out...my position was that simply throwing insults while adding nothing else to the conversation was the problem I had with those two. I, on the other hand, have no problem with me (or anybody else) tossing the occasional insult towards somebody's intelligence when also responding to something that person has said that was.....well, unintelligent.

Also, it's a matter of whether the insult is, for lack of better word, appropriate to the topic at hand. Questioning somebody's intelligence (in an admittedly insulting way) when pointing out that they're failing to grasp a basic logical concept seems relevant in the course of an informal intellectual debate. Asking if somebody got beat up a lot as a kid bears no relevance.

If I question your intelligence because you can't add 2+2 in a debate on mathematics, it's relevant to the conversation. Your inability to add 2+2 may well disqualify you from adding anything useful to the conversation. However, asking if I get beat up a lot after I do so (or, in person, the more common tactic of actually threatening physical violence) is generally the last resort of somebody who has no intelligent retort, no defense, and nothing else to add to the conversation. How does the frequency with which I got beat up relate to the sum of 2 and 2, or my ability to find said sum? If we were in a debate on self-defense, I suppose it'd be relevant. Here, not so much.

Also, in case anybody wants to bring up the ad hominem fallacy...that's not the same thing. If I say you're wrong because you're stupid, that's an ad hominem attack. If I say you're stupid because you're wrong, that's just a plain old insult.

In fact, those two's simple insults to my character without actually responding to my point would be classic ad hominem attacks.
 
When he changed his position soley for the purpose of political gain, yes.

And please, don't try to red herring things by expanding the time line here. Gore was consistent on these issues from his election to the House in 1977, through his election to the Senate in '85. He changed in 1988 specifically (and admittedly according to statements he made to the NRA) in order to get the Democractic nomination. So, we aren't talking 39 years as you suggest; we're talking, at most, 3 years.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't to expand the timeline, merely to choose two ages that generally have dissimilar opinions and priorities about things. Compromises and agreements made by both will reflect these differences...

The point I was making was that people change, their perspectives, they experience things. Just the act of reversing a position doesn't make someone necessarily a hypocrite, there can be other factors.

For instance, Dennis Miller moved to a position of completely supporting the president post-9/11. His justification was: I'm scared (crap)less. Give the president all the power he wants. I don't think Miller's reversal is hypocritical.

My question was (and let me reword it better): Does a reversal of opinion make Gore a hypocrite?

If someone is actively saying one thing and doing another, it is accurate to label them a hypocrite. If someone reverses position (which I am saying happens to all of us on some topic during our lives, we grow individually) at what point do label them a hypocrite.

If Gore ran on a certain platform, then reversed directions immediately upon election, yes, that's hypocritical.. he made promises.

if Gore changed his position before he ran and when elected maintained that position threw legislation, I'm not so quick to call him a hypocrite, rather a politician.

I do think that using a number published about his energy usage without clear context isn't a great way to judge whether he over consumes. Lacking other information, it's just the best we have.
 
Silver Bullet Question...
What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." don’t you understand ?
Click to expand...
JuanCarlos
The part where a politician claiming he "took the initiative in creating" something during his time in office would be interpreted by a reasonable person as a claim of technical invention.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is a claim of "credit" for bringing the World Wide Net into existence... :rolleyes:
Which was VERY badly worded, and even worse... ill-considered. :o
These are hardly good traits of leadership... but as you said he is a politician...

No matter how we choose to view it... falsehood is still a lie... and the only difference is manifested in the results. ;)

me
The big corporations are "hated" because they are a major source of polution and energy waste... Al Gore uses far more enregy and polutes far more than nearly every other individual...
I don't care about his reasons... they can't be more necessary than anyone else's reasons...
Click to expand...
SecDef
My question was (and let me reword it better): Does a reversal of opinion make Gore a hypocrite?
Click to expand...
Depending on his reasons and his frequency... perhaps it does...
But it definitely makes him more flexible...

...like a thin rubber "flip-flop". :o
 
Can you show me where Gore apologists claim he invented the internet?

What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet" don’t you understand ?
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between created and invented. Especially in connotation. Ours is a wondrous language, and not all synonyms are directly interchangeable.

Did Eisenhower invent the Interstate Highway System or did he create it?
 
Actually, it is a claim of "credit" for bringing the World Wide Net into existence...
Click to expand...

Which is a claim people that were there support.

Are you saying he didn't bring initiatives forward to bring about the Internet? Show some sources instead of sniping.
 
Changing your mind about something is not hypocritical. The definition of hypocrite or hypocrisy has nothing to do with changing your mind. Being a hypocrite is the practice of professing beliefs that one does not personally hold. In the direct definition of the word hypocrisy, Al Gore is a hypocrite. Someone can change their mind all they want and they wouldn't be be a hypocrite as long as they are announcing that they have changed their mind.

For instance, Dennis Miller moved to a position of completely supporting the president post-9/11. His justification was: I'm scared (crap)less. Give the president all the power he wants. I don't think Miller's reversal is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know if your comment was directed in response to mine. I'm not saying Al Gore pretends to or has anything. What I'm saying is that in the direct definition of hypocrisy Al Gore is a hypocrite. He professes about the virtues of conserving and the need to conserve energy yet he personally does not conserve energy and in fact uses lots of energy. It doesn't matter if he lives a carbon-balanced lifestyle or not. The bottom line is that he uses a lot of energy. Energy is a valuable resource that does need to be conserved. Not because of global warming though. Can anybody direct me to a link or resource showing where a hypothesis has successfully been proven that global warming is indeed happening let alone is caused stimulated by human activity? I don't want to hear about whether Al Gore uses more energy about people who live similar life-styles. The bottom line is that if he truly believed in what he professed he would modify his life-style so that he wouldn't need to use massive amount of energy that he uses.

Can you be specific? Exactly which belief is Gore pretending to have?
Click to expand...
 
Ok, so you are saying he is a hypocrite based on his saying people should conserve energy, yet uses a lot of energy.

There are two definitions of conserve that could potentially come into play here: The first is to protect something. The second is to prevent the wasteful or overuse of (a resource).

Can we agree that the second is the definition of the word conserve in this context?

So, if you can show that Gore is being wasteful or overusing energy, he is a hypocrite. Sure. I think we can all agree with that.

We know he drives a hybrid car, uses low electricity appliances, uses florescent instead of incandescent light bulbs, walks to work (in his home) many days, takes commercial flights when possible (private jets when impossible). So, from that we can't claim he is a hypocrite.

We have seen a number in terms of energy used by the Gore household, and we have compared it to the "average" home. 20x, apparently. And I agree that it sounds like a lot.


Do you really have enough information to say that this energy is wasteful or overuse of energy?

Until we actually know what that energy is actually used for, we have no way of knowing. Comparing energy usage to the average citizen makes for a great response, but really has no bearing on whether or not Gore is conserving energy.

Go ahead, call him a hypocrite, just make sure you do so for real reasons (he wastes energy), not made up ones (his home utility bill is 20x national average).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top