AmericanPapist Comments
It is that very group of people who pride themselves on their intellectual sophistication who are the most likely dupes of the witch doctors of the day.
That sounds Chestertony, but I'm fairly certain it is original.
It is people like Gore who give ecologically minded people a bad name.
That's true Catholicgauze. Al Gore makes me want to stop sorting plastics.
AmPap: be careful what you pray for, here, meeting someone who still beleives AlGore. They are legion, young one. Legion.
Hmm. Let me see if I have the logic straight. Because Al Gore may be a hypocrite, we should not listen to him. Indeed, I suppose he should where camel's hair, and eat locust and wild honey. THAT would be living what you believe! :-)
Nah, people would just call him crazy.
Of course, he may have a point (in spite of his hypocrisy). Perhaps we should do something as a nation.
Nah, we can handle this just like we do the debt -- leave it to our children and grandchildren.
.........
........
Ed is right. I know a follower of Algore, and let me give you a piece of advice: if you ever see one, RUNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!
Run?
If I don't run from Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientologists, why would I run from a Gorian?
Minor question: are the two posts above with just the periods deleted entries or is someone just advertising their blog in your comments box?
Yeah, as silly as Gore is, ad hominem is still a fallacy.
peace
I work for the oil industry and yes I agree that Al Gore's comments may seem hypocritical and his approach not necessarily realistic; however, I don't know who or from which political party, if any, should stand up and let Americans know how much energy we waste and what we need to do about it.
As a nation, we consume energy irresponsibly and how we do it is not in solidarity with those nations that have too little or those countries from which we take away their energy resources.
The politicians don't do anything for our environment, so we shouldn't. I find your logic lacking. Silly ad hominem attacks can't hide reality.
I don't believe Tom's critique qualifies as an ad hominem. What's he's saying is more along the lines of:
Major premise: anyone who believes that the American consumer mentality is seriously endangering the planet would actively do something to curtail his own contributions to that consumer lifestyle so as not to endanger the planet.
Minor premise: Al Gore is doing lickspittle to curtail his own consumption.
Conclusion: Al Gore does not believe that the American consumption mentality is seriously endangering the planet, despite the ferocity of his statements.
Perfectly logical conclusion to draw from the facts presented.
It's easy to dismiss an argument which includes a criticism of a person as an "ad hominem" and therefore invalid, but not every criticism of an individual is a fallacious ad hominem.
Gore is way off base.
Here is one cause of global warming
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod...d/
ap060807.html
Major premise: anyone who believes that the American consumer mentality is seriously endangering the planet would actively do something to curtail his own contributions to that consumer lifestyle so as not to endanger the planet.
That's no more true than the premise that someone who thought adultery was destructive to the health of society would certainly not commit adultery. People sin and don't always change their beliefs to excuse their sin (which is quite fashionable).
Additionally, Gore might believe that it is the mass of people who are the danger and he personally, belonging to the upper crust, need not curtail his consumption. One can rightly accuse him of arrogance, even hypocrisy under a certain definition, but not disbelieving his own propaganda.
I think a much more reasonable argument can be made from his opposition to nuclear power. If he really believes that global warming will end the world as we know it in 10 years, and yet considers fixing it the French way by expanding nuclear power to be worse than global warming, he either doesn't believe it is as much of a threat as he's been claiming or he's insane.
Here is one cause of global warming
True, but not terribly relevant since we can't control the sun. Of course if the sun carries the lion's share of the blame for global warming it would be pointless to try to stop it. Instead our time would be better spent relocating people in Equador to the Yukon.
Tim,
An argument is not false simply because the person putting it forward does not behave in complete concordance with the argument they present.
To boot, the argument does not look at what he is doing as well as his failings - like, putting himself up for ridicule (which was apparently was a real possibility), or devoting time and energy to a project – when he could be spending that time and money doing something else (making this ad hominum?). My point is that an argument should be based on an examination of the merits of the argument not on the personal fallibility or motivations of the one putting it forward.
For example. The Church is infallible on teachings of faith and morals. I say amen! However, even Popes are fallible in living these same faiths and morals (so far I am aware of only 2 people who have lived without sin, Jesus and the Blessed Mother). On the day of Pentecost, could we have dismissed Peter? After all, didn’t Peter deny Jesus 3 times?
So a counter argument that attacks not the original argument, but the motivations or "belief" of the one putting it forth, does not invalidate the argument.
Rob,
My critique was not aimed at your comments, but at those who tried to dismiss Thomas' point as an ad hominem, which it clearly is not. One can quibble with his major premise, as you have done, or poke holes in his minor premise by demonstrating the contrary, but, based on the facts presented, it's a clear and logical argument he makes.
I agree that one's behavior alone does not invalidate one's beliefs (as a sinner myself, I can easily attest to that), but the same Lord who said, "judgment is mine," also said something about picking the plank out of your eye before nagging your brother about the mote in his. Al Gore, Patrick Kennedy, the Hollywood environmentalists, and others of that stripe would all be much more believable were they to practice some of the restraint they urge on others who can little afford it.
All that being said, I have personally not found the arguments that man's activity has contributed to global warming to a serious degree to be conclusive. Yet, I willing use flourescent bulbs in my house, sought out a car that gets 30 mpg, use a fan more than an air conditioner and would very happily hang my clothes out to dry if my apartment complex would permit it.
Commenting by HaloScan
