Wow, I thought you implied that it would be easy to make the same argument for a lot of recommendations, but your first one right out of the gate is a nonsensical clinker like that?
How many would you like?
And by the way, how would you respond to somebody who said that he wasn’t going to cut his gas usage because somebody else would just buy and use the gasoline anyway?
Do you think you are advancing your argument by endlessly asking rhetorical questions? (Citations upon request)
It’s not a rhetorical question. If you honestly believe that a politician isn’t setting a bad example by announcing that he or she will not vote, then I am curious if you believe that a leader can ever do something that is not ok, purely because it sets a bad example.
I’d ask if he thought someone else would increase his or her gasoline consumption because he cut his own, and then I’d ask how in the hell he ever came up with such a nonsensical idea.
As everybody knows, lefites don’t really believe all that shit they say, so they’re hypocrites. Unless they really *do * believe it, then they’re nuts. Icecaps aren’t melting, that’s just a bunch of (glub…glub…gurgle…)
Way to go, Al! Keep on rockin’ in the free world!
Don’t make me bring out Manbearpig. 
No. I admit that it might not encourage other people to vote for him, though.
Hentor has really explained your argument in one, but a house is not a commodity the same way gas or electricity is. If Gore sells his big nice house, someone will move there, or else knock the house down and build a new one. If I turn my lights off, someone else isn’t going to come into my apartment and turn them on because extra power is available.
And he would probably respond that the tank at the gas station holds a certain amount of gas, which will all be sold eventually. So if he doesn’t buy the gas in question, then somebody else will.
That depends. Is he or she sort a moron who has clearly proven time and again that they have no clue what the hell is going on? He or she might in fact be setting an **excellent ** example by publicly refraining.
I think that’s an understatement. If one of the Democratic presidential candidates announced that he or she will not be voting because it’s unlikely to make much of a difference, it might very well cost him or her the nomination.
Can a politician ever do any thing that is bad just because it sets a bad example?
And if somebody doesn’t buy a particular gallon of gasoline from the gas station, then somebody else will buy it. But the key point is that the overall demand for gasoline is less.
Look at it another way: Some developer out there is making a lot of money building big houses. If Al Gore decides to move, he is reducing the overall demand for big houses by a little bit. If demand drops enough, the developer will have to cut production.
… and that, Lamar, is the source of my frustration. I remember concern about the risks of and potential for increased global warming should we not heed our ways being proclaimed loudly for years before Al took up the banner. And now, suddenly, either an appreciable percentage of the population is just starting to listen when a politician gets on for the ride or a revisionist history is occurring, conveniently forgetting all the warnings, good science and honest debate put forth pre-Al. To lay the wreath only at Al’s feet is like if the Moral Majority credited Falwell alone for God’s existance.
Did people really not care before, are they sheeple now that’s the issue’s politicized or is false praise being heaped inappropriately? Whatever the reason, the praise for a biased film often at odds with the truth and the resultant Nobel have left me alternating between scratching and shaking my head.
Watch your eyes!
Stop and think about this for a second. You are implying that Gore, by remaining in his current house, is increasing the overall demand for big houses. How is his staying right where he is doing anything to the current demand for big houses?
If he leaves that one and buys a smaller house, he’s increasing the market for houses overall, smaller houses more specifically, and doing relatively little to change the market for big houses. He’s gone from a non-factor to the market for houses to contributing to its increase.
First, you are aware that the prize wasn’t given to Gore alone, right? Secondly, you can’t honestly be shocked that people are more aware of the issues due to Gore’s film than to the IPCC reports or other venues for science, can you? That implies a stark ignorance of how much interest people have in science and public policy, versus attractive and user friendly media.
The award went to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change, so it isn’t all going to Gore. Secondly, what you are decrying is the essential role of a sucessful politician - rally the public to your cause. Good politicians (and Nobel Peace Prize winners) don’t commonly do the stuff that makes great changes for the world - they create the conditions that allows other people to do great stuff.
No, I’m not implying that. I’m saying exactly what I said. If he moves out, he’s reducing the demand for big houses. If he stays, then, all things being equal, the demand will stay the same.
(my bolding)
Of course it’s relatively little. And if I buy less gas, I’m doing relatively little to affect the market for and consumption of gasoline.
Environmentalists are constantly exhorting individuals to do things that will have “relatively little” effect - on an individual basis.
People we are allowing **Brazil84 ** to once again derail a debate to what he wants to argue instead of the point of the Op. We are off on a silly little tangent now debating what already has been debated in dozens of other threads.
He likes to nitpick specific things in a debate and he will pound away on these little pieces to avoid the big picture. Please don’t give in and help him derail another thread.
Jim
That makes no sense.
Okay, I should have been more precise. He’s increasing the demand for smaller houses and leaving the demand for big houses the same (since he’s presently not contributing to the demand for any houses).
Although, after thinking about it, his current house would have to stand empty for that all to be true. Since that’s unlikely, the net changes from Gore’s impetuous move would be +1 small house purchase (Gore’s new house) and +1 large house purchase (Gore’s old one). The buyer of Gore’s house could be coming from no house, making a lateral move, or moving up from a smaller house, so we cannot know the net changes associated with that person, but it won’t be to reduce the overall demand for big houses.
Gas and houses are very different commodities dude.
The big picture – in my view – is that Al Gore was a poor choice for a Nobel Prize. Because he sets a bad example with his personal conduct.
Other people seem to be arguing that his personal conduct is irrelevant and/or does not set a bad example.
I don’t see how this is off topic at all.
Are you saying that some people like to derail threads?