Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's look at the cultish ideological spewing of Shivetya for a moment.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Just remember
The holier-than-thou leftist environmentalists will rail about American's destroying the environment, yet when they do it they will claim some people need to be exceptions.
What does holier-than-thou mean, exactly, in a policy discussion?
It sounds bad, like an insult, so what's the insult?
What we have are one side who is actually trying to do good on the environment - get informed, and put effort into getting the public aware to fix the problem - and the other side who is a group of ignoramuses who get their 'information' from shills paid for by the far right who oppose the democrats for reasons of keeping power to serve their own corporate interests, and largely Exxon, who has spent tens of millions to dozens of propaganda organizations - thse people are pushing harmful polices based on idiocy.
Is 'holier than thou' so bad when it means person who is pushing the right policies?
No. It's those using the label who are doing wrong.
Otherwise, I guess our founding fathers were 'holier than thou' as they said that the public's right to political power was a moral imperative compared to the monarchy.
Then he uses the word 'rail'. What does that mean? Gore has a very science-based argument. The work rail implies Gore stand up and screams empty nonsense.
In other words, Shivetya is lying about the message Gore presents with that word, simply because it's an attack word he wants to use in lieu of having a valid point to attack with.
Finally, he sets up a hypocritical standard himself. The right wing on the one hand wants to demand that millionare liberals who are advocating the right policies on the environment should give up big houses and live in ultra-Spartan conditions, lest they be called hypocrites; and yet, the right wing is hardly actually endorsing what they demand, as if they'd willingly let THEIR millionares make that sacrifice. So they've set up a no-win situation for liberals - they oppose the Spartan lifestyle, and they oppose NOT living it.
What's reasonable is that the wealthier people who use more, spend the money to offset their larger use of energy and carbon emissions. The right is against reasonable.
Why? Because the bulk of these whackos are the rich, who are not impacted by the restrictions and never will be. They will buy their "CARBON OFFSETS" as if that justifies their exhorbinant lifestyles.
Now, he calls Gore a "whacko", based on nothing. Gore is a former VP who has praise from virtually all the climate scientists for his advocacy on the issue.
Whacko is a word that says a lot more about Shivetya's name-calling based on a lack of evidence, his spewing of ideology outof ignorance, than about Gore. He's a wacko.
And again, we have the class envy the right only allows for itself but attacks in the left.
What is "exhorbinant" about a 2,xxx square foot vacation house, with - the worst attacks said - a heated pool, electric garage door and one gas lamp in the driveway?
Nothing, of course. And you have to see that this is the cruz of the issue - that the facts are ignored by Shivetya as he tries to lie about the evil Gore living outrageously.
He *relies* on the reader not being rational, and simply buying into the emotionalism of the story of some rich hypocrite to hate.
Sorry, an offset is not a committment to the environment.
Actually, it is. It's a lot better than not doing it - as is the norm for the right-wing millionares. It's a commitment to spend to help the environment.
Again, Shivetya relies on the lack of rationality of people to make his attack.
Buying green power is one thing, buying 30,000 dollars worth to support your home PART TIME , this is not his full time house, for a small family, is waste.
It's very common for people with Gore's wealth to have vacation homes like this; it's not common for them to buy the carbon offsets.
If everyone did as Gore is doing, and paid for the offsets, it would be a huge improvement.
When enviro-whackos like Gore learn to live like common American's then he might just have a right to lecture us on the environment. Until people like him waste more energy than any thousand American families could conserve.
Again the irrational, baseless "whacko" name that applies to Shivetya, not Gore.
He then mixes up Gore living with a vacation home, and the issue of contributing to global warming. Gore does have a nice vacation house, and he does not contribute to global warming from it because the offsets remove the carbons added by the house, so this is a non-issue.
Now, let's ask what Shivetya is doing to reduce global warming, since all we see is him attack the person who is leading on the battle with baseless nonsense?
Facebook
Twitter