Nobody has to prove jack about his energy bill, your digging in on silly crap now.
According to your ridiculous assertion he reduces his energy bill one dollar he isn't a hypocrite? Drives a hybrid once a year and he is safe to tell the rest of us how to live? :lol
The Ford GT is a great example. Oh we must drive cars that are good for he environment...... BROOOOOOOMM!!!! :lol
You say that isn't a hypocrite?
That happened. That's fact. That is a hypocrite!
Says one thing for the rest of us to do, he does another.
Good luck defending Cameron on this. Your gonna need it.
Again, I'm not defending Cameron. I'm saying you have no proof. I didn't say he can "tell the rest of us how to live."
Can you show me where I said he wasn't a hypocrite?
No, you can't. Because I
explicitly stated on more than one occasion "he may very well be a hypocrite."
This is entirely predicated on semantics.
HOWEVER, He believes we should seriously look at what we are currently doing in our lives to change what we can, yet doesn't make the aforementioned change, which he is fully capable of making in order to have the positive effect he seeks, he must therefore be a hypocrite.
The full proof would be REALLY long, and I'm very tired, so I trimmed it down to it's main parts. This has always been a debate of logic. Quantifiable data is useless, because it is subject to opinion, interpretation, and biases about "what is enough" in terms of reducing his impact. (Is 3 tons of CO2 reduction enough? Who knows!) A logical proof IS the closest thing you will get to data in this, but through it you can use his own stance against him, which is the very nature of hypocrisy.
With that, I'm done. Peace out, homies.
-Nick
Quantifiable data is useless? I'm stunned by this statement. Quantifiable data is actually LESS prone to bias, only to the biases of those interpreting it. Again, my argument is not so much that Cameron is not a hypocrite. This point seems to be overlooked by many. My point is that nobody has actually PROVEN him to be a hypocrite, because your rationale is flawed.
Above, you wrote: "yet doesn't make the aforementioned change"
HOW DO YOU KNOW?! Can you
PROVE that he hasn't reduced his carbon output? You have to prove quantitatively that he hasn't made a change. And nobody has done that. Hell, nobody has even shown "logically" that he hasn't. On what basis, quantifiable or otherwise, have you concluded that he hasn't made any change? Bearing in mind that in order to demonstrate change, simply saying he owns a lot of stuff isn't a cogent argument. By definition, you have to look at two separate moments in time.
You know, this statement right here in light of all your 'defenses' of Cameron is what really ticks me off about this argument. You want to snark at people but don't take the time to actually gather the information to be really informed.
And yet
magically I stumbled upon 20 metric tons as the number for my example :rolleyes. Please, of course I googled it before I posted the number. But as I said in that post, the exact number is immaterial to the argument.
Again, I'm NOT defending Cameron. I disliked Avatar (really, you can search for my posts on the RPF about it). I thought Titanic Sucked. I don't even know that I'm familiar with any other films from his body of work. And apparently, he's kind of a jerk in terms of how he treats his actors. My ONLY beef here is the lack of logic and rationality in attacking him.
We have posters attacking Al Gore and Cameron as "crooks" for profiting off environmentalism. As if Capitalism is somehow bad now? As if Exxon Mobil isn't paying off scientists who disagree with global warming? The video from the OP is from somebody trying to make a buck off of global warming by making an anti-global warming video. But only Al Gore is labeled a "Crook." You yourself posted the link to noteviljustwrong.com who is trying to take money out of YOUR pocket to tell you global warming isn't real.
We have posters attacking Cameron by using one snippet of a sentence from an LA times article without looking at what Cameron said in context.
We even have one poster saying that things which have not yet happened are "facts."
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, because the message appears not to be getting through: Cameron may well be a hypocrite. But I'm not passing judgment without some sort of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATES THAT HE IS NOT "LIVING WITH LESS."
As I pointed out, most posters here have taken an inaccurate version of the arguments put forth by environmentalists. We had one poster conjure up images of "green troopers" knocking on people's doors. That's a straw man fallacy. That's not the argument. I posted a quote from Al Gore and I posted the "message" from the end of An Inconvenient Truth, which basically says we can all take small steps which add up to have an impact.
