Gore's Law
From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point. | Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point. | ||
| + | ==Why Gore's Law is relevant == | ||
| + | The problem with attacking Al Gore is that he has nothing to do with the true of climate change. This is simply an example of [[poisoning the well]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Common examples include and the reasons they are fallacious include: | ||
| + | *Al Gore is a liberal/socialist democrat. | ||
| + | ::Even if this was a problem this is an [[association fallacy]]. | ||
| + | *Al Gore stands to make money from climate change legislation. | ||
| + | ::If you see Al Gore making money as a bad thing, this is an [[argument from adverse consequences]]. However, most people would see this as entrepreneurship, Al Gore has seen an opportunity and is taking it, that is part of [[capitalism|what]] made America great. | ||
| + | *Al Gore owns a large house/travels a lot. | ||
| + | ::Whilst one could argue this is hypocritical and Al Gore could help fight climate change by reducing his lifestyle, this is nothing more than a [[red herring]] distracting people from the facts about climate change. | ||
| + | *There are <math>x</math> number of errors made in Al Gore's film. | ||
| + | ::This is an example of the [[fallacy fallacy]], just because a sub-set of the arguments for climate change are wrong, does not mean that climate change is not happening. | ||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 02:50, 20 July 2012
Gore's Law states, as coined by Laanta:
“”As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.[1]
|
Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point.
Why Gore's Law is relevant
The problem with attacking Al Gore is that he has nothing to do with the true of climate change. This is simply an example of poisoning the well.
Common examples include and the reasons they are fallacious include:
- Al Gore is a liberal/socialist democrat.
- Even if this was a problem this is an association fallacy.
- Al Gore stands to make money from climate change legislation.
- If you see Al Gore making money as a bad thing, this is an argument from adverse consequences. However, most people would see this as entrepreneurship, Al Gore has seen an opportunity and is taking it, that is part of what made America great.
- Al Gore owns a large house/travels a lot.
- Whilst one could argue this is hypocritical and Al Gore could help fight climate change by reducing his lifestyle, this is nothing more than a red herring distracting people from the facts about climate change.
- There are
number of errors made in Al Gore's film.
- This is an example of the fallacy fallacy, just because a sub-set of the arguments for climate change are wrong, does not mean that climate change is not happening.