Posted on 05/25/2006 11:11:43 AM PDT by Republican Red
It may not seem so, but I really am educated (if you count law school as education, which may be arguable). When Gore used the term "over-represent" that, to me, is lying, and acknowledging it as such by him. If he had said "We must represent the factual presentation much more than we are presently doing," then he would not be acknowledging the exaggeration (i.e., lie) of his claims. But here he used the term "over-represent" meaning to represent more than is appropriate under the circumstances. That is acknowledgment of lying, it seems to me.
Factual implies facts, not lies. I'm not sure how you are getting "lying about" from "over-representation of factual presentations."
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. "
No, tubby. You live in a bubble of unreality!
Sorry, I honestly don't understand your second statement. I need a context, I guess, to clarify what you're indicating that I said.
I was commenting on the headline "...Al Gore Says Its (sic) OK To Lie About Global Warming..." I didn't see how that was derived from the article.
His god is a moral relativist, like him. Lying is neither right or wrong, it just depends on the situation.
It comes down to the term "over-represent." It's purely a statistical usage, factually neutral.
For instance, I could just as easily say that it's appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on the dangers of Islam. By that I would mean that the danger has for so long been ignored by the mainstream media and most politicians that the problem has increased in severity, and we are to the point of needing a disproportionate amount of attention given to it in order to get something done about it.
Now then, I have just used the same grammatical structure as Gore. Have I, anywhere in there, been untruthful? Have I justified lying? The only substantive difference is in the actual information contained within the message I want to spread, which is not the point I was making.
His god is the earth and his church is the enviro-whackjobs............
Algore needs to be drug-tested. Now. Since 9-11 haven't the American people suffered enough?
As Bill Clinton might say, I guess it depends on what the definition of "over-represent" is. As you use the term I cannot see any misrepresentation or lying. As the terms appears to me (or could reasonably be argued to appear) using "over" as a prefix to any verb suggests doing that thing beyond the point of reasonableness under the circumstances.
I take your meaning, and would not quarrel with your use, but I would happily quarrel with Gore's use of the same term, even if he intended it as you did. He deserves some attack on the margins, in light of his "He betrayed us, he played on our fears" rhetoric of the past. Let him take some time off message to explain himself, which he would no doubt do in a much less articulate manner than you have.
To briefly jump off topic, I suspect that even Hollyweird drew a line at alienating over 50% of Americans (ie, the pro-lifers) by making that movie.
To return to topic, I am, of course, simply horrified to discover that algor might "misrepresent" the truth.
Since when is this news?
Hey, unless I missed something, Michael Crichton's State of Fear isn't pro-abortion-- if anything,it's the opposite, since the hyper-Malthusianism of guys like Paul Ehrlich always talks about forced abortions being needed because of over-population--- in fact, there's some stuff directly against that stuff in the appendix! Were you thinking of some other Crichton book?
Metaphorically speaking, alGore thinks it's ok to put an unloaded gun to someones head since it's predicate for opening up the person to listen to your side.
Isn't State of Fear (bear with me, it's been years since I read it and I can't seem to lay hands on it at the moment) the book that involves a pro-abort doctor getting burning crosses in his yard, rocks through his window and (I think, not quite sure on this one) threats against his kids by the prolife protestors?
In the appendix Crichton compares the current environmental fanaticism to two older movements that mixed politics and science, Lysenkoism, the Stalinist alternative to the biology of the day which preached that species did not so much go through evolution as sharp, sudden revolutions and helped cause Soviet famines, and eugenics, the science of culling the weak from humanity as hunters do from deer symbolized by Oliver Wedall Holmes statement recommeding sterilization that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
This is a great FR post about the appendix of the book
Crichton's A Case of Need (which I haven't read)seems to have some abortion myths in it about pre-Roe and its hero is an abortionist. so maybe that's what yyou were thinking of. He also apparently refuses to perform a four month abortion, which unfortunately sounds far fetched, so it may have been a case of Crichton being young and stupid when he wrote it since it was his first. At any rate, State of Fear is a good book that reads fast and packs a lot of information although it's not a literary classic by any means.
Probably because golbal warming isn't dangerous. I think I'm going to die from something else first. No clue yet, and not soon I hope, but I really have some serious doubts that global warming will be involved with it.
Funny. A nice comment on his movie and book, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.