It's not about comparing slavery to global warming. How do you measure people's natural rights to a looming global apocalypse? Different ballparks indeed.

It's about the difference between someone who recognizes the ill, tries to change the system that relies on it, but doesn't stop doing it himself for economic reasons. Sklansky says that guy is pondscum, and worse than someone who fights against changing the system.

He said Jefferson is worse than slave owners who didn't believe slavery was an abomination by virtue of the fact he was enlightened. To be consistent he must then condemn Al Gore more than Rush Limbaugh. Obama and Lincoln would both slap him.

I wonder how the modern civil rights movement would have happened if we did not have scummy religious freedom? The klan's brand of Christianity would be how many States' only approved religion?

Not following this thread, so I could have this wrong, but are you saying there are no analogies to slavery? Because there is still slavery. More than there was 200 years ago. People are still bought and sold and the rest of us, unless we are incredibly conscientious, are benefiting from it.

Good point, I was thinking of the West. There's still plenty of terribleness in the world, and we need to find constructive ways to change that.

That's a compliment coming from you. I consider you the lowest form of life possible.

I'm going to try being careful about what chocolate I eat.

There are still lots of slaves in the west. Probably most of the human trafficking in the west is in the sex trade. Probably some of that in porn too. Some estimates are as high as 300k in the US. There's some in farm labor and textiles too, so we're not necessarily off the hook here just because we don't use child prostitutes.

I don't think you are inclined to consider whether they are worth consideration or not.

probably for good motives you have decided to just see what you want to see.

There's a linearity problem here. If Al Gore chooses to use less fossil fuel it most likely it makes no difference at all to any global apocalypse. The only way to avoid a global apocalypse (allowing your assumption) is to work on political solutions which you say he does.

I'd say something similar: Anyone who isn't deeply ignorant/stupid recognises slavery is an abomination to the extent they are scum if they chose to do it for gain. DS may allow other reasons than being deeply ignorant/stupid.

I don't know much about this Rush fellow but I'd take it that for purposes of the analogy there's no chance Rush is genuinely ignorant. Also I don't think you've established he would condemn Al Gore at all, I haven't heard you yet say anything about Al Gore that would make him a bad person.

Disclaimer: i know less about the actual people then you might expect.

Its hellishly difficult even if we try. Who knows where all the parts in all the products we buy have come from and whether that involves slavery or other abuse.

We badly need some solution that makes the ethics of the supply chains properly accountable.

Untrue. If he stopped using the massive amount of fossil fuel he does today, that might be the very difference to preventing a runaway greenhouse effect that destroys our species. More likely we will still inevitably have global warming, oceans will rise, ecosystems will perish, animals and the weakest, most defenseless humans will die. The global population may be approaching 20 billion by then, and if the weakest 20% perish, that's 4billion people who die horrible deaths, meaning the average American's carbon footprint is responsible for the deaths of more people than Jefferson owned. Al Gore may be responsible for more deaths than people Jefferson ever met. This is all just back of the napkin stuff, of course, but in case you think you're innocent, according to Al Gore, you're ignoring an inconvenient truth.


Are you talking about then or now? Most slave owners back then were deeply racist, and why wouldn't they be? Most only knew what they saw growing up, and there was no empirical evidence to convince them otherwise. You think they believed their slaves deserved the same human rights they fought for? No they didn't, and they didn't want to hear about it. Jefferson was one of the pioneers in the US who did learn it and wrote about it, and tried to fix the system the way he saw fit, without giving up his estate and essentially going broke, which likely prevents him being an effective political figure, and that's what makes him pond scum apparently, along with many other founding fathers.

Oh Rush does, just how I said. Or are you taking about David? He must condemn Al Gore, he knows too much.

I like your disclaimer, I'll take it.



Disclaimer: i know less about the actual people then you might expect.

Rush has a far worse quality of influence over politics and society at-large today than Gore or Jefferson do.

Did the napkin work factor in how much Al Gore has potentially influenced other people, groups, and nations to do something about their non-renewable energy consumption in an on-going fashion? Does that subtract any from his blueprint of moral hypocritical failure?

Even Jefferson wouldn't have the chutzpah to claim that he didn't free his slaves so that he could help free slaves in the future.

Why do people keep talking about his finances? He and his family would not starve without slaves. And no other reason justifies enslaving people who have done nothing to deserve it.

Well, that's my point exactly. One that just flies over David's head I guess.

So you think he's an influential political figure if he gives up his estate and does what? You don't think that was a huge part of his rationalization and why everyone to this day including Lincoln and most historians until recently minus a few more aholes here and about forgive him those sins?

FoldNDark you never responded to my question about what you majored in

But beyond almost certainly it isn't.

I'd like to see the climate change models that show the projected deaths caused by the day to day choices of an individual. I could be wrong but I believe that the things that need to be done are far more in the realm of cleaner energy production, more fuel efficient products etc etc that doesn't mean we shouldn't individually make good day to day choices but lets not pat ourselves too hard on the back when its barely scratching the surface.

If you're view is anything like correct then without a significantly cleaner energy supply, better products etc we are in serious trouble because the world population is increasing fast and increasingly has access to the same sorts of products we do (which is a good thing). If Al Gore says differently I want to see the maths

They interacted with the slaves and there is no way they didn't have more than sufficient evidence that these were people much like themselves (I'm allowing DS's tactic but I would say 'just' rather than 'much'). If in fact some genuinely didn't realise then they can't be worse than those who did and carried on.

Are we seriously expected to believe he really wanted to free his slaves but didn't because he needed the money gained from slavery to save more slaves? Its possible it helped him justify to himself his decision to keep them but he could have tried other ways if he had really wanted to free his slaves and maybe it would have been more effective.

If Rush knows then he cant be better than Gore in this regard.

Disclaimer: I know less about the actual people then you might expect.

I'm pretty sure Gore offsets his carbon emissions, so the terrible analogy isn't even factually accurate.

Day to day? How about life. There is no morally sound reason any of us need to burn an ounce of fossil fuel. We could live our lives fine without it, you know it's been done before.


Kidding me? Jefferson is quoted calling his slaves "poor creatures," and is known to think they were less intelligent than white men. He is one of the enlightened ones, mind you.


He's on record that he doesn't think they are ready for US society or that US society is ready for them. He wants to repatriate them back to Africa. Turning them loose here made no sense to him for their well-being or his. We know he was wrong about that.

You mean, enlightened compared to all the people who had figured out slavery was abhorrent?

Its one of the weirder philosophies imo it wasn't great back then especially for the poor. Maybe this has gone too OT, another time.

Again, I'm sure I'm missing some posts here, but Gore has had an immensely positive net effect on the environment imo. Immensely. We are years further along in the discussion than we would have been without him. No one would have accomplished what he did without a lot of people flying a lot of places. Maybe he was wrong about some things, maybe not. Some of the things looked more right at the time. The issue of man's impact on the climate could never have become prominent without lots of controversy and dissent.

Tyvm, I agree.

If he really thought that keeping slaves would allow him to free slaves why didn't he do it after he died?

According to us. From our position of luxury that has resulted in destruction of rain forests, destroyed ecosystems, extinct species, depleted ozone layer, kick started global warming, taking out a loan on the environment our great grandchildren will be paying for, perhaps with their lives. Our way of life is unnecessary to this world.

I don't think anyone disagreed.

There was a suggestion that others might be saying he was scum for the high carbon usage but I think everyone agreed he wasn't.