Speaker 1: We have a voicemail number. That number is 2192. David P. You can call any time of day.
Here is a caller who is calling me out. How do I care about the environment? And yet I flew
on an airplane. Okay, let's take a listen.
Speaker 2: Did I hear? How many flights you've been doing? 500 gallons per hour.
Please put your carbon footprint usage next to you. Super cool. I voted Blue Checkmark.
Speaker 1: A checkmark I've never displayed. Speaker 2: And when you see the incompetent,
failing morals, need some serious filling a little bit of that hot asphalt breastfeeding
road reparations. She would go a long way to drive my pretty little Tesla on.
Tesla. You do okay work, but you got to work some things out on your. I'm on your
genealogical tree you got from Compton up to do. Speaker 1: I think that that is anti-Semitic.
I've got to figure some things out, work some things out on my genealogical tree. I can only
imagine that's an anti-Semitic comment. Speaker 2: Anyways, other than that,
you're somewhat acceptable to. Bye. Let's see how much you burned last year, you silly Willy. Okay.
Speaker 1: Listen, so I've heard this before, okay? You care about the environment, and yet you
still utilize transportation and purchase food to metabolize into energy to sustain Homo sapiens. I
mean, listen, caring about the environment doesn't mean you give up every form of transportation or
any activity that has a carbon footprint. Okay. And I don't know that anybody holds themselves
or others to that standard. Caring about the environment means you advocate for more
sustainable and efficient alternatives, renewable energy sources, carbon offsets, public transit,
etc. And you've got these right wingers who love to criticize leftists. So you flew in an
airplane. But it's a logical fallacy. You flew in an airplane. It's an appeal to hypocrisy.
What they are actually doing and this is when you try to discredit an argument by pointing out its
inconsistency that the person making the argument is inconsistent. You are inconsistent because you
say you care about the environment. Yet you drove a car or you traveled on an airplane.
They don't actually address the argument itself. It doesn't actually invalidate the argument that
we are making. The argument they seem to be making implicitly is people on the left shouldn't have
cars of any kind. They should never travel by airplane. Cell phones have conflict minerals,
I guess no cell phones. Plus the cell phone gets shipped so that it gets shipped on an airplane,
you know, so that that that's a carbon footprint. You, I guess, according to these people, have to
live like an ascetic to really be a consistent liberal or something like that. The reality,
of course, is people on the left drive cars and have cell phones. They're not hypocrites by their
very nature simply because they care about the environment. We are using the available technology
and infrastructure that society provides. Should I be biking to my brother's wedding in California?
Should I not be going because I'm on the left and I care about the environment or whatever
the case may be? And by the way, I'm aware of the negative impacts of those products,
and I support efforts to reduce that. Electric vehicles is a step. Recycling is a step. Ethical
sourcing is another. I know people will write to me and they'll say, David, some forms of recycling
actually have a larger carbon footprint depending on how it's done. I'm aware of that recycling
when it reduces the carbon footprint, liberals who drive cars or have cell phones aren't responsible
for the economic, environmental, rather damage that corporations cause by virtue of their product
and services. We want to hold the corporations accountable for their actions. We want to pressure
them to adopt more environmentally friendly practices and policies and all of it. So when
I have a phone or I fly on a on an airplane, I'm not ignoring the environmental problems.
I am actively involved in raising awareness about those problems, donating, campaigning
for more sustainable options and solutions. And in fact, we often use those tools to raise awareness.
I use my phone to get the word out about these things that I believe I sometimes drive or fly
to events at which I advocate for these things. So this appeal to hypocrisy fallacy from these
people who have absolutely nothing to offer on their own of any substance or productivity,
they barely deserve attention. So I addressed it here. Now we can go back to ignoring them. We have
such a great bonus show for you today, a. Speaker 2: David Pac-Man
membership because six bucks. Speaker 1: A month it does. But if you use
a coupon code, it's cheaper. We are going to talk about the hottest day in history, which took place
this week on today's bonus show. And by the way, the record is going to be broken again. We are
going to talk about Central Park Five member Yusef Salaam. Will winning the New York City Council's
Democratic primary. And we are also going to talk about radical and repugnant Republican Congressman
Matt Gaetz proposing to end cannabis testing for the military, something I actually agree with.
Why is he doing it? Well, maybe he just believes it's the right thing. All of those stories and
more will be on today's bonus show. Speaker 2: Oh, the bonus show where
you want to make money and everybody else that makes money to fund themselves as best.
Speaker 1: You can access the bonus show with a number of different machines.
Speaker 2: We're doing a class action lawsuit against all machines, right?
Speaker 1: In all seriousness, it doesn't have to end right now. There is more show available today.
You don't have to wait until tomorrow. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. You'll get instant
access. And I will be joined by producer Patrick. See you then. Well, we'll be back here tomorrow.