This is clearly backwards

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn, speaking of intellectual laziness, I'm a bit surprised that you would take a productive discussion about the many ways to address the gas problem and attempt to mold it into one of class warfare.

What is comical is that more often than not, those who argue class warfare are arguing against their own interests. In other words, most of these people are members of the lower middle class. Middle-middle class at best.

0 Replies

I third Chai's BS. What a load of crap, Finn.

This is the same thing we hear all the time - it must be envy. Not a true disgust with people's laziness, not a wish for a better life, not a true belief that hiring illegal aliens is a scummy thing to do, no, just envy.

It's an intellectual cop-out to say that. I don't envy rich people. I doubt they are a single Iota happier than I am. I know for a fact that many of them are not.

Quote:

The people who have multiple huge homes, fleets of gas guzzling vehicles and servants galore have no more intellectual horsepower than their critics. What they do have is a willingness to devote whatever portion of their lives is necessary to achieve their gains.

Incorrect. They have a willingness to put their comfort above what is right and wrong. They have a willingness to ignore the consequences of their actions to society and the world, and focus on their own lives instead.

I've never argued that people shouldn't get rich, just that they should use their monies responsibly; that means not owning fleets of gas-guzzling SUV's, it means not hiring illegals (scumbags), it means actually caring about the world around you. The problem is that there is a persistent meme in this country that rich=better, and it simply isn't true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's an intellectual cop-out to say that. I don't envy rich people. I doubt they are a single Iota happier than I am. I know for a fact that many of them are not.

-snip-

The problem is that there is a persistent meme in this country that rich=better, and it simply isn't true.

What studies have shown is that once a person has enough money for the necessities -- shelter, food, medical care, clothing, etc. -- happiness does not continue to increase. As in, someone who makes say $35,000 a year (in a job that provides adequate medical benefits) is as happy, on average, as someone who makes $350,000 a year.

0 Replies

... or $3,500,000 a year.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I would say that driving one when you don't need to (ie. one person with not much stuff) excessively is inefficient.

My question is who are you or anyone else to decide when someone "needs" to drive an SUV or not?

0 Replies

And what larger percentage of one's free time is neccessary to devote to making that much money?

That's time that isn't spent with the family and kids.

Of course, now that the Dividends tax has been slashed by Bushie, the hope of so many of these rich is that eventually they can just live off of the dividends, and spend a lot of time with the kids.

Where I think this fails: I think that most people, when they are young, tend to have this idea that they will work hard for a while, focus on money, and then turn to the other things that matter to them in life. What they don't understand, is that the goals that you set for yourself, the things you work hard on, become the things that matter to you in life.

You can't strive for money or business success for 25 years, and then give all that up, and expect to be happy; you've made your goals for happiness 'acquiring money' for the majority of your adult life, if not all of it. People think that just goes away, or that they can change their goals. I think they very rarely do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that people log in their destinations with a governmental entity and get permission before driving six blocks to the ice cream shop.

But we can also say, as a simple observation, "If you are physically capable of walking and if the weather is cooperative, driving your huge SUV six blocks is just plain dumb."

0 Replies

Quote:

My question is who are you or anyone else to decide when someone "needs" to drive an SUV or not?

Just like every other voter, I have the right to decide in collective what people need or do not need, just like you do.

Noone has a problem with the SUV per se, just the pollution. The pollution isn't kept by the person driving the SUV, they share it with everyone else; something contrary to their nature, I'm sure, sharing.

You come up with a no- or extremely low-pollution SUV, and people wouldn't have such a problem with them. People used to complain about the safety of SUV's, but a lot of those problems have been solved; therefore, you don't hear complaints anymore about the safety to the levels you used to.

It isn't as if there is some inherent hate inside people looking for a target; it is the effects upon people that matter.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
But I would say that driving one when you don't need to (ie. one person with not much stuff) excessively is inefficient.

My question is who are you or anyone else to decide when someone "needs" to drive an SUV or not?

Perhaps people should be able to realize for themselves, by thinking for about 5 seconds and realizing they are driving alone with no large loads 99% of the time.

It seems more than 1/2 of the vechicles around me going to and from work some days are of the SUV type. 99% carrying one person.

Again, living consciously. Personal accountability.

Off the subject, forgive me for a moment, just a little comment....I don't personally see what all the glamour is about driving an suv, all they really are really are....well.....trucks.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
My question is who are you or anyone else to decide when someone "needs" to drive an SUV or not?

Just like every other voter, I have the right to decide in collective what people need or do not need, just like you do.

Noone has a problem with the SUV per se, just the pollution. The pollution isn't kept by the person driving the SUV, they share it with everyone else; something contrary to their nature, I'm sure, sharing.

You come up with a no- or extremely low-pollution SUV, and people wouldn't have such a problem with them. People used to complain about the safety of SUV's, but a lot of those problems have been solved; therefore, you don't hear complaints anymore about the safety to the levels you used to.

It isn't as if there is some inherent hate inside people looking for a target; it is the effects upon people that matter.

Cycloptichorn

I agree,but to blame the SUV for pollution is actually kind of silly.
They are a very small part of the problem,and eliminating them wont,by itself,make a measurable dent on pollution.

If someone could develop a low pollution SUV,it might sell,IF it met the other requirements people want.
Will it have the power people want,or the payload capability,or the roominess people want?

I drive an SUV,even when going to work.
I dont need it for work,but I like it because its comfortable.
I also use it to carry my turnout gear,since I am a member of the local volunteer fire dept.

Quote:

But we can also say, as a simple observation, "If you are physically capable of walking and if the weather is cooperative, driving your huge SUV six blocks is just plain dumb."

I can agree with this,I would prefer to walk also.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If someone could develop a low pollution SUV,it might sell,IF it met the other requirements people want.
Will it have the power people want,or the payload capability,or the roominess people want?

I drive an SUV,even when going to work.
I dont need it for work,but I like it because its comfortable.
I also use it to carry my turnout gear,since I am a member of the local volunteer fire dept.

I want
I want
I want

I don't need....but...

Just curious, would your turnout gear fit in the trunk of a car?

0 Replies

I agree they're only part of the problem, and that all of the various parts should be worked on.

I just don't think that the argument that they're only a part of the problem is an argument for doing nothing about them.

You have a field covered with litter. Picking up that one cheeseburger wrapper won't make a dent. A huge group of people each picking up 1-2 pieces of litter will get the whole thing cleaned right up, though.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
If someone could develop a low pollution SUV,it might sell,IF it met the other requirements people want.
Will it have the power people want,or the payload capability,or the roominess people want?

I drive an SUV,even when going to work.
I dont need it for work,but I like it because its comfortable.
I also use it to carry my turnout gear,since I am a member of the local volunteer fire dept.

I want
I want
I want

I don't need....but...

Just curious, would your turnout gear fit in the trunk of a car?

Yes it would fit in the trunk of a car.
That isnt the point however.
I choose to drive an SUV,I can afford the gas,I can afford the insurance,and I prefer to be comfortable.
Since the choice is mine,and since SUV's arent illegal,neither you nor anyone else has any say in the matter.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
But I would say that driving one when you don't need to (ie. one person with not much stuff) excessively is inefficient.

My question is who are you or anyone else to decide when someone "needs" to drive an SUV or not?

I haven't suggested that it's up to me.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If someone could develop a low pollution SUV,it might sell,IF it met the other requirements people want.
Will it have the power people want,or the payload capability,or the roominess people want?

There are 3 hybrid suvs on the market that I know of. I imagine it will take a few years before the technology is perfected, but it's great that car makers have figured out that people won't keep driving them if they can't make them more efficient.

As I said before, SUVs serve a purpose. Many people need them. But a lot of people don't use them to solve the problems they were designed to solve. Accordingly, those people will trade them in when the gas prices get high enough. That's as it should be.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Chai Tea wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
If someone could develop a low pollution SUV,it might sell,IF it met the other requirements people want.
Will it have the power people want,or the payload capability,or the roominess people want?

I drive an SUV,even when going to work.
I dont need it for work,but I like it because its comfortable.
I also use it to carry my turnout gear,since I am a member of the local volunteer fire dept.

I want
I want
I want

I don't need....but...

Just curious, would your turnout gear fit in the trunk of a car?

Yes it would fit in the trunk of a car.
That isnt the point however.
I choose to drive an SUV,I can afford the gas,I can afford the insurance,and I prefer to be comfortable.
Since the choice is mine,and since SUV's arent illegal,neither you nor anyone else has any say in the matter.

This is very true, and I'm not trying to have a say, although I'm wondering if you made that response out a little bit out of guilt....however, when I see this kind of thing, it makes me wonder about the person (singular) inside it.
Vehicles that use less gas can be quite comfy too.

There are just people in the world who will grab the last cookie on the plate, and then complain when no more comes out of the kitchen.

If everyone ate their fair share of cookies, we wouln't be in this problem. No one has to TELL us what our fair share is, we have a pretty good idea.

Plus, it's just not that important to some people to worry about petty things like if their ass is comfortable.

0 Replies

This is clearly backwards

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know