So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

I started driving a smaller car to save money on fuel and because the maintenance on trucks and vehicles on truck frames tends to be more expensive. Personally, I think a station wagon is a more rational choice for transporting multiple people, but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not. Ultimately, I worry about what I do, and I try not to worry about other people. I think everyone would be better off asking themselves what they can do to reduce pollution, rather than criticizing others. I think there is also a lot of social class angst in that whole debate, which I think is missing the point.

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

Platuan4th wrote:

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

Yes, people in cities just don't understand that some people might have to find a way to drive for several miles in knee deep snow, with roads that may not be fully cleared.

Platuan4th wrote:

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

That's arguably (if you're truthfully stating that was your primary reason for selecting the vehicle, rather than its status) an excuse then, I used the example within my OP of agricultural vehicles, which is what I'd argue a 4x4 technically is: If I see one in a rural area with under-developed infrastructure or in the hands of a farmer I wouldn't bat an eyelid, if I see one on the streets of Chelsea, I'd get my keys ready

As for myself, I'm fairly conscious but I'm just a student... I don't drive, I use public transport, I turn off lights and power when I am not using them, I don't use heating much... I don't see how I could cut down further other than by using my PC less.

Grignard wrote:I started driving a smaller car to save money on fuel and because the maintenance on trucks and vehicles on truck frames tends to be more expensive. Personally, I think a station wagon is a more rational choice for transporting multiple people, but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not. Ultimately, I worry about what I do, and I try not to worry about other people. I think everyone would be better off asking themselves what they can do to reduce pollution, rather than criticizing others. I think there is also a lot of social class angst in that whole debate, which I think is missing the point.

If you honestly use it for hauling a lot of people, then fair enough... Not that I mean to scrutinise everyone who posts here, but I see a LOT of mothers who just drive about with one kid in the back during the school run. And I'd also say that hauling a lot people doesn't necessarily warrant a large vehicle: My mother drives a Vauxhall Zafira that she purchased when I was a lot younger and we had friends over a lot, today I probably wouldn't agree with it but she's used the vehicle for hauling a lot of things... And yet, afaik, it uses the same engine as a normal-sized car and isn't drastically worse for efficiency, so why not buy that kind of car? Though, to be honest, I'm not sure what classifies as a station wagon, that's a Yankee term... It's probably a similar vehicle (larger car running on a normal car's engine I believe).

I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

Henners91 wrote:

If you honestly use it for hauling a lot of people, then fair enough... Not that I mean to scrutinise everyone who posts here, but I see a LOT of mothers who just drive about with one kid in the back during the school run. And I'd also say that hauling a lot people doesn't necessarily warrant a large vehicle: My mother drives a Vauxhall Zafira that she purchased when I was a lot younger and we had friends over a lot, today I probably wouldn't agree with it but she's used the vehicle for hauling a lot of things... And yet, afaik, it uses the same engine as a normal-sized car and isn't drastically worse for efficiency, so why not buy that kind of car? Though, to be honest, I'm not sure what classifies as a station wagon, that's a Yankee term... It's probably a similar vehicle (larger car running on a normal car's engine I believe).

Its a vehicle that looks like a car and has a car frame but is longer and carries more passengers.

Henners91 wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

That's arguably (if you're truthfully stating that was your primary reason for selecting the vehicle, rather than its status) an excuse then, I used the example within my OP of agricultural vehicles, which is what I'd argue a 4x4 technically is: If I see one in a rural area with under-developed infrastructure or in the hands of a farmer I wouldn't bat an eyelid, if I see one on the streets of Chelsea, I'd get my keys ready

Yep. We live in Colorado Springs(well, towards the less develop areas of the city), but my wife works at an Air Force base outside the city and there's a chance that in a heavy snow storm(barring them locking down the base), she'd have to drive in the sort of snow that small(and therefore lighter) cars wouldn't make it through even with 4-wheel drive. As well, the Springs doesn't have a very well organized(or on time) system for salting/de-icing the roads and with the amount of traffic in the city, the roads ice over pretty quickly.

It wasn't my first choice, I would have preferred another standard transmission Hatchback that get 38-40 MPG(I miss my Aerio, but she had a lot of problems towards the end).

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please"

Holy crap, somebody got a hair stuck today!

In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

And why the hell should I care about people who don't care about me?

Finally, some of us are larger people, who don't want to be crammed into a tin box like a bunch of sardines, and like to have some space. We also carry friends and relatives in our cars from time to time. Or maybe we just have stuff.


For the record, my home drives:

BMW 5-series (me!)
Mercedes R-class (her)

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right. Pity, as those things are fukken awesome. Plus, getting a giant HUMMER H2 would have completed the trifecta with my neighbor's Yukon XL Denali next door and the Escalade across the street.


@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

My wife drives the very modest and fuel efficient toyota corolla.

I drive my 14 miles to the gallon Dodge Dakota...

I will NEVER go without one of us having a truck or SUV. There are things you just cannot fit in a car. There are times when you just have to have the carrying capacity of a suv or truck, thats why i have mine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please"

Holy crap, somebody got a hair stuck today!

In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

And why the hell should I care about people who don't care about me?

Finally, some of us are larger people, who don't want to be crammed into a tin box like a bunch of sardines, and like to have some space. We also carry friends and relatives in our cars from time to time. Or maybe we just have stuff.


For the record, my home drives:

BMW 5-series (me!)
Mercedes R-class (her)

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right. Pity, as those things are fukken awesome. Plus, getting a giant HUMMER H2 would have completed the trifecta with my neighbor's Yukon XL Denali next door and the Escalade across the street.


@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

I love the freedom to drive whatever I want.

I say more power to the people who want to drive to work daily in a vehicle getting less than 20mpg on the highways.

If someone wants to drive an H2 to work and back and they live within the city I'm not going to complain or key it or protest it. More power to them for wanting to waste money on fuel.

Lithium is a less common resource than oil.

Do you own an IPod?

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Fateweaver wrote:I love the freedom to drive whatever I want.

I say more power to the people who want to drive to work daily in a vehicle getting less than 20mpg on the highways.

If someone wants to drive an H2 to work and back and they live within the city I'm not going to complain or key it or protest it. More power to them for wanting to waste money on fuel.

It doesn't bother you that their needless consumption endangers you and makes your gas prices go up? The H2 was hardly a safe vehicle and oil is a finite resource we get from regimes that oppress their people and often times fund terrorism. None of that bothers you?

Why drive a polluting car?



To show your allegiance!

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

What if I don't really care about the end result of my fellow man and have no intention of having children? I'm saving up for an 06 pontiac gto. 400hp and low mpg. It will be even lower with my lead foot. I don't say this due to any political view I just have an honest apathy for the future of mankind. So can I drive my gas guzzler for fun now or do I need to give better reasons?

Frazzled wrote:So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

I don't like people telling me what to do either, but the fact is that fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and pollutants effect everyone, so I sort of see his point. However, I think that telling a few people they can't drive their big cars really doesn't matter in the long run. I think transportation of goods and food has a lot more to do with emissions than what kind of automobiles people are driving.

To be honest though I think driving a car as a status symbol is avaricious and shows insecurity.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

I wasn't saying ban the cars, I was telling you you are wrong. There's a difference. NOOOOOW i'm saying ban the cars. Oil is a national security issue and more stringent gas mileage and emmissions standards are required for us to wean ourselves off of the mideast. I want the best for this country, not the best for the donkey-caves that want to drive hummers to work in the middle of cities. feth them.

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Aren't farmed plant oils still a net negative for energy consumption? As in they are actually significantly worse than oil which, while finite, is an amazing net gain on energy produced?

Perhaps if we drilled in more locations oil wouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, we tried that, an accident happened and now we won't ever try that again because the administration will listen to the "i told you so's" coming from the tree huggers.

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Aren't farmed plant oils still a net negative for energy consumption? As in they are actually significantly worse than oil which, while finite, is an amazing net gain on energy produced?

I haven't decided and I don't know enough about it yet. In theory biofuels should be zero net carbon emissions, but they still can produce particulate, amongst other things, and if you're using gas fueled equipment to harvest and transport it, you haven't achieved much.

Henners91 wrote:
I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

Unequivocal compassion to your fellow man is a questionable virtue, at best. Conservation of limited resources is not feasible when you are but one source of consumption in a world of billions. Recently, my city had a cold winter and a freeze for a few weeks. Despite us being in a drought warning, the strawberry farmers were allowed to run their field sprinklers all day and night long to save their crop. At the end of those 2 weeks, we had 67 sinkholes in the city. The water table had dropped something like 50 feet in the area. Your average citizen stayed on water restriction during this time, and will remain there until next year.

I'm sure a similar situation is occuring with the blown oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. I could go buy an electric car tomorrow or a 9 mpg Urban Assault Vehicle. If I drove them both for the rest of my days, I doubt that I'd come close to having an impact on the environment, when compared to that oil rig.

If you want to have a meaningful impact on the environment, plant a tree, adopt a stray dog, clean up a highway, participate in a replanting project or put out a bird feeder. What you drive is not going to change anything other than how easily you can judge those around you.

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps if we drilled in more locations oil wouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, we tried that, an accident happened and now we won't ever try that again because the administration will listen to the "i told you so's" coming from the tree huggers.

There isn't enough oil on our coast to matter. I've said that in every thread relating to the subject and so have the oil companies and the EIA. It's a smoke and mirrors issue which is totally irrelevant to our actual national interests at this point. We're better off tapping our natural gas or reducing our national oil use, those would be orders of magnitude more effective than pissing off environmentalists by drilling what little oil is miles under the ocean miles out.

If you want to have a meaningful impact on the environment, plant a tree, adopt a stray dog, clean up a highway, participate in a replanting project or put out a bird feeder. What you drive is not going to change anything other than how easily you can judge those around you.

Hence the case for national regulation rather than allowing the free market to handle something of this nature (which it can't).

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

Why? There are plenty of situations where if someone's being a dick you're allowed to ask him to stop: Why not when it comes to the planet, roads, fuel, etc?

rocklord2004 wrote:What if I don't really care about the end result of my fellow man and have no intention of having children? I'm saving up for an 06 pontiac gto. 400hp and low mpg. It will be even lower with my lead foot. I don't say this due to any political view I just have an honest apathy for the future of mankind. So can I drive my gas guzzler for fun now or do I need to give better reasons?

It makes you impossible to persuade but doesn't leave me with warm feelings toward you

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Fair enough, like I said the climate's not my main qualm... if a car's justifiable then go for it, I just feel like it's acceptable to be preachy on issues such as Earth's limited resources when it comes to the well-being of the species.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

But Fraz, everything you do can affect those around you. Should I dump used oil in my yard just because its my property? Should I drive a vehicle with no tail lights when it could endanger others?

I've found out since i've gotten out in the world that the government is sometimes supposed to, well, govern.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

If I do wrong then I think, if I were to remove myself to "the original perspective", I'd *WANT* you to tell me what I'm doing wrong. If you can tell me so in a straightforward and well-argued manner that I can't dispute, then I'll change my ways... That's surely the proper purpose of debate?

Henners91 wrote:

It makes you impossible to persuade but doesn't leave me with warm feelings toward you

Thats ok. You're new here. Soon you'll understand I'm just a loveable bunny.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:
Fair enough, like I said the climate's not my main qualm... if a car's justifiable then go for it, I just feel like it's acceptable to be preachy on issues such as Earth's limited resources when it comes to the well-being of the species.

You're a student right? Thats sweet. Call me up in 20 years when you've had an actual life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

But Fraz, everything you do can affect those around you. Should I dump used oil in my yard just because its my property? Should I drive a vehicle with no tail lights when it could endanger others?

I've found out since i've gotten out in the world that the government is sometimes supposed to, well, govern.

Everything effects everything. Again, so what? Its an excuse for dictatorship which iws what you're advocating.

I had a conversation with a hardcore hippy the other day, and he advised me to stop driving my car, and use public transportation.

It was one of the stupidest conversations I've ever had, and it was promptly followed by advice to eat fish, and if I couldn't afford it, to get it out of a trashcan (as a means to protect the rainforest or some BS). There is a combination of inexperience, insanity, and a lack of compassion for real people, combined with a "my gak don't smell" view of the world. I hate very few things, but I really, really dislike that type of world-view.

Preachy thready is preachy. Ride a bike, stop being lazy, you probably need the exercise anyway. If you are going to preach about using gas, DON'T USE GAS.

Don't tell me to eat organic, go farm your own damn veggies and stop funding the gas that is used to transport them to your spank-fest farmers markets.

Exactly. Even driving a car that gets 200mpg is still driving a car that uses fuel.

The only people I want to hear telling me how evil cars are are those people who bike everywhere to work and if they get to loud about what I drive I'll just pop open the door and knock them to the curb.

"Oh sorry buddy, I was trying to exit my vehicle and you got in my way. Hope I didn't break your peace symbol or tear your tie-dyed shirt."

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

But Fraz, everything you do can affect those around you. Should I dump used oil in my yard just because its my property? Should I drive a vehicle with no tail lights when it could endanger others?

I've found out since i've gotten out in the world that the government is sometimes supposed to, well, govern.

People advocating energy efficiency on this thread are hypcrites. They are typing on a computer, burning valuable electricity for absolutely no purpose. Yet they want to tell others what to do.

Frazzled wrote:People advocating energy efficiency on this thread are hypcrites. They are typing on a computer, burning valuable electricity for absolutely no purpose. Yet they want to tell others what to do.

That's no really how hypocrisy works. Most people here are advocating more energy efficient methods of transporation rather than needlessly wasteful largescale automotives, and I know that several are using the reasoning of energy independence and reduction of oil consumption. This computer doesn't run on gas and it doesn't weigh two tonnes.

Strawman much?

It burns electricty. Even if the electricity used is derived from wind or geothermal, that is electricty that could have been used for more important needs. You just helped kill the environment.

Hypocrites.

Frazzled wrote:It burns electricty. Even if the electricity used is derived from wind or geothermal, that is electricty that could have been used for more important needs. You just helped kill the environment.

Hypocrites.

You should probably reprimand yourself for trolling.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

It makes you impossible to persuade but doesn't leave me with warm feelings toward you

Thats ok. You're new here. Soon you'll understand I'm just a loveable bunny.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:
Fair enough, like I said the climate's not my main qualm... if a car's justifiable then go for it, I just feel like it's acceptable to be preachy on issues such as Earth's limited resources when it comes to the well-being of the species.

You're a student right? Thats sweet. Call me up in 20 years when you've had an actual life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

But Fraz, everything you do can affect those around you. Should I dump used oil in my yard just because its my property? Should I drive a vehicle with no tail lights when it could endanger others?

I've found out since i've gotten out in the world that the government is sometimes supposed to, well, govern.

Everything effects everything. Again, so what? Its an excuse for dictatorship which iws what you're advocating.

No wonder we ousted Mayor Ken Livingston in London: His plans to heighten taxes on polluting vehicles were the first step on the road to dictatorship! Where would you say your paranoia toward elected democratic officials actually doing their jobs within their democratic mandate stems from?

It's very convenient to wheel out the dictatorship-card to simply allow yourself to carry on blissfully unaware that your actions affect others...

As for the student point: I guess removed opinions must hurt those in their Ivory Towers? If we're going to say that a Student's opinion is different from those with vested interests, which is true, then surely it's the closest you can get to the Original Position?

Wrexasaur wrote:I had a conversation with a hardcore hippy the other day, and he advised me to stop driving my car, and use public transportation.

It was one of the stupidest conversations I've ever had, and it was promptly followed by advice to eat fish, and if I couldn't afford it, to get it out of a trashcan (as a means to protect the rainforest or some BS). There is a combination of inexperience, insanity, and a lack of compassion for real people, combined with a "my gak don't smell" view of the world. I hate very few things, but I really, really dislike that type of world-view.

Preachy thready is preachy. Ride a bike, stop being lazy, you probably need the exercise anyway. If you are going to preach about using gas, DON'T USE GAS.

Don't tell me to eat organic, go farm your own damn veggies and stop funding the gas that is used to transport them to your spank-fest farmers markets.

Every school of thought will have its fanatics, hippies get on my nerves as well...


And @Frazzled, yes, we're all using computers right now... if you can point me to an alternative way to game and access the internet, then I'll take it on-board, just as I'd hope you'd get out of your hummer when I point you to a sensible car.

Fraz, thats a bad analogy. I'm not suggesting giving up our modern way of life. Only a radical primitivist would suggest that.

Its not, you can't use a computer because its wasteful for no good reason, its " lets use more efficient computers, and enact reasonable regulation to encourage that"

Actually, I'm less in to negative reinforcement and more into positive. Like, " lets give people tax breaks for buying green". Rather than " You have to do this or you're fined".

Oooh and I'll add: Does it really grind your gears SO much when people ask you to stop being selfish pointlessly? I don't see how burning excessive amounts of fuel is different from talking too loudly in a restaurant...

Henners91 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right.

@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Good luck seating 6 adults/car seats in that station wagon...

They stopped making rear-facing jump seats a while ago. To my recollection, only the Mercedes E-class wagon has them, which means you now have zero cargo capacity in the vehicle. The *base* sticker on an E350 is $56k USD. Good luck getting one off the lot for less than $70k USD.

For that same money, you can buy a Chevy Traverse ($40k, seats 7) *and* a Chevy Camaro ($30k, V6).

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right.

@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Good luck seating 6 adults/car seats in that station wagon...

They stopped making rear-facing jump seats a while ago. To my recollection, only the Mercedes E-class wagon has them, which means you now have zero cargo capacity in the vehicle. The *base* sticker on an E350 is $56k USD. Good luck getting one off the lot for less than $70k USD.

For that same money, you can buy a Chevy Traverse ($40k, seats 7) *and* a Chevy Camaro ($30k, V6).

I can fit 5 people in my Civic SI DD

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It burns electricty. Even if the electricity used is derived from wind or geothermal, that is electricty that could have been used for more important needs. You just helped kill the environment.

Hypocrites.

You should probably reprimand yourself for trolling.

"You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!"
-Jack Nicholson, playing some guy in some movie about some thing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right.

@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Good luck seating 6 adults/car seats in that station wagon...

They stopped making rear-facing jump seats a while ago. To my recollection, only the Mercedes E-class wagon has them, which means you now have zero cargo capacity in the vehicle. The *base* sticker on an E350 is $56k USD. Good luck getting one off the lot for less than $70k USD.

For that same money, you can buy a Chevy Traverse ($40k, seats 7) *and* a Chevy Camaro ($30k, V6).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Zafira

Seats seven and my mum picked hers up for £3,000.

Dunno if that's what you'd call a station wagon, mind.

Grignard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right.

@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Good luck seating 6 adults/car seats in that station wagon...

They stopped making rear-facing jump seats a while ago. To my recollection, only the Mercedes E-class wagon has them, which means you now have zero cargo capacity in the vehicle. The *base* sticker on an E350 is $56k USD. Good luck getting one off the lot for less than $70k USD.

For that same money, you can buy a Chevy Traverse ($40k, seats 7) *and* a Chevy Camaro ($30k, V6).

I can fit 5 people in my Civic SI DD

This is why they make minivans.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Grignard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right.

@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Good luck seating 6 adults/car seats in that station wagon...

They stopped making rear-facing jump seats a while ago. To my recollection, only the Mercedes E-class wagon has them, which means you now have zero cargo capacity in the vehicle. The *base* sticker on an E350 is $56k USD. Good luck getting one off the lot for less than $70k USD.

For that same money, you can buy a Chevy Traverse ($40k, seats 7) *and* a Chevy Camaro ($30k, V6).

I can fit 5 people in my Civic SI DD

This is why they make minivans.

In fairness some people use their SUV. When I had my Xterra I actually used the 4x4.

Henners91 wrote:Oooh and I'll add: Does it really grind your gears SO much when people ask you to stop being selfish pointlessly? I don't see how burning excessive amounts of fuel is different from talking too loudly in a restaurant...

mmm, words from the young who are being subsidized by working class people to go to school. So young, so innocent, so naive, but so very ernest.

ShumaGorath wrote:Aren't farmed plant oils still a net negative for energy consumption? As in they are actually significantly worse than oil which, while finite, is an amazing net gain on energy produced?

Corn-based Ethanol? Yes, it's one of the biggest wastes of money one could imagine. The US would be better off banning Corn-based Ethanol and replacing it with more oil.
____

Grignard wrote:I don't like people telling me what to do either, but the fact is that fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and pollutants effect everyone,

So? Tax the hell out of gas and people will fall into line all by themselves.

If it really were national policy and priority, US gas would be over $5/gal ($3 in taxes) with at least half of it set aside for mass transit.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Oooh and I'll add: Does it really grind your gears SO much when people ask you to stop being selfish pointlessly? I don't see how burning excessive amounts of fuel is different from talking too loudly in a restaurant...

mmm, words from the young who are being subsidized by working class people to go to school. So young, so innocent, so naive, but so very ernest.

Everyone gets benefits from taxes, regardless of whether you are working class, poor, or wealthy.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Oooh and I'll add: Does it really grind your gears SO much when people ask you to stop being selfish pointlessly? I don't see how burning excessive amounts of fuel is different from talking too loudly in a restaurant...

mmm, words from the young who are being subsidized by working class people to go to school. So young, so innocent, so naive, but so very ernest.

Says the lawyer whose wages are dependent on the exact same system.

Poor subsidizing the rich who will then complain about them and their boorish behavior, I so love it.

Poor subsidizing the rich who will then complain about them and their boorish behavior, I so love it.

Grignard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Good luck seating 6 adults/car seats in that station wagon...

They stopped making rear-facing jump seats a while ago. To my recollection, only the Mercedes E-class wagon has them, which means you now have zero cargo capacity in the vehicle. The *base* sticker on an E350 is $56k USD. Good luck getting one off the lot for less than $70k USD.

For that same money, you can buy a Chevy Traverse ($40k, seats 7) *and* a Chevy Camaro ($30k, V6).

I can fit 5 people in my Civic SI DD

That's nice, but I need to seat 6 when the in-laws stay with us. That means I need 3 rows, which means SUV / CUV / minivan.
____

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Oooh and I'll add: Does it really grind your gears SO much when people ask you to stop being selfish pointlessly? I don't see how burning excessive amounts of fuel is different from talking too loudly in a restaurant...

mmm, words from the young who are being subsidized by working class people to go to school. So young, so innocent, so naive, but so very ernest.

Exactly. When Henners starts having to work and pay his own way, then pay for a few extra mouths at the table, he'll change his tune in a hurry.

Corn-based Ethanol? Yes, it's one of the biggest wastes of money one could imagine. The US would be better off banning Corn-based Ethanol and replacing it with more oil.

Agreed. Ethanol, along with hydrogen fuel cells were just a flash game played by the auto and oil companies so that they could pretend they were on the leading edge of energy alternatives. Neither was ever feasible and ethanol has been more destructive to the U.S. and india food industries than oil ever could have been. Batteries and plugs are the future of automobiles, and thats not even up for debate. It never really was. Pure electricity is the only demonstrable alternative and has been for years, which is exactly why the shell game has avoided it for so long (oh goody, flex fuel engines sure are useful!).

So? Tax the hell out of gas and people will fall into line all by themselves.

If it really were national policy and priority, US gas would be over $5/gal ($3 in taxes) with at least half of it set aside for mass transit.

This is where democracy gets in the way. The average consumer would never go for that.

Orlanth wrote:
People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Holy crap, I can't believe that this is real.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Oooh and I'll add: Does it really grind your gears SO much when people ask you to stop being selfish pointlessly? I don't see how burning excessive amounts of fuel is different from talking too loudly in a restaurant...

mmm, words from the young who are being subsidized by working class people to go to school. So young, so innocent, so naive, but so very ernest.

I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much. As for my prior education, granted... but I really don't understand what you're saying: Me, a student who did very well at school shouldn't be financed by the state? Are you in favour of privatised education? Say goodbye to your skilled economy... Can I refer to you as "so mature, so arrogant, so ignorant and so very selfish?

Grignard wrote:I don't like people telling me what to do either, but the fact is that fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and pollutants effect everyone,

So? Tax the hell out of gas and people will fall into line all by themselves.

Henners91 wrote:

I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much. As for my prior education, granted... but I really don't understand what you're saying: Me, a student who did very well at school shouldn't be financed by the state?

Are you getting financial aid? How about subsidized loans? Is it a public school? If any of those are yes then no you're not.

Its not "the state." There's no uncle State. Its tax payers. Wake up youngin! You're daydreaming about your coeds again and not paying attention in class.

Can I refer to you as "so older than dirt, so arrogant, so ignorant and so very selfish?

Fixed your quote. People of my age preferred the term "wizened American" thank you very much.

Frazzled wrote:You're a student right? Thats sweet. Call me up in 20 years when you've had an actual life.

I'm 24 but not a student due to a bad government but I have personally experienced more negative things than most people 10 years older than me. Can my opinion count?

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much. As for my prior education, granted... but I really don't understand what you're saying: Me, a student who did very well at school shouldn't be financed by the state?

Are you getting financial aid? How about subsidized loans? Is it a public school? If any of those are yes then no you're not.

Its not "the state." There's no uncle State. Its tax payers. Wake up youngin! You're daydreaming about your coeds again and not paying attention in class.

Can I refer to you as "so older than dirt, so arrogant, so ignorant and so very selfish?

Fixed your quote. People of my age preferred the term "wizened American" thank you very much.

Whats the matter fraz? Got tired of implying that my opinions are irrelevant because of my age so you had to start working on the new kid?

rocklord2004 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're a student right? Thats sweet. Call me up in 20 years when you've had an actual life.

I'm 24 but not a student due to a bad government but I have personally experienced more negative things than most people 10 years older than me. Can my opinion count?

Only because your avatar is wicked cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much. As for my prior education, granted... but I really don't understand what you're saying: Me, a student who did very well at school shouldn't be financed by the state?

Are you getting financial aid? How about subsidized loans? Is it a public school? If any of those are yes then no you're not.

Its not "the state." There's no uncle State. Its tax payers. Wake up youngin! You're daydreaming about your coeds again and not paying attention in class.

Can I refer to you as "so older than dirt, so arrogant, so ignorant and so very selfish?

Fixed your quote. People of my age preferred the term "wizened American" thank you very much.

Whats the matter fraz? Got tired of implying that my opinions are irrelevant because of my age so you had to start working on the new kid?

Well, yea. Everyone gets their turn. You had yours. Now its time for the new victi...er...guy.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much. As for my prior education, granted... but I really don't understand what you're saying: Me, a student who did very well at school shouldn't be financed by the state?

Are you getting financial aid? How about subsidized loans? Is it a public school? If any of those are yes then no you're not.

Its not "the state." There's no uncle State. Its tax payers. Wake up youngin! You're daydreaming about your coeds again and not paying attention in class.

Can I refer to you as "so older than dirt, so arrogant, so ignorant and so very selfish?

Fixed your quote. People of my age preferred the term "wizened American" thank you very much.

I am being financed by a loan paid by a private company that I pay back at a low interest once I earn over £15,000... That's how University works in England, though limited means-tested support is available, I did not qualify for it being from a pretty well-to-do middle class background.

Stating that there is no state and it's all just a con on the taxpayers is just a typical argument from those who would probably go ape if their fire services and such disappeared but then rage at a tax increase... though I respect it's obviously different in the States as you literally are many states... Hence why I can empathise, to a degree, with any apathy felt towards Washington.

At least selfish is in there! I had no idea how old you were to be honest. I'd just wish to emphasise that the lifestyle of the West and America in particular in line with growing consumption in the east is putting billions of people at risk... For no reason other than self-indulgence o.O

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much. As for my prior education, granted... but I really don't understand what you're saying: Me, a student who did very well at school shouldn't be financed by the state?

Are you getting financial aid? How about subsidized loans? Is it a public school? If any of those are yes then no you're not.

Its not "the state." There's no uncle State. Its tax payers. Wake up youngin! You're daydreaming about your coeds again and not paying attention in class.

Yes, but you shouldn't look at it as paying for someone else's education Fraz. You're paying for education so you don't have criminals and vandals running around on the streets.

Henners91 wrote:

I am being financed by a loan paid by a private company that I pay back at a low interest once I earn over £15,000... That's how University works in England, though limited means-tested support is available, I did not qualify for it being from a pretty well-to-do middle class background.

Which means its subsidized by the government.
(congrats by the way, and keep up the good work, or I'll give your address to Killkrazy, and he's well killkrazy..., remember Mercy is for the Weak!)

Stating that there is no state and it's all just a con on the taxpayers is just a typical argument from those who would probably go ape if their fire services and such disappeared but then rage at a tax increase... though I respect it's obviously different in the States as you literally are many states... Hence why I can empathise, to a degree, with any apathy felt towards Washington.

At least selfish is in there! I had no idea how old you were to be honest. I'd just wish to emphasise that the lifestyle of the West and America in particular in line with growing consumption in the east is putting billions of people at risk... For no reason other than self-indulgence o.O

Then give up everything you own. All you need to live is food, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is a waste you evil materialist!!!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
Yes, but you shouldn't look at it as paying for someone else's education Fraz. You're paying for education so you don't have criminals and vandals running around on the streets.

it Grignard thats my line! Quit stealing my arguments-punk!

Frazzled wrote:
Then give up everything you own. All you need to live is food, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is a waste you evil materialist!!!

Thats 1 or 10 reasoning. You can have luxuries and still have government services and regulation.

Woots. My avatar makes my opinion count . So should I point out that I also ride my bicycle around town but just for excercise? I wonder if theres a way to make an alternative fuel source from the grease off of a face. Then all the teenagers could be their own fuel source and Frazz would feel they have a use. Everybody wins. I've had a lot of sugar and am stuck at my work desk for the next few hours so expect more random irrelevant comments. Fortunately Frazz is a mod and can remove whatever irrelevant posts I make. :3

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I am being financed by a loan paid by a private company that I pay back at a low interest once I earn over £15,000... That's how University works in England, though limited means-tested support is available, I did not qualify for it being from a pretty well-to-do middle class background.

Which means its subsidized by the government.
(congrats by the way, and keep up the good work, or I'll give your address to Killkrazy, and he's well killkrazy..., remember Mercy is for the Weak!)

Stating that there is no state and it's all just a con on the taxpayers is just a typical argument from those who would probably go ape if their fire services and such disappeared but then rage at a tax increase... though I respect it's obviously different in the States as you literally are many states... Hence why I can empathise, to a degree, with any apathy felt towards Washington.

At least selfish is in there! I had no idea how old you were to be honest. I'd just wish to emphasise that the lifestyle of the West and America in particular in line with growing consumption in the east is putting billions of people at risk... For no reason other than self-indulgence o.O

Then give up everything you own. All you need to live is food, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is a waste you evil materialist!!!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
Yes, but you shouldn't look at it as paying for someone else's education Fraz. You're paying for education so you don't have criminals and vandals running around on the streets.

it Grignard thats my line! Quit stealing my arguments-punk!

Subsidised by the government for others perhaps

Bah, it's hard to be mad at someone who congratulates you...

If I could be born into a world where the state provided all I'd happily surrender myself to it: Unfortunately, the state doesn't and surrendering my goods to it would only engender envy on my part... You can't have a hybrid system.

But back on topic, I still fail to see why such a large portion of the world's usage and emissions can be permitted to come from a disproportionate fraction of the populace.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Then give up everything you own. All you need to live is food, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is a waste you evil materialist!!!

Thats 1 or 10 reasoning. You can have luxuries and still have government services and regulation.

I was referring to the materialistic West comment actually.

Henners91 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I am being financed by a loan paid by a private company that I pay back at a low interest once I earn over £15,000... That's how University works in England, though limited means-tested support is available, I did not qualify for it being from a pretty well-to-do middle class background.

Which means its subsidized by the government.
(congrats by the way, and keep up the good work, or I'll give your address to Killkrazy, and he's well killkrazy..., remember Mercy is for the Weak!)

Stating that there is no state and it's all just a con on the taxpayers is just a typical argument from those who would probably go ape if their fire services and such disappeared but then rage at a tax increase... though I respect it's obviously different in the States as you literally are many states... Hence why I can empathise, to a degree, with any apathy felt towards Washington.

At least selfish is in there! I had no idea how old you were to be honest. I'd just wish to emphasise that the lifestyle of the West and America in particular in line with growing consumption in the east is putting billions of people at risk... For no reason other than self-indulgence o.O

Then give up everything you own. All you need to live is food, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is a waste you evil materialist!!!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
Yes, but you shouldn't look at it as paying for someone else's education Fraz. You're paying for education so you don't have criminals and vandals running around on the streets.

it Grignard thats my line! Quit stealing my arguments-punk!

Subsidised by the government for others perhaps

Bah, it's hard to be mad at someone who congratulates you...

If I could be born into a world where the state provided all I'd happily surrender myself to it: Unfortunately, the state doesn't and surrendering my goods to it would only engender envy on my part... You can't have a hybrid system.

But back on topic, I still fail to see why such a large portion of the world's usage and emissions can be permitted to come from a disproportionate fraction of the populace.

Because we have nice things like food, air conditioning, and medicine. Sorry, I'll agree with you to some extent but I'm not going to go live in a mud hut.

Grignard wrote:Sorry, I'll agree with you to some extent but I'm not going to go live in a mud hut.

You say that now but come 2016 when me and my Palin spawn bride are running America....

I can see it now : A Red in the Whitehouse in 2016.

Necros wrote:I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

I live 10 miles away from him, and the weather here does not get too terrible, like he said. But the amount of people that can't drive when the weather is bad is a good enough reason for me to get an SUV, I'm in the market for one now actually. Its not just about gas mileage, its also about comfort and safety. If I'm about to get sideswiped by a van, I'll take the big bulky SUV over the tiny smartcar. Not to mention I do tend to haul alot of stuff, and my fiance's PT cruiser just does not do it for me. And public transportation isn't as good here as it is there, and for those of us that are poor, buying a cheap but not so eco-friendly vehicle is our only option



Edit:10 miles= 16 Kilometers for metric people

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Necros wrote:I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

I live 10 miles away from him, and the weather here does not get too terrible, like he said. But the amount of people that can't drive when the weather is bad is a good enough reason for me to get an SUV, I'm in the market for one now actually. Its not just about gas mileage, its also about comfort and safety. If I'm about to get sideswiped by a van, I'll take the big bulky SUV over the tiny smartcar. Not to mention I do tend to haul alot of stuff, and my fiance's PT cruiser just does not do it for me. And public transportation isn't as good here as it is there, and for those of us that are poor, buying a cheap but not so eco-friendly vehicle is our only option

Might be worth getting the point out there that you'll damage the other car more than it'll damage you... Let's hope you're never in the wrong

reds8n wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sorry, I'll agree with you to some extent but I'm not going to go live in a mud hut.

You say that now but come 2016 when me and my Palin spawn bride are running America....

I can see it now : A Red in the Whitehouse in 2016.

Don't worry America, Genghis Connie's Golden Horde will be on the march and will save us from this...menace.

@Henners91


I drive a 3.5 ton mercedes diesel, just for me and the wife.
Now you would seem to imply thats bad.
But my emissions are really low, and I run it on biodiesel, which i guess you'd like.

But as you get older and wiser, you realise that there's no such thing as black and white.
Just various shades of grey.
Most biodiesel is made from rapeseed oil or palm oil.
The land used to grow rapeseed, was once used to grow food.
Causing a food shortage
Acre's of rain forest have been cut down in indonesia, endangering the local wild life ( orangutans for instance).
Just to grow palm oil.
So theres a lot to be said for running on normal diesel

We bought a 2WD SUV as my wife is short and has difficulty seeing over the steering wheel in other cars.
In SUVs she is so high she can safely see the road.

Also due to the global financial crisis and the panic amongst car manufacturers we got it for cheaper than a 4 cylinder 4 door sedan/hatch.

I drive a 4 door sedan (9 years old) but in a couple of years will be buying a tiny 2 door hatch as all I use if for is to drive the few kilometers to work and back, and the odd small trip to the shops etc.

Our next family car will be a 7 seat SUV for the same reason the wife wanted the current one. She has tried van type cars and she can't see.

Henners91 wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Necros wrote:I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

I live 10 miles away from him, and the weather here does not get too terrible, like he said. But the amount of people that can't drive when the weather is bad is a good enough reason for me to get an SUV, I'm in the market for one now actually. Its not just about gas mileage, its also about comfort and safety. If I'm about to get sideswiped by a van, I'll take the big bulky SUV over the tiny smartcar. Not to mention I do tend to haul alot of stuff, and my fiance's PT cruiser just does not do it for me. And public transportation isn't as good here as it is there, and for those of us that are poor, buying a cheap but not so eco-friendly vehicle is our only option

Might be worth getting the point out there that you'll damage the other car more than it'll damage you... Let's hope you're never in the wrong

What? The only part of that where I said anything about hurt is the sideswipe example. Sideswipe= them impacting my side. In that case, screw them, they hit me

loki old fart wrote:@Henners91


I drive a 3.5 ton mercedes diesel, just for me and the wife.
Now you would seem to imply thats bad.
But my emissions are really low, and I run it on biodiesel, which i guess you'd like.

But as you get older and wiser, you realise that there's no such thing as black and white.
Just various shades of grey.
Most biodiesel is made from rapeseed oil or palm oil.
The land used to grow rapeseed, was once used to grow food.
Causing a food shortage
Acre's of rain forest have been cut down in indonesia, endangering the local wild life ( orangutans for instance).
Just to grow palm oil.
So theres a lot to be said for running on normal diesel

It's a fair approach... but it just leaves me asking why you don't just buy a fuel-efficient car? That DOES run on oil but doesn't burn through it quicker than I do through sweet fried chickenz?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Necros wrote:I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

I live 10 miles away from him, and the weather here does not get too terrible, like he said. But the amount of people that can't drive when the weather is bad is a good enough reason for me to get an SUV, I'm in the market for one now actually. Its not just about gas mileage, its also about comfort and safety. If I'm about to get sideswiped by a van, I'll take the big bulky SUV over the tiny smartcar. Not to mention I do tend to haul alot of stuff, and my fiance's PT cruiser just does not do it for me. And public transportation isn't as good here as it is there, and for those of us that are poor, buying a cheap but not so eco-friendly vehicle is our only option

Might be worth getting the point out there that you'll damage the other car more than it'll damage you... Let's hope you're never in the wrong

What? The only part of that where I said anything about hurt is the sideswipe example. Sideswipe= them impacting my side. In that case, screw them, they hit me

I meant in the event of a proper collision, 4x4s tend to come out better...

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sorry, I'll agree with you to some extent but I'm not going to go live in a mud hut.

You say that now but come 2016 when me and my Palin spawn bride are running America....

I can see it now : A Red in the Whitehouse in 2016.

Don't worry America, Genghis Connie's Golden Horde will be on the march and will save us from this...menace.

That's Menace actually, check the copyright. I'll see you in court ! Well, my highly paid legal team will.

You think this, but little do you know we have already countered this. All dern furriners "swamping" your land... basically your future generations of leaders and community activists will be so exhausted from selling those cookies to all these extra homes and mouths they will have no time and energy left to devote to stopping our inevitable rise to power.

The really cunning part is this will also add to the crippling obesity epidemic, thus, in a bold twofold move, preventing any uprising and cutting burglary/similar crimes as people are too fat to get out or leave the home.

It's one of the basic principles of many martial arts : use your opponents strength against them, ideally whilst wearing something that looks like the least sexy nightwear* imaginable.




*term "least sexy nightwear" may not be relevant in all states. Especially those really, really really cold ones.

Henners91 wrote:

loki old fart wrote:@Henners91


I drive a 3.5 ton mercedes diesel, just for me and the wife.
Now you would seem to imply thats bad.
But my emissions are really low, and I run it on biodiesel, which i guess you'd like.

But as you get older and wiser, you realise that there's no such thing as black and white.
Just various shades of grey.
Most biodiesel is made from rapeseed oil or palm oil.
The land used to grow rapeseed, was once used to grow food.
Causing a food shortage
Acre's of rain forest have been cut down in indonesia, endangering the local wild life ( orangutans for instance).
Just to grow palm oil.
So theres a lot to be said for running on normal diesel

It's a fair approach... but it just leaves me asking why you don't just buy a fuel-efficient car? That DOES run on oil but doesn't burn through it quicker than I do through sweet fried chickenz?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Necros wrote:I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

I live 10 miles away from him, and the weather here does not get too terrible, like he said. But the amount of people that can't drive when the weather is bad is a good enough reason for me to get an SUV, I'm in the market for one now actually. Its not just about gas mileage, its also about comfort and safety. If I'm about to get sideswiped by a van, I'll take the big bulky SUV over the tiny smartcar. Not to mention I do tend to haul alot of stuff, and my fiance's PT cruiser just does not do it for me. And public transportation isn't as good here as it is there, and for those of us that are poor, buying a cheap but not so eco-friendly vehicle is our only option

Might be worth getting the point out there that you'll damage the other car more than it'll damage you... Let's hope you're never in the wrong

What? The only part of that where I said anything about hurt is the sideswipe example. Sideswipe= them impacting my side. In that case, screw them, they hit me

I meant in the event of a proper collision, 4x4s tend to come out better...

Because a normal car dosen't have a double bed, kitchen, toilet, fridge, digital tv ETC

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sorry, I'll agree with you to some extent but I'm not going to go live in a mud hut.

You say that now but come 2016 when me and my Palin spawn bride are running America....

I can see it now : A Red in the Whitehouse in 2016.

Don't worry America, Genghis Connie's Golden Horde will be on the march and will save us from this...menace.

That's Menace actually, check the copyright. I'll see you in court ! Well, my highly paid legal team will.

You think this, but little do you know we have already countered this. All dern furriners "swamping" your land... basically your future generations of leaders and community activists will be so exhausted from selling those cookies to all these extra homes and mouths they will have no time and energy left to devote to stopping our inevitable rise to power.

The really cunning part is this will also add to the crippling obesity epidemic, thus, in a bold twofold move, preventing any uprising and cutting burglary/similar crimes as people are too fat to get out or leave the home.

It's one of the basic principles of many martial arts : use your opponents strength against them, ideally whilst wearing something that looks like the least sexy nightwear* imaginable.




*term "least sexy nightwear" may not be relevant in all states. Especially those really, really really cold ones.

Yes but lots of dem dern furriners aren't yer dern furriners but OUR dern furriners. Fear Genghis Connie's carefully crafted Mongol/Aztec/Somoan aliance of ultimate uberness!

loki old fart wrote:

Because a normal car dosen't have a double bed, kitchen, toilet, fridge, digital tv ETC

My uncle has one of those. Its the hippie VW vans. It has a stove, tv, toilet w/septic tank, and a minifridge. Its boss

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

Because a normal car dosen't have a double bed, kitchen, toilet, fridge, digital tv ETC

My uncle has one of those. Its the hippie VW vans. It has a stove, tv, toilet w/septic tank, and a minifridge. Its boss

Nah you need a proper fridge to keep your beer cold

Yes but lots of dem dern furriners aren't yer dern furriners but OUR dern furriners.

So you think....you, me and the doorpost.. there's actually no such place as Mexico. Basically we used the Channel Tunnel as a cover to drill a really big hole to your south borders and it is the actual populations of Spain, Portugal..err... all those other foreign hellhol...err... valued allies in our struggle, walking into your country.

Explains J-Lo don't it eh ? NO other rational explanation for that and Ricky Martin.

.. and then when Secret Agent "Cowell" gives the command word... well.. at least it will be short.

Like Mickey Rooney.

.err...

... yeah : basically when Super Nanny is then broadcast on the emergency channel, such is her tone and your careful indoctrination you'll all just sit there as we reconquer you.

Slowly. between the hours of 9-5, with 1 hour off for lunch, and nothing on the weekends. Or bank holidays.

hmm.. hang on..

Because they can and for one reason or another they want to. That's pretty much it.

Wait, your plan is made of FAIL. It did not account for a "British" Lunch. Your timeline is off. The USA is ours MUAHAHAHA!

Frazzled wrote:Wait, your plan is made of FAIL. It did not account for a "British" Lunch. Your timeline is off. The USA is ours MUAHAHAHA!

It used to be ours
We didn't want it, we only fought you for it because we thought if you had to fight for it , you'd look after it
We was wrong

Red the lack of coherancey in your post made my brain hurt. I'll join the Genghis horde if I can slap you in the face with a tuna for thowing too much random for even my adhd riddled brain to process.

.... No plan of ours is going to rely upon our "food" now is it ? Have you never noticed the British Empire is unique in that it solely conquered on culinary grounds.

..why do you think we abandoned Australia so fast ? *ducks and covers*

Basically when our troops land, after your military bases, airports, comic books stores and Playboy mansion, our next stop is your "all you can eat" restaurants.

And your "International House of Pancakes".

We are coming for your "Twinkies" and your "Hostess fruit cakes" you have tormented us with for so many years in your literature.

reds8n wrote:.... No plan of ours is going to rely upon our "food" now is it ? Have you never noticed the British Empire is unique in that it solely conquered on culinary grounds.

..why do you think we abandoned Australia so fast ? *ducks and covers*

Basically when our troops land, after your military bases, airports, comic books stores and Playboy mansion, our next stop is your "all you can eat" restaurants.

And your "International House of Pancakes".

We are coming for your "Twinkies" and your "Hostess fruit cakes" you have tormented us with for so many years in your literature.

Capturing the other guys rations, is a time honored british army tradition

You can have the fruit cakes but I will never relinquish my Twinkies. I'll get hyped up with all the IHOP java I can drink then sugar rush on Twinkies and take you down.........then slap you in the face with a tuna.

Double post

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:We bought a 2WD SUV as my wife is short and has difficulty seeing over the steering wheel in other cars.
In SUVs she is so high she can safely see the road.

Cushion?




Apart from this, really, this is a ridiculous argument.

People have the liberty to do what they want with their money, but we have a great right to frown upon it for being foolish, harmful, and wasteful - in the same way irresponsible smokers are foolish, harmful, and wasteful.

On the other hand, those who need it need it. Chelsea Mums do not.



(Like all real men, I get my pictures from the Telegraph)

sA

rocklord2004 wrote: I'll get hyped up with all the IHOP java

You can keep all your modern technology and your "rapping" music whatnot thank you very much. We're bringing back the Walkman and vinyl.

If you've never had to agonise over what to do when the tape runs out on 1 side before a song ends and you're not sure if you should rewind the song and start again or just carry on once you've turned the tape over then you've never lived.

..hmm... *thinks about life*

ShumaGorath wrote:

So? Tax the hell out of gas and people will fall into line all by themselves.

If it really were national policy and priority, US gas would be over $5/gal ($3 in taxes) with at least half of it set aside for mass transit.

This is where democracy gets in the way. The average consumer would never go for that.

The average consumer doesn't go for a big FICA deduction, income taxes, or socialized medicine, either, and apparently, we've got that.

Gas taxes are controllable and manageable by the consumer. Ramp them up a nickel a month, and you eventually get to $3/gal, while giving people time to adjust naturally.
____

Henners91 wrote:I am? I'm at university and paying it for myself thank you very much.

Exactly. When Henners starts having to work and pay his own way, then pay for a few extra mouths at the table, he'll change his tune in a hurry.

How does this argument apply? A polluting vehicle would cost MORE to run than the car model I linked you and its equivalents...

reds8n wrote:.... No plan of ours is going to rely upon our "food" now is it ? Have you never noticed the British Empire is unique in that it solely conquered on culinary grounds.

..why do you think we abandoned Australia so fast ? *ducks and covers*

Basically when our troops land, after your military bases, airports, comic books stores and Playboy mansion, our next stop is your "all you can eat" restaurants.

And your "International House of Pancakes".

We are coming for your "Twinkies" and your "Hostess fruit cakes" you have tormented us with for so many years in your literature.

Well you've made the cardinal error through time immemorial best represented by Napoleon and Hit er the guy Godwin talks about.

If you knew the local terrain you would know that going to IHOP means you will immediately fall into a insulin coma from the amount of concentrated sugar and lard. hah hah the Brits are going to make the same mistake the Japanese did buahahahahahahha!

thats why texans eat queso. We've hardened ourselves to this harsh environment. You have no chance!

I hope all the people that bash these cars also

Recycle
Compost
Use a green electricity provider
Dont use fertilizer
Dont use pesticides
If the are into wargaming, no spray paint primers
Drive hybrids


Etc Etc,

smiling Assassin wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:We bought a 2WD SUV as my wife is short and has difficulty seeing over the steering wheel in other cars.
In SUVs she is so high she can safely see the road.

Cushion?

For the pushin?

smiling Assassin wrote:On the other hand, those who need it need it. Chelsea Mums do not.

Ugh, Volvo. :barf:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShivanAngel wrote:I hope all the people that bash these cars also

Drive hybrids

I hope they only walk.

You "live" in Texas, you eat anything that's fried, you (nearly) put the Scoti to shame.


and.. us ? Overdose on "fats".. man are you talking to the wrong nation.

Bread and dripping matey... we conquered the world on that !

( See earlier post with reference perhaps as to why we conquered other lands).

... aaahh Friday Nights, half a bottle of Jaeger, a few beers.. all is well.

Fish, chips, fried food....

I see this and raise you

The Habenero pepper!

.... isn't that like the Watusi ?

or even....

ShivanAngel wrote:Fish, chips, fried food....

I see this and raise you

The Habenero pepper!

Go to birmingham england, and have a vindaloo ask for lager on the side . you'll need it

loki old fart wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Fish, chips, fried food....

I see this and raise you

The Habenero pepper!

Go to birmingham england, and have a vindaloo ask for lager on the side . you'll need it

omg i googled that and it looks yummy!

reds8n wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote: I'll get hyped up with all the IHOP java

You can keep all your modern technology and your "rapping" music whatnot thank you very much. We're bringing back the Walkman and vinyl.

If you've never had to agonise over what to do when the tape runs out on 1 side before a song ends and you're not sure if you should rewind the song and start again or just carry on once you've turned the tape over then you've never lived.

..hmm... *thinks about life*

IHOP is what us lazy Americans call the International House of Pancakes ya silly goose. I still have functioning cassettes mind you and still listen to them. I don't like vynil cause I'm a clutz and it doesn't survive much of an impact. Also, if you want a competition of fat inducing meals created by a country didn't the bacon cheeseburger with donuts as buns get created here in the states?

loki old fart wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Fish, chips, fried food....

I see this and raise you

The Habenero pepper!

Go to birmingham england, and have a vindaloo ask for lager on the side . you'll need it

I always thought vindaloo was indian food, for some reason.

It is

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:It is

Alright, just making sure. Just about any indian food will set my mouth on fire.

ShivanAngel wrote:I hope all the people that bash these cars also

Recycle
Compost
Use a green electricity provider
Dont use fertilizer
Dont use pesticides
If the are into wargaming, no spray paint primers
Drive hybrids


Etc Etc,

You could stretch that list on almost infinitely. Again, its a 1 or 10 thing, assuming you have to go all the way with something or not at all.

To be honest I just can't stand to see a "family wagon" with one of those gay stick figure families on the back. I don't know why, its just irritating. Or even worse a "my kid is an honor student" sticker. Why do I give a damn about their kids?

smiling Assassin wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:We bought a 2WD SUV as my wife is short and has difficulty seeing over the steering wheel in other cars.
In SUVs she is so high she can safely see the road.

Cushion?




Apart from this, really, this is a ridiculous argument.

People have the liberty to do what they want with their money, but we have a great right to frown upon it for being foolish, harmful, and wasteful - in the same way irresponsible smokers are foolish, harmful, and wasteful.

On the other hand, those who need it need it. Chelsea Mums do not.



(Like all real men, I get my pictures from the Telegraph)

sA

I was waiting for a Brit to voice an opinion... I've been wondering if this is an ultra-divide simply based on nationality... After all, our country signed Kyoto...

As for the random shizzle, I guess it's the way that when a post gets too confrontational, it has to be taken OT before peoples' feelings get hurt I'd yell "GET BACK AWN TOPIC" but the mods have clearly spoken...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShivanAngel wrote:I hope all the people that bash these cars also

Recycle
Compost
Use a green electricity provider
Dont use fertilizer
Dont use pesticides
If the are into wargaming, no spray paint primers
Drive hybrids


Etc Etc,

Err, but doing ONE green thing is still constructive, this isn't a "be Satan or Jesus" argument, it's do what you can within your means... Because people aren't perfect does that mean we should never pursue good deeds?

I use hippies for my firewood. Is that green?


But seriously, I do leave the lights off until I have to put them on, I recycle. Don't have a say in my energy provider, but its nuclear rather then coal. Most of us in the States do. But most of us spend more time in our vehicles then you could imagine, so we go with what is good to us, which might not always be whats best for the earth.

And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

We can't all be winners. But seriously, our government and companies are giving us credits and tax shelters for going green in some spots of the country

Theres so much rubbish talked about enviromential issues I.E. carbon footprint ETC.
And the math dosent add up

You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

rocklord2004 wrote:You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

I'm an environmental chemist. I'm a lab rat, but still...You do realize there are entire peer edited journals dedicated to this right? I test or receive and ship samples every day that have all manner of garbage in them you wouldn't want to be in contact with. I can assure you that the science behind this is quite well established.

Grignard wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

I'm an environmental chemist. I'm a lab rat, but still...You do realize there are entire peer edited journals dedicated to this right? I test or receive and ship samples every day that have all manner of garbage in them you wouldn't want to be in contact with. I can assure you that the science behind this is quite well established.

And theres a lot of false information out there. Most of it just marketing ploys

loki old fart wrote:Theres so much rubbish talked about enviromential issues I.E. carbon footprint ETC.
And the math dosent add up

Math doesn't add up, ever. That's just a colloquial phrase for 'it doesn't make sense' which is itself, generally, a euphemism for 'I don't understand'.

dogma wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Theres so much rubbish talked about enviromential issues I.E. carbon footprint ETC.
And the math dosent add up

Math doesn't add up, ever. That's just a colloquial phrase for 'it doesn't make sense' which is itself, generally, a euphemism for 'I don't understand'.

But I do understand. And the claims they're making, don't work

What claims made by what people? If one claim made by one person is nonsensical it does not follow that all similar claims made by similar people are nonsensical.

The claims made by biodiesel purveyors that it's carbon neutral

loki old fart wrote:

Grignard wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

I'm an environmental chemist. I'm a lab rat, but still...You do realize there are entire peer edited journals dedicated to this right? I test or receive and ship samples every day that have all manner of garbage in them you wouldn't want to be in contact with. I can assure you that the science behind this is quite well established.

And theres a lot of false information out there. Most of it just marketing ploys

I hear ya, bro. Thems scientists is slippery than greased snake's backside. I still ain' sold on any of that old heliocentrism bull either!

Exactly. Hence why my statement was directed at the "hippie" types. Not the people who actually perform the science that helps our environment in a manner that also attempts to keep the average persons comfort level where it is. True science helps the environment. Protesting things without research leads to people doing social experiments and getting over 200 people at a rally to try and ban the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Yes. Hippies signed a petition to try and stop people from using water.

loki old fart wrote:

Grignard wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

I'm an environmental chemist. I'm a lab rat, but still...You do realize there are entire peer edited journals dedicated to this right? I test or receive and ship samples every day that have all manner of garbage in them you wouldn't want to be in contact with. I can assure you that the science behind this is quite well established.

And theres a lot of false information out there. Most of it just marketing ploys

Oh sure, there are lots of people who will try to sell anything by sticking a "green" label on it.

But there are a lot of folks working in the field trying to make life better. To give a good example, blood lead levels have been shown to have decreased by somewhere around 50% on average since tetraethyl lead was phased out in the US ( thats an average over the studies that have been done).

rocklord2004 wrote:True science helps the environment.

No, not really, because 'helping' the environment implies that the environment is something which can be helped. It isn't, it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end, but that's not 'helping'.

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:True science helps the environment.

No, not really, because 'helping' the environment implies that the environment is something which can be helped. It isn't, it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end, but that's not 'helping'.

Like I say to anybody who makes claims that something helps anything I will say the same to you. Wheres the proof? To disprove something evidence is required. What grounds do you have that the environment cannot be helped?

rocklord2004 wrote:
Like I say to anybody who makes claims that something helps anything I will say the same to you. Wheres the proof? To disprove something evidence is required. What grounds do you have that the environment cannot be helped?

How do you help something that cannot itself be said to be good or bad outside of the human perception of its habitability? The environment is not concious, it cannot tell us what it wants, or what is good for it. We don't help the environment, we alter it to fit our needs and wants.

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

To be honest, I don't believe in global warming. And we arn't going to run out of oil in my life time, the faster we use it, the faster we can get to something that you people who do believe in global warming will be happy with(economy efficient cars or whatnot). So you really should be happy we are driving these gas hogs, we are trying to run the oil supply out, so we get more efficient cars.

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).

The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:
Like I say to anybody who makes claims that something helps anything I will say the same to you. Wheres the proof? To disprove something evidence is required. What grounds do you have that the environment cannot be helped?

How do you help something that cannot itself be said to be good or bad outside of the human perception of its habitability? The environment is not concious, it cannot tell us what it wants, or what is good for it. We don't help the environment, we alter it to fit our needs and wants.

Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use "help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use

"help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

The end in question is not the end of the environment, but the end of the people working to affect the environment, so no, the environment cannot be helped. In order to help something it must be capable accomplishing tasks, and the environment is not.

The only way the words fits is in the event that we are said to cooperate effectively with the environment as a necessary part of it, which renders the idea of helping the environment meaningless as we would always be helping it simply through our presence.

The claims made by biodiesel purveyors that it's carbon neutral

I'm sure it is. On a certain level, fossil fuels are carbon neutral too... The difference is the carbon in them was fixed millions of years ago. And by "fixed" I mean formed into a molecule other than CO2.

While I am not a global warming denier, I do think two things:

1) Global warming is not nearly as rapid, severe or dire as the advocates claim, and while there is some evidence it's caused by man, this is far from proven fact. While I'm sure they do care about the earth, I think "climate change" has become a political ploy, rife with deception and manipulation, and is more useful as a club for the left than something that will better the world.

2) All this conservation garbage is a red herring. We're not going to drive Priuses and unplug phone chargers and make everything all better. It's going to take a game changing invention, something like plasma fusion, something that generates power on a new strata from what we can do now. With unlimited power, you can build massive carbon scrubbers, and synthesize fuels, and all is well.

There are some "conservation" issues that are actually valid. Destruction of habitats, overfishing, etc. This stuff is real, and responsible use can make a big difference.

Ultimately "climate change" is one of the rhetorical devices in the religion of the left. It is the functional equivalent of the monotheists' hell, or the Buddhists "reincarnation as a doorknob." It's this vague threat to hang over people, and then to assure them you can solve if they'll just put their faith, money and votes in you.

Why do people drive polluting cars? Because they're feths. Pure and simple. Human garbage.

They rape the system and then enjoy their pitiful fething lives while they make everyone else's lives worse.

I so want to buy a dually pickup to drive around town with a bumper sticker that says:

"I feth Mother Nature because I'm human garbage" while revving the engine every chance I get and laughing because I need to fill my tank every 50 miles.

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

Dude i have already lsot all hope for mankind.... weve royaly fethed ourselves and the planet, now on topic i love my 4 cylender ford ranger to bits, and i realy only use it to get to work


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps if we drilled in more locations oil wouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, we tried that, an accident happened and now we won't ever try that again because the administration will listen to the "i told you so's" coming from the tree huggers.

Im goin to say that your statement there is very wrong, first off: who the hells goin to lsiten to tree huggers , secoundly the companies only say they care about the environment but all there thinking about is the $$$$$$$$$$$$

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:
Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use

"help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

The end in question is not the end of the environment, but the end of the people working to affect the environment, so no, the environment cannot be helped. In order to help something it must be capable accomplishing tasks, and the environment is not.

The only way the words fits is in the event that we are said to cooperate effectively with the environment as a necessary part of it, which renders the idea of helping the environment meaningless as we would always be helping it simply through our presence.

Let me put it in simpler terms since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the actual discussion is about despite your attempt to throw large words in the way. lets call your face the environment, and lets call a baseball bat humanity in general. If said bat was to be used to beat your face in it clearly would be doing harm. If whoever was assaulting you with the bat were to stop it would help the situation. Yes this is a crude and somewhat flawed analogy but so is your pointless argument. Yes humans have done damage to the environment and some of humanity (myself included) aren't going to do anything to help. The people who are properly dedicating time with true reasearch, science, and take steps to reduce and reverse the damage people like me do is helping. I can rework my violence analogy for you if needed or if youd like I can try and dumb my statements down to your level. Personally I would prefer it if you would get back under your bridge and let the discussion wander back to something with a point.

Stormrider wrote:]

Okay, how many Europeans own cars?

Over here the cars own us.

rocklord2004 wrote:

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:
Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use

"help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

The end in question is not the end of the environment, but the end of the people working to affect the environment, so no, the environment cannot be helped. In order to help something it must be capable accomplishing tasks, and the environment is not.

The only way the words fits is in the event that we are said to cooperate effectively with the environment as a necessary part of it, which renders the idea of helping the environment meaningless as we would always be helping it simply through our presence.

Let me put it in simpler terms since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the actual discussion is about despite your attempt to throw large words in the way. lets call your face the environment, and lets call a baseball bat humanity in general. If said bat was to be used to beat your face in it clearly would be doing harm. If whoever was assaulting you with the bat were to stop it would help the situation. Yes this is a crude and somewhat flawed analogy but so is your pointless argument. Yes humans have done damage to the environment and some of humanity (myself included) aren't going to do anything to help. The people who are properly dedicating time with true reasearch, science, and take steps to reduce and reverse the damage people like me do is helping. I can rework my violence analogy for you if needed or if youd like I can try and dumb my statements down to your level. Personally I would prefer it if you would get back under your bridge and let the discussion wander back to something with a point.

Three wings are better.

I know dogma can throw really solid punches, but I agree that his use of words was confusing. Dogma dropped a shell in your wing... your going down... (refer to reference picture, for information regarding how it would look... but use your imagination).

Rework your analogy.

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).

The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I think the best answer to the OP is: For poops and giggles.

Henners91 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).

The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I am trying to point out that our commutes are longer. Where I live, there are no commuter trains, the buses have homeless people on them and we have cities all around us that have people commute into our city.

We do things differently, sorry.

Why? Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius? It's rediculus! So I bought a Humvee and now everyone is happy! I get one-shot-kills which gives me bonus points of +50, they die fast and don't have to wriggle in pain and it's easier for the street dogs to eat em up since every bone in their body have gone snap crackle pop.



Any questions?

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).


The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I am trying to point out that our commutes are longer. Where I live, there are no commuter trains, the buses have homeless people on them and we have cities all around us that have people commute into our city.

We do things differently, sorry.

Yet you have cities with higher populations then my country...

And also, I don't see how having wider and bigger cars helps you on freeways and stuff.

That said, I think global warming is bull crap, and I want a firebird.

Soladrin wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).


The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I am trying to point out that our commutes are longer. Where I live, there are no commuter trains, the buses have homeless people on them and we have cities all around us that have people commute into our city.

We do things differently, sorry.

Yet you have cities with higher populations then my country...

And also, I don't see how having wider and bigger cars helps you on freeways and stuff.

That said, I think global warming is bull crap, and I want a firebird.

That's the spirit!

Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius?

I haven't, but I imagine it'd be a lot easier... The damn things are silent. I nearly got hit by one a while back because I walked in front of it assuming that no engine sound meant it was off.

Sure you might have to back up and run over the person a few times to get the job done, but once you've got the first hit in, they're not going anywhere.

Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

The US owns a bit under ten times as many cars as the UK, and a bit under twice as many per capita.

Honestly, you can't really mess with Americans when it comes to owning lots of cars. It's just how we roll. Literally.

Phryxis wrote:

Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius?

I haven't, but I imagine it'd be a lot easier... The damn things are silent. I nearly got hit by one a while back because I walked in front of it assuming that no engine sound meant it was off.

Sure you might have to back up and run over the person a few times to get the job done, but once you've got the first hit in, they're not going anywhere.

Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

The US owns a bit under ten times as many cars as the UK, and a bit under twice as many per capita.

Honestly, you can't really mess with Americans when it comes to owning lots of cars. It's just how we roll. Literally.

Yeah, when I was 15, there was 3 people living in my house. Before I moved out, we had six cars, two motorcycles, and a bunch of ATV/off road vehicles. It was ubsurdly insane.

Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

Soladrin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

AHHH, that's funny. I laughed like a slow for about 30 seconds, then relized no one else understands why i was laughing...

Soladrin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

If more people rode atv's and motorcycles to work we'd be a lot healthier nation.

I can go 150 miles on 2 gallons of fuel on the atv.

Fateweaver wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

If more people rode atv's and motorcycles to work we'd be a lot healthier nation.

I can go 150 miles on 2 gallons of fuel on the atv.

I know mate, I was just commenting on the cool statement.

Well, I think I'm cool. I think therefore I am.

Phryxis wrote:

Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius?

I haven't, but I imagine it'd be a lot easier... The damn things are silent. I nearly got hit by one a while back because I walked in front of it assuming that no engine sound meant it was off.

Sure you might have to back up and run over the person a few times to get the job done, but once you've got the first hit in, they're not going anywhere.

Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

The US owns a bit under ten times as many cars as the UK, and a bit under twice as many per capita.

Honestly, you can't really mess with Americans when it comes to owning lots of cars. It's just how we roll. Literally.

I'd expect that, the UK population is 62,000,000 as opposed to America's 320,000,000 (correct?) add up EVERY country in the EU and we'll see how the balance looks.

Henners91 wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius?

I haven't, but I imagine it'd be a lot easier... The damn things are silent. I nearly got hit by one a while back because I walked in front of it assuming that no engine sound meant it was off.

Sure you might have to back up and run over the person a few times to get the job done, but once you've got the first hit in, they're not going anywhere.

Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

The US owns a bit under ten times as many cars as the UK, and a bit under twice as many per capita.

Honestly, you can't really mess with Americans when it comes to owning lots of cars. It's just how we roll. Literally.

I'd expect that, the UK population is 62,000,000 as opposed to America's 320,000,000 (correct?) add up EVERY country in the EU and we'll see how the balance looks.

We'd still lose, cause if you had checked that link, it's cars per 1000 people.

Yeah I saw that... I don't see how we wouldn't close the margin and I'm so inept mathematically that I don't know how you can add it up or else I'd have done it myself.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Let me put it in simpler terms since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the actual discussion is about despite your attempt to throw large words in the way.

I'm quite aware of how discussion works. In this case there isn't a discussion. What's transpiring here is an explanation of the meaning of a word you used.

rocklord2004 wrote:
lets call your face the environment, and lets call a baseball bat humanity in general. If said bat was to be used to beat your face in it clearly would be doing harm.If whoever was assaulting you with the bat were to stop it would help the situation. Yes this is a crude and somewhat flawed analogy but so is your pointless argument.

See, all you've done here is illustrate your basic misunderstanding. You personify the environment, but the environment is not a person. That's been the entire point of my commentary.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Yes humans have done damage to the environment and some of humanity (myself included) aren't going to do anything to help. The people who are properly dedicating time with true reasearch, science, and take steps to reduce and reverse the damage people like me do is helping.

Nope, that's only true if you see the environment as something with an objective, goal, or capacity to qualify. None of those things are within its capacity.

rocklord2004 wrote:
I can rework my violence analogy for you if needed or if youd like I can try and dumb my statements down to your level. Personally I would prefer it if you would get back under your bridge and let the discussion wander back to something with a point.

My point is actually quite pertinent to this thread. You have simply failed to appreciate it; most likely because you can't, or don't want to, understand it.

I'm so inept mathematically that I don't know how you can add it up or else I'd have done it myself.

Well, add scrolling lessons to the math tutoring, because at the bottom of the page it shows total number of vehicles for the Us and the EU. In that, the EU is pretty close.

Although, I still object to the EU being treated as a single nation for these things.

Nope, that's only true if you see the environment as something with an objective, goal, or capacity to qualify. None of those things are within its capacity.

Wow, apparently you haven't seen Avatar yet. Please tell me: why are you racist against nature?

So anything that is not a person cannot be helped? I will admit that you have a larger vocabulary than me but to say that something that isn't a person it cannot be helped? The only way your statements are correct are if you only consider the part of the environment that is space. Yes a physical space cannot be helped since it only needs to exist. As far as environmentalists consider the environment is reference to nature. A living entity that has a goal to survive with as much life as possible. Humans kill many things from plant and animal life to over use of resources withini nature. Humans by nature tend to be parasites that are killing their host. I enjoy being a parasite as I'm a shortsighted jerk who only cares about his own existance. Humanity can use science to reduce the impact we have on the environment. Even if you don't want to admit it existing without coming to harm is a goal unto itself. You cant give the environment an "end" goal since the goal of everything that involves life is not to end. Shall we continue arguing semantics or can we just admit we are both rather apathetic in our own rights as to the future of the environment?

rocklord2004 wrote:So anything that is not a person cannot be helped? I will admit that you have a larger vocabulary than me but to say that something that isn't a person it cannot be helped?

No, anything which is not animate, or possessed of a self-realized purpose cannot be helped.

rocklord2004 wrote:
The only way your statements are correct are if you only consider the part of the environment that is space. Yes a physical space cannot be helped since it only needs to exist. As far as environmentalists consider the environment is reference to nature.

The environment as a whole is not possessed of a purpose. You can talk about helping animals, or plants, but not the environment.

rocklord2004 wrote:
A living entity that has a goal to survive with as much life as possible. Humans kill many things from plant and animal life to over use of resources withini nature. Humans by nature tend to be parasites that are killing their host.

What host? We don't have a host in the sense that a parasite does. If you stopped trying to reason with rhetoric, it would make a lot more sense.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Humanity can use science to reduce the impact we have on the environment. Even if you don't want to admit it existing without coming to harm is a goal unto itself.

It is a goal unto itself, but that doesn't mean its a necessary goal. Similarly, science can be used to reduce the impact humanity has on other elements of the environment, but it does not necessarily do so.

rocklord2004 wrote:
You cant give the environment an "end" goal since the goal of everything that involves life is not to end.

The environment is not only about life.

Your counter arguments are still about just the physical environment, not everything that makes up the environement. I've already agreed that you can't help a space as there is nothing really to help or harm. Its just an area. The environment in relation to nature (as environmentalists view it); however; is a living entity and can be helped and harmed in its survival. Also just because you don't deem a goal necessary doesn't make it any less important to others.

I do tend to use rhetoric because its more entertaining to me. If my analogies are too confusing for your overanalytical mind I can attempt to simplify them.

I can legally drive in... 5 days ago. I plan on buying a cheap car, the cheapest I can find in fact. It doesn't matter if it is environmentally friendly or not, I have fiscal restraints.

I drive a gas guzzler. I'll admit it. I choose to do so.

Until they make an efficient car that can bring me the joy of my 414 horsepower, rear wheel drive, 6-speed GTO, I'm not interested.

I drive a work vehicle most of the time. When I'm in my car, I want to enjoy every friggin' second of it. And I do.

Do I care that I average about 14 MPG? Nope. I still only put gas in my car every 3 weeks or so. Because filling up only put more weight in the back end so I can work the throttle harder without the back end coming around.

Efficiency can go to hell. I'm having fun.

rocklord2004 wrote:Your counter arguments are still about just the physical environment, not everything that makes up the environement. I've already agreed that you can't help a space as there is nothing really to help or harm. Its just an area. The environment in relation to nature (as environmentalists view it); however; is a living entity and can be helped and harmed in its survival.

No, my argument has encompassed all components of the environment from the beginning. Nature, as a whole, cannot be helped or hurt because we are necessarily a component of it; ie. what we do to help ourselves helps nature. Viewing nature as separate from man is nonsensical.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Also just because you don't deem a goal necessary doesn't make it any less important to others.

I never said that was the case.

rocklord2004 wrote:
I do tend to use rhetoric because its more entertaining to me. If my analogies are too confusing for your overanalytical mind I can attempt to simplify them.

No, they aren't confusing, merely inaccurate.

Nature, as a whole, can be helped and harmed. To think otherwise is idiodic. Yes, man is a part of nature and man is capable of harming nature. We have created chemicals that destroy all forms of life and render areas unlivable even to bacteria. This is harmful. Such as if a virus were to attack your leg rendering it useless. The virus would have harmed your leg. It may have become a part of the leg by feeding off of it such as man feeds off of the rest of nature it still is harmful to its immediate environment. You may have others believing you have a factual point but so far the only thing you've convinced me is your skewed opinions are so deep seeded you refuse to see anything that differes from your own opinion. If you want to continue this provide factual evidence that is not entirely based on blind conjecture. Otherwise I would like to move on to something other than just us pointing at each other and saying "your wrong..no your wrong".

rocklord2004 wrote:Nature, as a whole, can be helped and harmed. To think otherwise is idiodic.

Only if you give 'nature' a universal character.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Yes, man is a part of nature and man is capable of harming nature. We have created chemicals that destroy all forms of life and render areas unlivable even to bacteria. This is harmful.

Maybe.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Such as if a virus were to attack your leg rendering it useless. The virus would have harmed your leg. It may have become a part of the leg by feeding off of it such as man feeds off of the rest of nature it still is harmful to its immediate environment.

Nope, not in the sense that 'environment' refers to that which is beyond the human.

rocklord2004 wrote:
You may have others believing you have a factual point but so far the only thing you've convinced me is your skewed opinions are so deep seeded you refuse to see anything that differes from your own opinion.

When you learn to use punctuation I may start paying attention to you. Until then, you're just one more ideologue.

rocklord2004 wrote:
If you want to continue this provide factual evidence that is not entirely based on blind conjecture. Otherwise I would like to move on to something other than just us pointing at each other and saying "your wrong..no your wrong".

Learn to use logic. Its not very hard.

Why drive a polluting car?

Because my FLYING polluting space-car hasn't been invented yet.

Because walking to the next major city is not an option.

Because I might live in an area where public transport is non-existant and I might have to get somewhere else.

Even Pious's are polluting. They are hybrids, sure, but they still burn a petroleum fuel, and their battery products are just as - if not more - polluting than a pure smoker. It's more environmentally friendly to drive a 15 year old car on petroleum products for 10 years than own/drive a prius.

chromedog wrote:Why drive a polluting car?

Because my FLYING polluting space-car hasn't been invented yet.

Because walking to the next major city is not an option.

Because I might live in an area where public transport is non-existant and I might have to get somewhere else.

Even Pious's are polluting. They are hybrids, sure, but they still burn a petroleum fuel, and their battery products are just as - if not more - polluting than a pure smoker. It's more environmentally friendly to drive a 15 year old car on petroleum products for 10 years than own/drive a prius.

QFT There is more pollution caused making a car, than it will produce in the rest of its life.

Phryxis wrote:

I'm so inept mathematically that I don't know how you can add it up or else I'd have done it myself.

Well, add scrolling lessons to the math tutoring, because at the bottom of the page it shows total number of vehicles for the Us and the EU. In that, the EU is pretty close.

Although, I still object to the EU being treated as a single nation for these things.

Nope, that's only true if you see the environment as something with an objective, goal, or capacity to qualify. None of those things are within its capacity.

Wow, apparently you haven't seen Avatar yet. Please tell me: why are you racist against nature?

Looks like I've failed one of life's little IQ tests... But to be fair the page title was per capita

Interesting to see there isn't that huge a difference... And yet CO2 emissions beg otherwise: I wonder how far the arguement "The US' climate means we need bigger vehicles" goes.

Mattlov wrote:I drive a gas guzzler. I'll admit it. I choose to do so.

Until they make an efficient car that can bring me the joy of my 414 horsepower, rear wheel drive, 6-speed GTO, I'm not interested.

I drive a work vehicle most of the time. When I'm in my car, I want to enjoy every friggin' second of it. And I do.

Do I care that I average about 14 MPG? Nope. I still only put gas in my car every 3 weeks or so. Because filling up only put more weight in the back end so I can work the throttle harder without the back end coming around.

Efficiency can go to hell. I'm having fun.

That reasoning's so selfish I'm convinced it was intended as a trolling jibe o.O

loki old fart wrote:

chromedog wrote:Why drive a polluting car?

Because my FLYING polluting space-car hasn't been invented yet.

Because walking to the next major city is not an option.

Because I might live in an area where public transport is non-existant and I might have to get somewhere else.

Even Pious's are polluting. They are hybrids, sure, but they still burn a petroleum fuel, and their battery products are just as - if not more - polluting than a pure smoker. It's more environmentally friendly to drive a 15 year old car on petroleum products for 10 years than own/drive a prius.

QFT There is more pollution caused making a car, than it will produce in the rest of its life.

Is this per-unit? I'd imagine not but hey...


@Dogma, are you just diverting the argument by arguing about definitions? Claiming that nature must be assigned a "character" or a persona is just ridiculous when damage can be seen *with our own bloomin' eyes*. This is why I hate philosophy ¬_¬

Dogma isn't really here to make a point. He's just here to argue for the sake of arguing. His "logic" uses the process my stoner friends use to argue over how much bacon is needed for the perfect cheeseburger. As for my grammer on a forum, who cares? I do my best to use proper punctuation but I never cared to pay attention in english after 5th grade. I went the fun route and focused on math and technology.

There is more pollution caused making a car, than it will produce in the rest of its life.

Is this per-unit? I'd imagine not but hey..

Work it out. The ligh6ing and heating for all the factories involved( body work, castings, and rubber wear).
Plus the heat needed to mold the tyres, cast the engine and gearbox casings, weld the bodywork.
The power needed to forge the crankshaft, conrods etc. The chemicals needed to harden the crank and camshaft/s,gears etc( usually cyanide based).
lead for battery plus sulphuric acid.
Painting and sealing.

You get the idea

Don't forget the souls of unborn children put into the engine. Thats why they get that whine at high RPM. I've been serious on the thread too long, had to get some silly out.

What's more ironic is when ELF burns SUV's to protect the enviroment, their burning does far more harm than the actual operation of the vehicle.

loki old fart wrote:There is more pollution caused making a car, than it will produce in the rest of its life.

Is this per-unit? I'd imagine not but hey..

Work it out. The ligh6ing and heating for all the factories involved( body work, castings, and rubber wear).
Plus the heat needed to mold the tyres, cast the engine and gearbox casings, weld the bodywork.
The power needed to forge the crankshaft, conrods etc. The chemicals needed to harden the crank and camshaft/s,gears etc( usually cyanide based).
lead for battery plus sulphuric acid.
Painting and sealing.

You get the idea

I would assume that when divided up between the units that wouldn't necessarily be the case... wonder what the profit margin on cars is.

rocklord2004 wrote:Dogma isn't really here to make a point. He's just here to argue for the sake of arguing.

I've already explained my point.

rocklord2004 wrote:
His "logic" uses the process my stoner friends use to argue over how much bacon is needed for the perfect cheeseburger.

My logic is formal, and occasionally ternary; which some may consider improper, but its consistent with the established rules of inference.

rocklord2004 wrote:
As for my grammer on a forum, who cares? I do my best to use proper punctuation but I never cared to pay attention in english after 5th grade. I went the fun route and focused on math and technology.

Anyone that intends to communicate with you via text would, and should, care about your punctuation.

I think your logic just diverts us into a silly side-argument about language rather than talking about a problem (namely, the consumption of finite resources) that we *know* is taking place...

But I guess talking about whether one can only damage nature if its personified is just that much more interesting?

Its actually a general understanding that not everybody will have perfect written grammer. Most logical and realistic people are aware of this. If me missing the occasional bit of punctuation bothers you I would suggest getting a dry erase marker, or something similar depending on your monitor type, to mark in whatever is needed to keep your from going insane. The reason I stated you were arguing just for the sake of arguing is that you intentionally chose a definition of environment that was different than the one used for the entire basis of discussion. Nothing constructive can be added by doing that. Every time you make a post all I see is a troll with a monacle, proper in appearance, but still just a troll. If you have anything further to discuss with me on this matter we should take it to PM's as this is taking the thread off topic very quickly.

Henners91 wrote:I think your logic just diverts us into a silly side-argument about language rather than talking about a problem (namely, the consumption of finite resources) that we *know* is taking place...

We can talk about that, but if we're going to do so we shouldn't pretend that we're living in some empirically conscious environment akin to Pandora.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rocklord2004 wrote:Its actually a general understanding that not everybody will have perfect written grammer. Most logical and realistic people are aware of this. If me missing the occasional bit of punctuation bothers you I would suggest getting a dry erase marker, or something similar depending on your monitor type, to mark in whatever is needed to keep your from going insane.

It only bothers me when it impedes my understanding of something which has been written. I do my best to read only what has been written in order to avoid reading my own ideas into the words of others.

rocklord2004 wrote:
The reason I stated you were arguing just for the sake of arguing is that you intentionally chose a definition of environment that was different than the one used for the entire basis of discussion. Nothing constructive can be added by doing that.

I chose the definition of environment that I believe to be correct. I didn't choose it to be argumentative.

As far as constructive action goes: if we can't agree on what the environment is, how can we realistically speak about the effect we have on it?

rocklord2004 wrote:
Every time you make a post all I see is a troll with a monacle, proper in appearance, but still just a troll. If you have anything further to discuss with me on this matter we should take it to PM's as this is taking the thread off topic very quickly.

Troll appears to be synonymous with 'person who doesn't agree with me'

We don't... it's simply just convenient to refer to nature/our environment as an entity, under one word...

The fact that you disagree with me is irrelevant to you being a troll. I had stated I would prefer to have our little side argument in PM's but you seem to insist on having it where everybody can see. Nobody else has had any issues understanding me so if you can't wrap your head around a couple of grammatical errors that don't actually alter what I say theres nothing I'm willing to do to help. As for usage of the word environment as far as I've seen your the only person in this discussion/argument that insists on using the word that way. There is no other logical reason other than just wanting to drag on an argument to refuse to use an alternate definition of a word, especially when the rest of the group has an understanding of what is meant. I will not respond to anything about usage of words or grammer with you in this thread again. Should you insist on picking this post apart as you have the others I wil simply ignore you. If you want to bring new information to this debate and stop dragging on a pointless argument I would be happy to debate with you all day long. If you want to have an argument PM me so others don't have to bear further witness to this asinine spectacle.

Henners91 wrote:We don't... it's simply just convenient to refer to nature/our environment as an entity, under one word...

But neither I, nor anyone else, knows what you mean when you mask your intent with convenience. We might have a belief with respect to what you've said, but we don't know.

I believe that I operate in a system where if I did not have a car, it could reduce my social condition to the point which I may not be able to run my life as I want.

In my current situation, I need a car and cannot afford one to which it would produce less emissions. Ergo, I drive my polluting car because it would undermine me economically and socially to not have one and cannot afford one that will not pollute given my current situation and economic ability as well as social expectations.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Nobody else has had any issues understanding me so if you can't wrap your head around a couple of grammatical errors that don't actually alter what I say theres nothing I'm willing to do to help.

No else one has stated that they had a problem understanding you. That doesn't mean that no one else has had a problem understanding you.

rocklord2004 wrote:
As for usage of the word environment as far as I've seen your the only person in this discussion/argument that insists on using the word that way. There is no other logical reason other than just wanting to drag on an argument to refuse to use an alternate definition of a word, especially when the rest of the group has an understanding of what is meant.

Interestingly, my definition of environment is not likely to be different from yours. The difference is that I track the implications of that definition more closely than others seem to.

rocklord2004 wrote:
I will not respond to anything about usage of words or grammer with you in this thread again. Should you insist on picking this post apart as you have the others I wil simply ignore you. If you want to bring new information to this debate and stop dragging on a pointless argument I would be happy to debate with you all day long. If you want to have an argument PM me so others don't have to bear further witness to this asinine spectacle.

Again, if we cannot agree on the fact the environment cannot be helped we cannot have a conversation about it. Personification is the bane of well reasoned debate.

dogma wrote:Personification is the bane of well reasoned debate.

Well my debate can beat up your debate any day of the week, granted the day will allow them to get near week as week is a close girlfriend of day and if both debates come anywhere near week, both will have broken legs that will be unable to compete in the 100 meter dash next week.

That was well played.

rocklord2004 wrote:Nature, as a whole, can be helped and harmed.

Nature helps and harms itself all the time. The Ice Age eliminated most life on the planet. A volcanic eruption certainly kills all life in its area, just like man. On a smaller scale, a lightning strike sterilizes the area it hits, often killing everything it touches. Asteroids, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and mudslides all cause tremendous devastation. Nature is as destructive as it is nurturing. Animals go extinct all the time. Others adapt until they barely resemble the creature that they came from.

All of this is natural. Man does do the same sort of thing- but nature started it!

I suppose my point is that nature will eventually destroy almost every aspect of itself, and another aspect will rise to take its place. As evidence, I point to dinosaurs. Very few of the creatures we see fossilized from those ages when dinosaurs walked the earth are still alive today- and man had nothing to do with their eradication. When you compare killing off the dodo to killing off dinosaurs, it becomes obvious that we are amateurs in the extinction game.

Gitzbitah wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:Nature, as a whole, can be helped and harmed.

Nature helps and harms itself all the time. The Ice Age eliminated most life on the planet. A volcanic eruption certainly kills all life in its area, just like man. On a smaller scale, a lightning strike sterilizes the area it hits, often killing everything it touches. Asteroids, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and mudslides all cause tremendous devastation. Nature is as destructive as it is nurturing. Animals go extinct all the time. Others adapt until they barely resemble the creature that they came from.

All of this is natural. Man does do the same sort of thing- but nature started it!

I suppose my point is that nature will eventually destroy almost every aspect of itself, and another aspect will rise to take its place. As evidence, I point to dinosaurs. Very few of the creatures we see fossilized from those ages when dinosaurs walked the earth are still alive today- and man had nothing to do with their eradication. When you compare killing off the dodo to killing off dinosaurs, it becomes obvious that we are amateurs in the extinction game.

That is not true apparently. My understanding is that when looking at the rate of extinction of species, many scientists say that extinctions caused by man have occurred at a rate that is unprecedented in the history of the planet, even when looking at, say, the Permian event. In terms of absolute number, of course it isn't even close to that, but the extinctions caused by man have occurred in a very short period of time relative to the age of the earth.

Of course, I think what the argument has turned to is how do you define something hurting nature, or especially nature hurting itself. How do you define a "hurt" state or a non "hurt" state? I think the consensus now is that Mars at one time probably had some form of life, but no longer does because of environmental changes ( "natural" ones not caused by man of course). Did nature "hurt" itself in this instance? If you define "healthy" as life being present, then I guess it is yes, but that is a "life-centric" definition.

The question is not whether we're "hurting" the environment, I think, but rather if we desire to continue making certain changes which might be detrimental to the way the world was before industrialization and might be detrimental to our health, or whether we want to stop making those changes?

Dogma, I don't know if that is what you're getting at, but I think that is. My question is do you think it is somewhat an argument of semantics? Doesn't it seem natural that people project personalities into things? For instance, one of the oldest toys is a doll, which is something that a child projects a personality into? Don't you think that the whole disagreement about the gender of God and the use of the masculine pronoun for God result from people projecting human attributes to something that is beyond human understanding?

In other words, does it matter if people talk about helping or harming the "environment" ( meaning the "natural", non "made", world) if that accomplishes practical goals?

dogma wrote:

Henners91 wrote:We don't... it's simply just convenient to refer to nature/our environment as an entity, under one word...

But neither I, nor anyone else, knows what you mean when you mask your intent with convenience. We might have a belief with respect to what you've said, but we don't know.

Well, now you're talking s**t, essentially everyone here has understood the premise of the post... If I start twiddling my thumbs about definitions you'll just pick that apart just as you are now, because, at the end of the day you're here to be a smart alec :-/

WarOne wrote:I believe that I operate in a system where if I did not have a car, it could reduce my social condition to the point which I may not be able to run my life as I want.

In my current situation, I need a car and cannot afford one to which it would produce less emissions. Ergo, I drive my polluting car because it would undermine me economically and socially to not have one and cannot afford one that will not pollute given my current situation and economic ability as well as social expectations.

There is a lot of debate on if we are actually causing harm to the environment. My personal opinion is that humanity can cause harm to the environment. Yes there is more carbon released into the air with a single forest fire than a weeks worth of an L.A. traffic but there are other things we have created that nature doesn't account for. Nuklear fallout is something that caused massive damage to the environment. The heat and radiation caused by it wipes out everything on a microscopic level and takes quite some time for things to correct itself. We are having an effect on the environment. The level of effect is debatable over what nature does to itself and how relevant we are but I believe humanity is currently detrimental to the environment. I'm not gonna do anything to help the situation mind you but I will at least acknowledge the problem.

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

Henners91 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

I see the point though. Much of our oil consumption is involved in creating and shipping the things we use, including food. If you decide to get rid of your gas guzzler, that car is eventually going to end up as waste, and at some point an additional ( though better mileage ) car was created, even if you buy used.

I think if people are concerned about it they should work on consuming less crap, rather than being concerned about what they're driving.

Henners91 wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I drive a gas guzzler. I'll admit it. I choose to do so.

Until they make an efficient car that can bring me the joy of my 414 horsepower, rear wheel drive, 6-speed GTO, I'm not interested.

I drive a work vehicle most of the time. When I'm in my car, I want to enjoy every friggin' second of it. And I do.

Do I care that I average about 14 MPG? Nope. I still only put gas in my car every 3 weeks or so. Because filling up only put more weight in the back end so I can work the throttle harder without the back end coming around.

Efficiency can go to hell. I'm having fun.

That reasoning's so selfish I'm convinced it was intended as a trolling jibe o.O

Nope, not trolling. That's just how I feel about it. I have worked hard to own my car, and I enjoy driving. Why is it selfish that I want to enjoy myself behind the wheel? Why should I be looked down upon because I used to RACE, and a midget-mobile hybrid with no soul doesn't interest me?

Not all people are the same. You want to save the planet? Fine. Guess what? Can't do it yourself. I don't want to destroy it, but my car will have such a negligible impact on anything environmental over it's life I'm just not worried about it.

I am only going to live once. Why should I compromise my ability to have fun in an aspect of life because others say I should? No thank you, I live here in good ol' America to be free, and to have that choice to drive a gas guzzler. I have worked hard to earn it. And if you have earned something, it is rather silly not take it.

I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

egor71 wrote:I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

I don't see how that is apropos.

Henners91 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

Unless you're suggesting that if I don't drive a gas guzzler that everyone else won't either, this argument is invalid. And if you are, then it's very unsound; what I drive has little to no influence on what others drive.

It's also why I don't vote. It simply doesn't matter who I vote for; the voting population is sufficiently large that my vote is statistically irrelevant.

Grignard wrote:

egor71 wrote:I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

I don't see how that is apropos.

(psst: plastic minis are primarily oil based products)

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

Unless you're suggesting that if I don't drive a gas guzzler that everyone else won't either, this argument is invalid. And if you are, then it's very unsound; what I drive has little to no influence on what others drive.

It's also why I don't vote. It simply doesn't matter who I vote for; the voting population is sufficiently large that my vote is statistically irrelevant.

Grignard wrote:

egor71 wrote:I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

I don't see how that is apropos.

(psst: plastic minis are primarily oil based products)

I would bet the house that there is more oil used in the transport of metal minis than what makes up a plastic mini. Of course, you're adding the plastic to the transportation costs, but still, I don't think its terribly significant or apropos to the topic.

Probably.

But the same amount of oil is used to transport the plastic minis as the metal minis. And you're making about the same impact by only buying metal minis as you are by driving a fuel economical vehicle, ie: none.

So while it isn't terribly significant, neither is what kind of car you drive.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Probably.

But the same amount of oil is used to transport the plastic minis as the metal minis. And you're making about the same impact by only buying metal minis as you are by driving a fuel economical vehicle, ie: none.

So while it isn't terribly significant, neither is what kind of car you drive.

I bet its a lot more significant than minis. But still, I think focusing on consumption of resources is probably better than focusing on cars themselves.

We can agree on that much, at least.

Why drive a polluting car? Because I need to in order to get to work.

Sometimes I ride my scooter... it gets 90 mpg. I'm being responsible. Of course sometimes it's raining, or I need to haul a pickup bed full of stuff somewhere, and for that I use my SUV. It gets around 16mpg.

Point being I use an appropriate vehicle for the appropriate job.

I always thought this was funny for some reason. Can't find the original article but this one sums it up...

PRIUS OUTDOES HUMMER IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

The Toyota Prius, the flagship car for the environmentally conscious, is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America, and takes more combined energy to produce than a Hummer, says the Recorder.

Consider:

- The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers.
- Dubbed the Superstack, the factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin.
- After leaving the plant, the nickel travels to Europe, China, Japan and United States, a hardly environmentally sound round the world trip for a single battery.
But that isn't even the worst part, says the Record. According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius (consisting of electrical, fuel, transportation, materials and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime), is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer:

- The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -- the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
- The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
- That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it.

Source: Chris Demorro, "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage," The Recorder, March 7, 2007.

It all depends on where you live.
I live in breezy, sunny (lies) Washington, where there is ATM 3" of snow per year and it rains for the rest.
I don't need an SUV. It doesn't have a purpose here. The biggest driving dilemma you have down here, as far as I'm concerned, is where to grab munchies.
I think really having a gigantic SUV in fething Washington is really useless because you are basically using it in the same way as I would a sedan (in 2 years, of course).
Now if I lived in Alaska, what with all the mountains and snow, an SUV would be useful.
Simply put, if your environment requires the type of vehicle, do it, but if it doesn't, why bother at all? Saves money for the car and gas.
Also, due to the fact that the Prius is an overhyped, electrically powered crap-box driven by young urban professionals from Seattle (because 'yuppies' is just cheesy), it really isn't worth it.
Giggles,
Mr. Self Destruct

The worst part about those hybrids, what happens with the batteries after they finally die? They get buried and leak acid and other fun chemicals into the aquifer. Yay Hybrids!

Stormrider wrote:The worst part about those hybrids, what happens with the batteries after they finally die? They get buried and leak acid and other fun chemicals into the aquifer. Yay Hybrids!

Well, I think you need to consider if the extra batteries make up for the fuel savings. Remember, regular automobiles have lead acid batteries that need to be disposed of, and there is pollution involved in the production of those batteries.

Remember, the burning of gasoline isn't just a carbon problem, it is an enormous groundwater chemical pollution problem. There is an entire branch of the Tennessee department of environment and conservation devoted solely to regulating underground petroleum storage tanks, and that is from a state that is not known for funding environmental agencies. I've encountered examples of tanks that have leaked and people around were able to smell gasoline in their tap water.

I'd like to know if the author of the quoted article has any political affiliations that might effect his viewpoint, and if he has explored any examples of pollution from conventional car batteries.

I really don't think there needs to be a debate about eco-friendly vehicles... This was more of an SUV vs a Saloon discussion: Don't WASTE oil even if it's impossible to be totally efficient with it!

Henners91 wrote:I really don't think there needs to be a debate about eco-friendly vehicles... This was more of an SUV vs a Saloon discussion: Don't WASTE oil even if it's impossible to be totally efficient with it!

I disagree. I think that if you ask why you drive a polluting car, suggest people dont, then associate SUVs with pollution, it would make sense to suggest alternatives other than just a smaller car, and if those alternatives are *really* better. I think it is just as valid to consider ways of driving more efficiently as well as not driving an SUV. Like I said, some people actually use their SUVs for reasons other than status symbols. I actually used mine offroad. Some people need the covered carrying capacity, though I would argue that a truck with a topper would be a better deal if they're just using it for that. Some people are larger than me and need at least a big sedan to be comfortable.

Also, as has been mentioned, my country is very different from yours. We tend to be much more spread out. When I lived in Denver, the airport was something like 80 km or so from where I lived, and I lived nearer to it than someone living downtown. Culturally, we prefer larger cars that drive differently. One thing I've noticed having the opportunity to drive a European luxury car and an American one is that I personally felt that the steering and feel was tighter and more sporty than the American one, which felt softer and "floatier". I liked the sportier feel but many people do not. I would also say that we have more rugged terrain for the off roaders but someone from Wales or Scotland would probably tell me I was full of crap.