Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.