Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zar · 01-13-2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud
You sound like a snob. I bet you drive a small car so you can feel morally superior. How many square feet is your house? Do you really put all that space to use?

When can we put this topic to rest?

Huh? What planet did you come in from?

Look at the topic of the OP. Its talking about, among other things, whether you are automatically anti-environment just because you own an SUV. I said no to this. But I did say that you would be hard-pressed to say you were pro-environment if you drove a gas-guzzling vehicle for no other reason than that you thought it was cool.

I'm making ethical disctinctions from the point of view of environmentalism. Did I not make this clear enough? Given all I have said, I could very well enjoy commuting to my desk job in a Mack Truck and still be capable of drawing the same ethical distinctions that I did above as far as environmentalism is concerned.

Besides this, I think it is meaningless to call me a snob even if I am pro-environment and against the overuse of large vehicle. In that case how am I any more a snob than someone who comes down dead set against environmental concern for the sake of his SUV pleasure?

If you want to put the topic to rest, I suggest you stop reading and posting in this thread.

August Spies · 01-13-2003, 06:19 PM

again, your analogy does not work.

The complaint against SUVs is primarily
1. They are enivormentally bad. Far more than other cars.
2. They are more dangerious for everyone on the road.

So, SUVs are bad because they harm other people and society as a whole.

Owning a bigger house does neither of these things.

Autonemesis · 01-13-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Owning a bigger house does neither of these things.

The bigger the house the more more lumber it takes to build it (depletion of forest), and the more energy it takes to heat and cool it (more CO2, less trees, hmmmm). Yes it is a valid analogy. I'd say it's more than an analogy, it might be even more environmentally unsound than driving a SUV.

August Spies · 01-13-2003, 06:29 PM

well if you house is so large that you pollute that much more than it is just as enviormentally immoral.

John Hancock · 01-13-2003, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
We are not presented with the choice between environmentally and energy efficient SUVs on the one hand, and polluting, gas-guzzling ones on the other with all else being equal. The whole debate around SUVs and their even more massive truck and "Suburban" brethren centers around the notion that people must give up or sacrifice something in order to achieve these better results, namely horsepower, money, convenience or status.

The bottom line is that people who commute to work in a huge truck or vehicle are the one's guzzling the gas and polluting the air more than anyone, and will have to buy a fuel efficient car and rent a truck when they need to haul something in order to rectify this. The fact that many people say "Over my dead body" makes them the opposition of the environmentally and politically concerned.

So, maybe my answer is, except for when having an SUV is necessary for, say, your line of work or to haul a big family all the time, you cannot own an SUV and be environmentally concerned at the same time presently.

Zar

Suv use and practicallity are not mutually exclusive of earth sustainable behavior. There are car pools and walking a coupla a blocks is really healthfull.

Martin Buber

Zar · 01-13-2003, 07:04 PM

Martin,

Good point.

John Hancock · 01-13-2003, 07:10 PM

Kid Bud

Maybe you'ed be good rolled uo and smoked.

Martin Buber

Jimmy Higgins · 01-13-2003, 07:45 PM

Jesus f'in Christ!

So there are people in here that think we should keep the SUV's the way they are instead of making them more efficient. Under this model, perhaps if we are lucky, we'll make it every 5 years without having to take out another country for oil.

What possible objection can one have against SUV's having to get 20% better mileage? Why can't we just put a battery in their for acceleration?

As for Kind Bud's comment about driving a small car to feel morally superior, you are damn straight I do! I ain't the problem! My car releases much less pollution. My car uses less energy. My car helps both the environment and US foreign policy when it comes to needing oil.

We should have a government that looks for renewable resources so that we pollute less, breath cleaner air, and rely less on foreign dictators for energy. What can you guys possibly have against that?

Anyone against better energy sources and renewable energy is just a stupid and ignorant fool. Why don't we just get rid of all scientific progress while we're at it?!

Autonemesis · 01-13-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
Huh? What planet did you come in from?

If you want to put the topic to rest, I suggest you stop reading and posting in this thread.

You're right. My bad. I apologize.

Loren Pechtel · 01-13-2003, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
again, your analogy does not work.

The complaint against SUVs is primarily
1. They are enivormentally bad. Far more than other cars.
2. They are more dangerious for everyone on the road.

So, SUVs are bad because they harm other people and society as a whole.

Owning a bigger house does neither of these things.

Actually, a bigger house does have some negative environmental effects. More building materials used and more energy for the heating/cooling.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-13-2003, 06:19 PM	#12
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	again, your analogy does not work. The complaint against SUVs is primarily 1. They are enivormentally bad. Far more than other cars. 2. They are more dangerious for everyone on the road. So, SUVs are bad because they harm other people and society as a whole. Owning a bigger house does neither of these things.

01-13-2003, 06:29 PM	#14
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	well if you house is so large that you pollute that much more than it is just as enviormentally immoral.

01-13-2003, 07:04 PM	#16
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	Martin, Good point.

01-13-2003, 07:10 PM	#17
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Kid Bud Maybe you'ed be good rolled uo and smoked. Martin Buber

01-13-2003, 07:45 PM	#18
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	Jesus f'in Christ! So there are people in here that think we should keep the SUV's the way they are instead of making them more efficient. Under this model, perhaps if we are lucky, we'll make it every 5 years without having to take out another country for oil. What possible objection can one have against SUV's having to get 20% better mileage? Why can't we just put a battery in their for acceleration? As for Kind Bud's comment about driving a small car to feel morally superior, you are damn straight I do! I ain't the problem! My car releases much less pollution. My car uses less energy. My car helps both the environment and US foreign policy when it comes to needing oil. We should have a government that looks for renewable resources so that we pollute less, breath cleaner air, and rely less on foreign dictators for energy. What can you guys possibly have against that? Anyone against better energy sources and renewable energy is just a stupid and ignorant fool. Why don't we just get rid of all scientific progress while we're at it?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.