Why are SUV owners......??

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, though it is [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] and tangential to this discussion, I note your homage to French Companies and their strive to promote alternative fuel.

I also quote President Bush's sentiments in the State of the Union: We have simply got to find a way to NOT rely on foreign resources.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Davros: I have been sitting back from the discussion because it is not one that I really feel too much for one way or the other [img]smile.gif[/img] . I will note that the debate on safety to the other road users is one that the pro SUV people have steered clear of.

Well given their self-centeredness that is not surprising [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]Safety to other drivers depends more on driving courtesy, and driving skill then anything else. ie: stoping at stop signs, more then the type of vechile driven. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: My point was that aside from people themselves I can think of 50 things that are of more immenent impact than SUV's. The fact is..SUV's are not on the top 1000 most dangerous problems face by this world. The Sheer number of SUV's in the world is insignificant compared to REAL problems. Focusing hate on a non-issue like SUV's is just an intellectually dishonest way of skirting real issues. SUV's are not this world problem. Look elsewhere.

I agree they're not a particularly big issue. I will be quite up front and say I'm not even an environmentalist personally. I just didn't like your argument, thats all. Whilst it may be terribly cutting to get in the succinct and pithy reply it does then suffer from usually being nonsense. This is the second thread in a row I've seen where you've posted stuff that just didn't make any sense first time round, but made perfect sense when you clarified it.

Wouldn't it be easier to go the long way round first? Or are you just hoping we'll get bored of asking you to explain what the hell you mean?

[ 01-21-2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: . Just as Sattelite photo's show us that there is more forested area in Brazil now than there was 12,000 years ago,

I would be interested in seeing both of those photographs.

[Timber Loftis]

No kidding -- that's be a real treat!!

Besides, considering This and other information out there about deforestation, I highly doubt it's true. Now, 200 years ago, when the entire states of Vermont and Michigan were deforested for timber, it's quite possibly true.

[Davros]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Davros: I have been sitting back from the discussion because it is not one that I really feel too much for one way or the other [img]smile.gif[/img] . I will note that the debate on safety to the other road users is one that the pro SUV people have steered clear of.

Well given their self-centeredness that is not surprising [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Safety to other drivers depends more on driving courtesy, and driving skill then anything else. ie: stoping at stop signs, more then the type of vechile driven. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]The good ole behaviour v the physical article defence. Funny how it just keeps cropping up isn't it. With children we deal with the problem by legislation - this toy has a fair chance of you choking on the small bits - withdraw it from sale and make it safer to pass the guidelines. It's unsafe, you don't know it but we grown-ups can see it, therefore you can't have it. Makes you wonder if there is some objective alien society of great wisdowm observing earth as a research project and thinking "SUV's - these guys just do not see how they are hurting each other more when they have accidents nowadays". Now I really don't much care one way or t'other on the SUV thing, but something I am interested in is the point were people decide the behaviour thing ain't effective enough and needs legislation. Sure I agree that behaviour helps, but sometimes you have to shift out of the involvement box and acknowledge the presence of a bigger picture.

[Timber Loftis]

Oh, sure, the question of exactly when your behavior crosses the floating line between liberty and harming others is one of the oldest and most perennial threats in a "free" society. I had a simple-to-follow test for determining the answer to this in any situation, but I lost it in the mess of papers in my office. Come to think of it, it wasn't much use anyway. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: . Just as Sattelite photo's show us that there is more forested area in Brazil now than there was 12,000 years ago,

I would be interested in seeing both of those photographs. [/QUOTE]
this is in response to both TL and Donut [img]smile.gif[/img]

Obviously there are no photo's from 12,000 years ago, however it has been established that Scientific estimates place the maximum age of the rain forest in South America is less than 12,000 years....in other words..there was NO rain forest then. [img]smile.gif[/img] I posted this to just get TL to ask about it [img]smile.gif[/img]

TL Even you a mere civilian can pull up real or near real time photos of the South American Rain forest and you will see as I did and one of the IW members from the Colorado area whom I discussed the massive fraud about the "Save the Rainforest" movement with. [img]smile.gif[/img] It never happened, it was a complete scam and has been debunked. What areas that were cleared for "farms" was found to be unsuitable for crops and the rain forest has since recoverd and reclaimed that land. I had posted a link to some sattelite photos before Ill go look for them [img]smile.gif[/img]

I do admit however there are other rainforests around the world that do not fare as well.

Dammit, this is gettiing to be annoying, I get more porn sites and ads for the Dish Network than I do on real sattelite photo's geez. Oh and you can't use the photo's that most of the rainforest nuts use...they are false color photos and they don't give you the metrics for what your looking at for real. You need them from the USGS, which is most likely to be undoctored....Im still trying ....god the net has really got to get cleaned up...sheesh.

Edit: Heres the link to the last time we rehashed this, but it doesn't have the satelite photo link I supplied, I think that was in an older conversation...but this should refresh some of you [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=31;t=015479


[ 01-21-2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Pikachu_PM]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Yo, Yorick, all the SUV's in the entire world, don't emit half the polution that the worlds people fart, belch, piss and defacate into the environment.

Errr, but we could drive cleaner cars, and we couldn't stop any of the above.

Everyone is going to die so what does it matter to kill people! People die all the time naturally so it doesn't matter if humans do it artificially as well!

Sorry MagiK but I can't see how that defends your point in any way, even if its true which TL doesn't seem to think it is. [/QUOTE]My point was that aside from people themselves I can think of 50 things that are of more immenent impact than SUV's. The fact is..SUV's are not on the top 1000 most dangerous problems face by this world. The Sheer number of SUV's in the world is insignificant compared to REAL problems. Focusing hate on a non-issue like SUV's is just an intellectually dishonest way of skirting real issues. SUV's are not this world problem. Look elsewhere.
[/QUOTE]Magik,

You appear to have a horrible preoccupancy with stating absurd facts so far removed from the topic at hand, that they come full circle and actually look relevant.

People Fart more methane gas than an SUV pollutes? WTF?!

Anyways, ASSUMING you're right, at what point is a problem significant enough to be discussed? Drinking and driving, relativley speaking, isn't anywhere near the most dangerous problem in the world, either; should we ignore the issue?

More to the point, SUV's ARE a major problem. "Only 10% of the WORLD owns SUV's"....you mention that like its not a big deal. it may be 10% of the 'world' but an estimated 40-45% of the American population (and slightly less in other developed countries) own SUVs, now.

This recent shift towards SUV;s HAS caused (or, i suppose 'demonstrated' in some cases) problems in all the areas mentioned in the article.

Moreover, the overal increase in gasoline consumption attributed to SUV's has driven gasoline prices up an estimated 30% of what they would be if people didn't drive SUV's. This is extremely significant, as gasoline prices are the #1 factor in creating and maintaining efficiencies in the current economic model...since EVERY product and service along EVERY aspect of a supply chain over the ENTIRE economy involves gasoline cost, the smallest changes in prices have gigantic rippling effest.

On top of all that, current models show that if 90-95% of Americans were to to drive cars with good fuel economy (not great, just good), we would not only cut prices, but could cut our demand for gasoline down so substantially that we could tell the Saudis to bend over and kiss their own arses cause we don't need them anymore.

Gas is a FINITE resource that fuels almost every aspect of our (hell, and the worlds) economy. Auto transportion accounts for the majority (if i remember correctly 70-80%) of the worlds gasoline consumption. SUV's almost double the rate of gasoline consumption compared to the 'average' car. But I suppose I shouldn't be mentioning any of this..it's all a 'non-issue' that isn't in the top '1000' of our worlds problems.

Please Magik, your ignorance is so significant I've come to the conclusion it's intentional. Who are you, President Bush's white house aid or something?

[ 01-25-2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Pikachu_PM ]