[b]John:[/b] People that drive SUVs are so wastefull...

[Tully_Beaver]

.And I don't wakeboard, either.

But if you did and you were giving people shit for driving an SUV because they are "wasting fuel" you would be a ....hypocrite?

[Callipygous]

There is kite surfing. But that's beside the point. If you have no probelm with someone driving a boat up and down a lake all day long because "There is no more fuel efficient way to go wakeboarding" then standing there and telling someone that because they are driving a vehicle that burns more fuel than yours to go the same distance (even though this person pays for the extra because they enjoy driving their vehicle why is it people wake board again?) then you are a hypocrite.

 

this is where you will run into problems on this forum. its not about the numbers and formulas, its about the fact that you have failed to equate the two activities and yet are stating that because you think one but not the other you are a hypocrit.

 

unless your suggesting that people who drive suvs derive pleasure purely from the act of burning more gas...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Can you really make statements about why people buy SUVs? Where's your numbers?

I don't see a difference between paying for gas for you car to go to work and back and then paying a bit extra for your hobbie at the weekend' date=' nascar, motoX etc. and paying for gas for your car to go to work and back and then paying a bit extra just because you enjoy riding in a big ole truck suv to work and back.[/quote']

Okay.

http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/suv_5reasons.htm

http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/suv.htm

 

I'm not saying that spending money on hobbies such as dirt biking is sane, anyways. I prefer other things myself.

 

I just felt in both of my threads he/she has been really condescending.

Everybody on this site tends to be condescending towards people who present logical fallacies as arguments.

 

But if you did and you were giving people shit for driving an SUV because they are "wasting fuel" you would be a ....hypocrite?

If, and only if. But I don't.

[Tully_Beaver]

this is where you will run into problems on this forum. its not about the numbers and formulas' date=' its about the fact that you have failed to equate the two activities and yet are stating that because you think one but not the other you are a hypocrit.

 

unless your suggesting that people who drive suvs derive pleasure purely from the act of burning more gas...[/quote']

More like they drive an SUV because they "derive pleasure purely from the act of" driving an SUV.

[zyncod]

But if you did and you were giving people shit for driving an SUV because they are "wasting fuel" you would be a ....hypocrite?

 

No you wouldn't. There's a sane level of fuel usage among NASCAR and motocross racing and all those other things (that, by the way, most environmentalists would see to be among the more knuckle-dragging of hobbies), because those things happen rarely. Chastising SUV usage, when millions of SUVs are being driven hundreds or thousands of miles each week, is not a sane amount of fuel usage given that there are much more fuel-efficient cars.

 

It's like this: you can play music in your house alone at an acceptable volume (minimal noise pollution). If hundreds of people come over and you crank the stereo up and start smashing windows (maximal noise pollution), somebody's going to call the cops. There's a difference between you alone maybe polluting somebody's environment a little bit, and hundreds or millions of people gratuitously polluting the environment. Individual SUV drivers are not the problem; it's the herd mentality that got them to buy the stupid things in the first place.

[swansont]

I just felt in both of my threads he/she has been really condescending.

 

 

And it's not possible that it's because you have been arrogant and recalcitrant? IMO, anyone who keeps offering p the same strawman and upon being shown their logical fallacies, doesn't bother to adjust their argument, is inviting that behavior. It would be rude not to accept.

[MattC]

Tully, you should read take a debate class. You'll never prove anything to anyone (smart) going about it as you are now; your arguments are filled with flaws.

 

I criticize people who drive SUVs. I ride my bike, run, walk, etc, and I do not jetski, own a four-wheeler, etc. Those ARE wasteful, just like SUVs. Maybe you've met a few hypocrites ... good for you (who cares?). Most people who criticize SUVs themselves do not own or use the toys you talk about. Certainly they own computers, though, and if you wanted to make a case for hypocracy, you should point that out, though you would still be walking on a thin line between putting forth a good, interesting, useful argument, and doing the pointless posting you are doing now.

 

I have never met a person who criticized SUVs and yet owned a jetski, boat, or was even remotely interested in the car races. I'm sure such people exist, but this is part of the reason your arguments are NOT GOOD LOGIC and thus WRONG. If you want to make a good argument, stop trying to be tricky about it (you are failing utterly), and try being a little more intellectually honest.

Here's how:

 

I think people who criticize SUVs for being so wasteful are often hypocritical, as they use electricity to power their home lights, washers and driers, TVs (and TV is haaaaardly a necessity), and so on. Granted, 90% of SUVS (hint: here's the flaw in YOUR argument, one of many flaws, anyway) could be replaced by small cars and the owners would not suffer at all, whereas you could not take away 90% of the electrical appliances in the average home and still maintain the standard of living that we expect. That point aside, people who criticize SUVs are hypocritical because they themselves could invariably be doing *more* than they already are to conserve the quality of our environment, by consuming less.

 

Now, here's a counter argument to your "arguments" (though I think it's been well established, in polite posts, many times already, that your arguments do not qualify as legitament arguments):

 

Yes, SUVs are wasteful. Yes, boats and other recreational vehicles are wasteful. However, just because two things are bad, does not mean we should not criticize one or the other, it merely means that we should be criticizing both. In other words, it sounds to me like you know enough already to know that instead of criticizing people who criticize SUVs, you should JOIN with them in criticizing SUVs and ALSO criticize other things that should be discussed.

 

Now, let me quote you and speculate some:

But if you did and you were giving people shit for driving an SUV because they are "wasting fuel" you would be a ....hypocrite?

You met someone... who criticized SUVs, right? Someone who is a hypocrite, right? Who has dirtbikes, maybe? Ok, fine, you met a hypocrite. I met a black man, once, and he was uneducated. Does that mean black people are dumb? No, it means I met a dumb one, and the others are just the same as everyone else - a mixed bag. You met some hypocrites. Get over it - I don't know where you live, but here in California, where I live, the people who criticize SUVs don't dirt bike, or water ski, or jet ski, or whatever. They bike to the store to buy their groceries, or at least own a small car and use that instead, and while EVERYONE is a little wasteful, that doesn't lend any strength to your argument. Yes, people here have been harsh to you - that is because you presented an argument, it was shot down, and yet you insisted that you were still right. Read the posts that came after yours. Read them again and again and again, until you get why you were wrong. Learn from this!

[ecoli]

exactly right MatC. Tully, you cannot make up fictional people and use that as a claim that environmentalists are hypocrites. In fact, you cannot use that as a basis to say that ANYBODY are hypocrites, except the fictional characters you've created, which doesn't say anything about people in real life.

[Tully_Beaver]

I criticize people who drive SUVs.

Do you now? Do you also criticize people who waste fuel in other ways, for example nascar drivers, motox riders, FMX rides, jet ski riders, wakeboarders, water skiers, snow mobile racers, freestyle snow mobile riders........(the list goes on and on)?

 

No?

 

Then, I call you a hypocrite. I am not writing a paper for an assignment or for you. I originally posted a question in the chemistry forum. I added a little explanation for my question and had to read two pages of posts from people being completely over the top trying to shoot my ideas down when they had no idea what was going on my head. I posted and posted trying to make people understand, but I am not trying to prove anything; and I'm sick of reading your posts.

 

If you want to make a good argument' date=' stop trying to be tricky about it (you are failing utterly), and try being a little more intellectually honest.

Here's how:[/quote'] Tricky? Stop trying to be so condescending to me. I really don't care to listen to how you totaly miss the point. And I couldn't care less about how much of a tree hugging hippy hipocrite you are...

 

However, just because two things are bad, does not mean we should not criticize one or the other, it merely means that we should be criticizing both.

eerrr...that's my point. You agree that John and the other guy are hipocrites, you agree with the above statement, but you just thought you would come on here and post just to bash me by being pedantic..........?

 

 

Learn from this!

I have learnt not to post anywhere on this forum if I fancy discussing something.

 

Last time I'm posting this.....

Lets just say; That no other source of fossil fuel burning burns as much fuel as an SUV' date=' for it's specific job/ task (yeah take an airplane at per passenger value). If a person driving an SUV is not allowed to burn that extra bit of gas driving to work and back just for the sheer pleasure of it, why should someone be allowed to race around on a jet ski, go wake boarding, race a car with a big engine etc. for the sheer pleasure of it?

 

Hypocrisy.[/quote']

[Tully_Beaver]

exactly right MatC. Tully, you cannot make up fictional people and use that as a claim that environmentalists are hypocrites. In fact, you cannot use that as a basis to say that ANYBODY are hypocrites, except the fictional characters you've created, which doesn't say anything about people in real life.

Stop posting in this thread.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Actually, ecoli is right.

 

And speaking of right, you have no right to tell him to stop posting here.

[Callipygous]

Do you now? Do you also criticize people who waste fuel in other ways, for example nascar drivers, motox riders, FMX rides, jet ski riders, wakeboarders, water skiers, snow mobile racers, freestyle snow mobile riders........(the list goes on and on)?

 

whether or not those are wasteful is a matter of perspective. i enjoy wakeboarding, so driving a boat is not a waste for me. it has benefits that make it very much worth while. there is no real benefit to my father driving his suburban (12m/g) to sanfran for work everyday instead of taking the pickup truck and the train (so he takes the train).

 

 

I have learnt not to post anywhere on this forum if I fancy discussing something.

 

there is a lot of useful information to be obtained from the people on these forums, but if you cant figure out how to post your arguements without using logical falacies then your not going to get very good responces.

 

when debating you cant just throw out anything you like and expect other people to automatically respect it just because you said it. you have to make sure its backed up by something and that it makes logical sence or else theres no point in us discussing it.

[ecoli]

Stop posting in this thread.

 

I'll stop if you will.

 

whether or not those are wasteful is a matter of perspective. i enjoy wakeboarding, so driving a boat is not a waste for me. it has benefits that make it very much worth while. there is no real benefit to my father driving his suburban (12m/g) to sanfran for work everyday instead of taking the pickup truck and the train (so he takes the train).

 

The situation is hardly hypocritical. If you found a boat that was more fuel efficent and it was affordable, I'm sure you would switch boats to cut fuel costs and polution.

[Phi for All]

It's really tragic that Tully Beaver wants to call people hypocrites SO BADLY that he's willing to be sloppy about it. I would definitely risk being called anal to make sure I had it right before using such a strong accusation.

[Callipygous]

The situation is hardly hypocritical. If you found a boat that was more fuel efficent and it was affordable, I'm sure you would switch boats to cut fuel costs and polution.

 

absolutely...

 

the point is, you spend money where you decide it is worth it. spending money on wakeboarding is worth it for me. it has lead to some of my best memories. my dad spending the money it would cost to drive his huge suv to work everyday isnt worth it when there are more cost efficient ways available, so he doesnt.

 

so yes, i would criticize someone who drives an suv to work when they have a cheaper, less poluting method available. i also like to wakeboard, and drive a big, 4 wheel drive truck up to tahoe to go snowboarding. and no, i dont think that makes me a hypocrite at all.

[Allah_sux]

absolutely...

If the boat moves fast enough and produces enough wake.......otherwise it's useless.

 

the point is, you spend money where you decide it is worth it. .

Where who decides it's worth it?

 

spending money on wakeboarding is worth it for me.

Spending money on gas for my wife's suburban and my charger is "worth" it to me. You gonna tell me what I can and can't spend my money on?

 

it has lead to some of my best memories. .

*A tear runs down my face as imagine you attempting to stand up*

 

 

my dad spending the money it would cost to drive his huge suv to work everyday isnt worth it when there are more cost efficient ways available, so he doesnt..

Why should you be allowed to decide what is "worth" spending money on and what is not?

 

 

so yes, i would criticize someone who drives an suv to work when they have a cheaper, less poluting method available. i also like to wakeboard, and drive a big, 4 wheel drive truck up to tahoe to go snowboarding. and no, i dont think that makes me a hypocrite at all.

Well, you are wrong my friend. In your opinion, as long as one is spending money on gas for "extreme" sports, it's cool. If you want to spend money on gas to drive a big ass vehicle, that's wrong........What if......someone is driving to work in a suburban. The extra money they spend they spend on gas because they are driving a suburban and not a yugo is covered by their firend, Jeff. Jeff is an avid car surfer (laugh all you want, people do it and that's a fact and can be scientificly proven, and I think wakeboarders are gay), and the suburban driver allows Jeff to surf his suburban to work and back. I'm guessing this would OK in your eyes, because one, the extra gas is being paid for by Jeff, and two, not only is Jeff getting his kicks (what are doing when you wakeboard again?) but the driver is getting to work and back.

 

Therefore, gas use for anything but "extreme" sports and the bare minimum amount you can use to get to work and back is OK....everything else is wastefull?

 

If that is the case, sticking with your logic, people would only be allowed to travel to work and back in the most econimically viable ways possible. Otherwise they would be being wastefull right? I mean there's a big difference between driving a corolla and a caddy, both can seat 5 people legally.

 

You are a hypocrite. if you can't see that, I don't give a shit.

 

I don't see any reason why you need a big ole 4x4 truck to drive to Tahoe. People drive RVs there, so I'm sure you could do it in a yugo you hypocrite.

 

Or maybe you are the only one who decides what people can and can't spned their money on as far as gas use goes???????????

[ecoli]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Tully Beaver = Allah_sux. Don't you know that it's against forum rules to have multiple screen names? especially to get around a ban.

[Phi for All]

I can't allow a username that is such an obvious flame. Goodbye troll.

[Helix]

I'm surprised this wasn't ended sooner, he was pretty clearly just here to piss people off.

[Callipygous]

Where who[/b'] decides it's worth it?

 

the point is, you spend money where you decide it is worth it.

 

read.

 

Spending money on gas for my wife's suburban and my charger is "worth" it to me. You gonna tell me what I can and can't spend my money on?

 

im gonna tell you that i have never thought of or had someone explain to me any reason why you would get more pleasure, or any other benefit out of driving a huge car to work instead of a fuel efficient one, and therefore, it is a waste of money.

 

note the use of straightforward logic as opposed to unexplained opinions and logical fallacies.

 

 

*A tear runs down my face as imagine you attempting to stand up*

 

i would explain the virtues of a fun outing with friends and family, but your such a troll im not sure your even worth this response.

 

 

Why should you be allowed to decide what is "worth" spending money on and what is not?

 

because everyone is allowed to decide that. feel free to spend a dollar a mile on gas getting to work, im not stopping you. im just saying i think your a fool and will disrespect you for not caring about your environment.

 

 

Well, you are wrong my friend.

 

feel free to back that up with any logical arguement you can think of.... ill wait.

 

In your opinion, as long as one is spending money on gas for "extreme" sports, it's cool. If you want to spend money on gas to drive a big ass vehicle, that's wrong........What if......someone is driving to work in a suburban. The extra money they spend they spend on gas because they are driving a suburban and not a yugo is covered by their firend, Jeff. Jeff is an avid car surfer (laugh all you want, people do it and that's a fact and can be scientificly proven, and I think wakeboarders are gay), and the suburban driver allows Jeff to surf his suburban to work and back. I'm guessing this would OK in your eyes, because one, the extra gas is being paid for by Jeff, and two, not only is Jeff getting his kicks (what are doing when you wakeboard again?) but the driver is getting to work and back.

 

Therefore, gas use for anything but "extreme" sports and the bare minimum amount you can use to get to work and back is OK....everything else is wastefull?

 

i dont care if its extreme sports, just that there is some benefit to driving the larger vehicle. im not at all closed minded about it, any actual benefit to burning the extra gas is fine, i just think driving a big car for the sake of driving a big car is extraordinarily stupid.

 

 

I don't see any reason why you need a big ole 4x4 truck to drive to Tahoe. People drive RVs there, so I'm sure you could do it in a yugo you hypocrite.

 

the 4x4 saves the time and hassle of having to put on chains when you hit the snow, and then having to drive the rest of the way at 7mph, which allows you to get there sooner, spend longer on the mountain, and get more for your money. there are also some situations you can handle by yourself in a 4x4, but not in a 2 wheel drive with chains.

 

Or maybe you are the only one who decides what people can and can't spned their money on as far as gas use goes???????????

 

 

for the last time.... no, you douchenozzle. everyone gets to decide whats worth it. i happen to have my opinions on what is worth it and what isnt (i back mine up with actual reasons, and so i consider them more valid) and so when you dont do logical things, like use a fuel efficient car to get to work everyday, i think your a wasteful moron. no laws are being written, no views are being imposed on others, im just having my own opinions on what is worth it and what isnt. and im not a hypocrite for doing so because i have LOGICAL reasons why one is worth it and the other isnt.

[silkworm]

Wow, I had no idea this madness was still going on. I'm glad I missed it.

 

I'm surprised this wasn't ended sooner, he was pretty clearly just here to piss people off.

 

That's very observant. I may have been the first one he got to with his second post on his original thread where it was obvious he had not read any of the responses.

[Phi for All]

Since there is no scientific reasoning behind the OP's assertion, and there is a preponderance of forums offering a more unschooled support of the "hypocrisy of environmentalism" stance, I invite Mr Sux and the Beaver to find what solace they can elsewhere.

 

Thread closed.