allthumbs Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 If you're talking about guns, forget it. Never the twain shall meet. The gun folks have tried many, many times. It falls on deaf ears. This thread isn't about guns anway, so let's not go there again this winter. Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 (edited) mostly through education to drive the bad apples out of business. Force full disclosure in advertising. Apply car regulations to SUVs. I don't know but if people knew how dangerous SUVs are they would not buy them "because of the kids, you know". Perhaps, I'd consider vehicular homicide for those using unwarranted heavy vehicles with high bumpers among regular size cars (half joking on this). Edited January 9, 2003 by j_b Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 I know, Trask, but my deeper question is how the labeling occurs (liberal/conservative), ie. how issues become labeled as such simply by association with a given political/cultural/religious group. I could make the case that "gun control" is actually a conservative position, and "total gun rights with no background checks or registration or other requirements" is really an extremely liberal position, one that has no technical or sentimental support in the US constitution (only a (what's the word? Pro-active?) reading would lend support, usually a stance associated with "liberals"). Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 mostly through education to drive the bad apples out of business. Force full disclosure in advertising. Apply car regulations to SUVs. I don't know but if people knew how dangerous SUVs are they would not buy them "because of the kids, you know". Perhaps, I'd consider vehicular homicide for those using unwarranted heavy vehicles with high bumpers among regular size cars (half joking on this). Â "But aren't the ones inside the SUV safer? And shouldn't consumers be free to spend their money on what they want?" Â Â Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 I say the above with a painful sense of irony, and as a repetition of an oft-stated defense. As to my own opinion: I agree fully with you in that education must continue, reporting of facts must continue. And I fully agree that legislation can be an effective tool in protecting the rights of humans to live human lives, free of egregious dangers perpetuated simply because power and money enables one to do so. Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 I assume this is rhetorical on your part, but SUVs are several time more lethal to those inside due to high rollover rates and of course many more times lethal to those on the outside not driving in an assault vehicle. Consumers also have to be well informed before making a purchase which most SUV buyers apparently are not since they claim greater safety to be their motivation in purchasing the vehicle. Quote
mattp Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 JB You have fallen victim to the liberal media. Really those cars are safe and there is no reason that we should seek to conserve oil. Everybody should drive a Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer Edition but the New York Times is owned by somebody who drives a prius and wants to ram it down our throats. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 It was somewhat rhetorical, as explained above, yet you probably sensed a dis-ease. One reason was that I didn't know they were (more?) dangerous for their operators also. Are they, statistically, so? And this can be shown in an incontravertible way? Just curious. My second question dealt more with some hesitations I have in dealing with issues of choice through legislation, and where the line should be drawn. That's all. Thanks. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Simple- Liberal = Left of center Conservative = Right of center  What's so damn hard to understand? Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Ah. You were kidding. Right? Even if not, I still think this labeling helps secure the battle-lines, helping to erase the discomfort of ambiguity on both sides. Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Are they, statistically, so? And this can be shown in an incontravertible way? Just curious.  yes. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14839  some hesitations I have in dealing with issues of choice through legislation  pretty tough questions. I don't have the answers, only some ramblings and the knowledge that something ought to be done. Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 No JB sucks. Â hey what did I do this time? Â What the hell is peer review? Â in the sciences it means having one's work reviewed by peers at large to ensure that it is consistent with the scientific method especially as it relates to the current collective knowledge in the field. All reputable scientific journals have peer review. Quote
mattp Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 in the sciences it means having one's work reviewed by peers at large  I know that. I was trying to poke a little fun at the tangent you and Mtn Goat took there. Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 I suspected you did, yet I took this opportunity to hopefully show that there is little relativity in what peer reviewed means (if anyone besides Goat had any doubts). One can say that some publication has stricter peer review than another, but it not like there is an oil industry favorable peer reviewed litterature versus a global warming advocate peer reviewed litterature in the climate science. There is only peer reviewed litterature versus non-peer reviewed litterature. Answering Goat's innuendo to the effect that acceptable peer review is a function of my stand on global warming would be like saying it is a relative issue. Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 "Answering Goat's innuendo to the effect that acceptable peer review is a function of my stand on global warming would be like saying it is a relative issue." Â No, answering my "innuendo" to the effect you will only accept peer reviews from peers who agree with you, would indicate your position on review is relative. Â Answering that a "peers" position does not matter and their review will still be valid to you, will indicate you do not find it relevant. Â I am asking you, not someone else, not a journal or group of other scientists. You are the only one who can tell me what your standards are. Â So in order to make it crystal clear your position on acceptable peers, for you, all you need to do is answer. Will you, J_b, accept peer reviews as impartial even if you don't agree with their stances? It's a very simple question. Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 On SUV's and safety, we come right back to personal values and choices, personal assumption of risk and the value of assuming said risk to any particular person. Â Wether or not someone is aware of a high rollover rate in no way tells us what the "correct" choice for them will be. People choose to assume risk for their own reasons all the time. Wether or not their values for risk tolerance in rollovers are yours has nothing to do with their right to assume such risks as they are comfortable with. I am well aware my rig has a higher rollover risk, and yet I choose that risk because I value what i can haul in what conditions to what sites, more than I fear the risk. Â People choose their risk factor when they buy *any* car. They choose their risk factor when they choose how to travel, car vs plane vs train, or when to drive, at rush hour, late at night, and on what kind of road. A choice to buy a conventional car of smaller size is in itself often an assumption of greater risk due to collision than an equally designed larger one. Â Some people choose anti lock brakes, some do not. Some choose small cars, some choose medium, some choose large. Even the choice of manufacturer plays a role in what risks you will assume. Â The attempt to micromanage everyone *elses* risk factors because of *your* risk tolerance is precisely the kind of imposition of your values over others, I comment on here constantly. Â It seems many are so concerned about someone elses "effect" on society as a justification, that they then want to legislate their *own* effect , ignoring the effect they complain about is not a compulsory one, while theirs shall be. No one threatens them with jail or state coercion for choosing their risks as they see fit, and yet they are comfortable with threatening others to make choices with respect to risk as they see it. Quote
Rainierwon Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Dude I smoked a bowl, read this thread (took along time) , and MtnGonad what the fuck are you saying above ?? -J Quote
catbirdseat Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Everyone should read J_B's article on SUVs. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14839 I thought it was interesting. I have noted myself that many SUV drivers are assholes. This confirms it scientifically. However the biggest assholes of all are BMW drivers. Â Â Quote
RobBob Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 I like this thread! We need to also start a new thread today about either 1) global warming or 2) Israel and Palestine. On one subject I totally support Goat (and j_b's full of it), and on the other the roles are reversed. Â Speaking of being full of it, that SUV article that catbird linked is a bunch of bull. David Bostwick, Chrysler's market research director, tells Bradsher, "If you have a sport utility, you can have the smoked windows, put the children in the back and pretend you're still single." People who want to pretend they're single buy sportscars. I drive an old suburban because I want the room for my crap, and because I want to increase the odds of surviving a head-on with a logging truck. Â The price of gasoline, relative to the other products we buy, will take care of what people drive. Expecting something other than market forces to change what people drive is silly. Quote
mattp Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 Good morning campers. Â The "liberal" New York times has, as it's first headline displayed on the front page of the electronic edition the following: Â "Democrats Who Backed Tax Cut in '01 Balk Now." Â This headline appears under "business" news and is repeated again in the "Washington" section, a few lines down. Out of 25 headlines displayed, it appears twice. Â The headline most critical of the republican party or the Bush administration is the following: Â "Biowarfare: Military Says It Can't Make Enough Vaccines for Troops" Â This headline, too, is repeated twice. Â The following each appear once: Â "McCain and Lieberman Offer Bill to Require Cuts in Gases" Â "Bush Signs Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits" Â 'Just thought you'd want to know what our liberal press is forcing upon us today. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 morning matt, have a cup a joe, you'll feel better Quote
RobBob Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 "Democrats Who Backed Tax Cut in '01 Balk Now." Â mattp, do you believe that this headline is anything other than a straightforward statement of fact? It doesn't appear to connote support for either party to me. Quote
catbirdseat Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 That article definately had an agenda. An opinion piece really. I think that climbers have legitimate reasons to own an SUV. They need the ground clearance for the shitty roads, 4-wheel drive for snow, room to carry a lot of people and gear. Hell, I've got a 4x4 pickup myself. But, the majority of people who own them are just wanna be posers. They want to LOOK outdoorsy, without actually having to be outdoors. I'd bet 99% of the SUV's have never been driven off pavement. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.