iain Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I agree with catshit. Trucks and SUV's are cat's ass for PNW climbers. Screw the gas mileage and the enviro-wackos. When you just have to get there, get a Hummer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 If yr SUV ain't got skid plates on the sensitive bits underneath... then you probably aren't really takin' it off-road anyhoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 lift kits and knobbies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 In response to  Poster: MtnGoat Subject: Re: Free Press  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.   MG, that's bullshit and you know it. The SUV controversy isn't simply about what's dangerous to the owner of one; it's also about the effect they have on the rest of society. It's illegal for me to go dump DDT into Lake Washington, and for damn good reason: It will adversely affect the welfare of OTHERS. The same argument applies to the use of SUVs. Come out of your idealised dream-world. There are people out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 Sexy- I agree with you 100% but DDT is a poor example to use in converssing with someone like Mr. Goat who seems not to care much about the environment. I used to have a chemistry professor who, to prove a point, would actually eat the stuff in front of the class to demonstrate that things aren't as simple as they might seem. DDT was used so widely because it was thought harmless after it was shown not to hurt humans. It had not, however, been tested for its effects on birds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 DDT is actually a very good mosquito killer and is still used widely in Africa and other countries not so hung up on "the right thing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Good one, trask. Stick to your sex jokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 (edited) "MG, that's bullshit and you know it." Â I think your statement is bullshit. You don't comment on the fact we each choose risk all the time, you don't attack people buying larger regular cars than smaller ones, you don't comment that anyone who wishes to value safety from other vehicles can likewise make other decisions in what they purchase. You do try to tell me what I know, which you can't know in the first place. Part and parcel of valuing other people so, so much you are ready to fix their lives for them, wether they like it or not. But that's not selfish, right, because you care. Â "The SUV controversy isn't simply about what's dangerous to the owner of one; it's also about the effect they have on the rest of society." Â I see. So when you intend to have an effect and do so by threatening people, your effect is OK, when others have an effect and those around them are free to chose how to deal with that effect merely by choosing different vehicles, boy, that's unacceptable. Â Your effect is OK for your selfish reasons, someone elses for theirs is just way out there because you don't like it, so you want to coerce them. Â "The same argument applies to the use of SUVs." Â Of course it does. It applies to so much you probably justify nearly every situation where you intend to coerce someone else with it. It's the all purpose conscience scrubber for making decisions for other people and then imposing them at gunpoint, while you feel caring. You decide your caring trumps their values, and then proceed to justify forcing them to live to your standards. Â "Come out of your idealised dream-world. There are people out here." Â You mean the one where *your* effects and coercion are OK. There are people everywhere. Do you intend to require all cars to be the same size? How far will you go to remove risk to your satisfaction, in the name of your values, in someone elses name you don't even value enought to permit them to choose their effects, while you intend to make *yours* mandatory? Edited January 9, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 You live in a strange world, my friend. How's that for an objective analysis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 (edited) I can't figure out why you think you know so much about why other people choose what they choose, when you can't possibly do so without unavoidably injecting yourself and your own values into any evaluation of what they do. Then you figure *they're* selfish, en masse, when you don't know them, or their reasons, really, other than your own interpretation. Â You're concerned about their "effect", but then turn around and then decide your "effect" is OK. I cannot understand such an overeaching desire to determine others lives for them, especially when you have to threaten them to get it done. What is so darned hard about allowing others to decide what they value? Edited January 9, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Do you have a head-ache? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 only when trying to get j_b to answer simple, direct questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I can't figure out why you think you know so much about why other people choose what they choose, when you can't possibly do so without unavoidably injecting yourself and your own values into any evaluation of what they do. Â I'm not saying I know why they choose what they choose, nor am I saying I care. SUVs are generally a problem vehicle. If a case can be made about the damage caused by something in particular, then efforts can be made to correct the problem. Democracy in action, my friend. Â You're concerned about their "effect", but then turn around and then decide your "effect" is OK." Â If I can objectively see that my effect brings about increased safety for myself and others, while the effect of the other is the opposite, then those are effects I can live with, my friend. Â What is so darned hard about allowing others to decide what they value? Â Nothing. But if what they value is a danger to others, it can collectively be agreed that the rights of the group outweigh the right of said individual. Democracy in action, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 "I'm not saying I know why they choose what they choose, nor am I saying I care. " Â So now you not only make a case for your coercion on their behalf, you don't even care why they choose what they choose? How can you be so sure their reasons are bad if you can neither know what they are, nor care why they made them? This doesn't sound like a selfish position to you? Â "SUVs are generally a problem vehicle." Â They are? Why would people buy problems? Â "If a case can be made about the damage caused by something in particular, then efforts can be made to correct the problem. Democracy in action, my friend." Â When one equates democracy with threatening ones neighbors with jail because one doesn't like their peaceful choices, while calling them selfish as you threaten them, I guess you're right about that. Â "If I can objectively see that my effect brings about increased safety for myself and others, while the effect of the other is the opposite, then those are effects I can live with, my friend." Â So now safety is your value, that others must live by because you value it? When did your notion of safety become more important than their values, and you so confident of your judgement you'll threaten other people to get your way on something like a vehicle? Â "But if what they value is a danger to others, it can collectively be agreed that the rights of the group outweigh the right of said individual. Democracy in action, my friend." Â Tyranny in action, is the outcome. There is no limit to what you can justify in the name of limiting danger. Â If others had no recourse and were forced by the individuals you don't like to take risks, I'd agree with you, but they have recourse. Everyone has a choice of what to drive, where to drive it, when to drive it, what options to get, and all the rest. Rather than respecting peoples rights to choose and try and convince them to do what you want because they agree with you, you prefer the handy shortcut of threats. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Ah yes, the old "stay off the streets if you think they are not safe" stratagem. So whose rights are being trampled? Hmmm.... Â Let's just say I think you're a crackpot, ok? Just kiddin'!(?) Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 (edited) Who said anything about staying off the streets? One option is to choose a vehicle built with cage protection. Even cheap ass Saturns use it. It's become a common design these days. Â Rights being trampled? When did forcing someone else to choose a car *you* approve of, become a right? Â If I'm a crackpot because I refuse to threaten my neighbors and car manufacturers, simply because I don't like what they like or build, what does that make you? Somethings pretty sideways when proudly proclaiming you'll threaten others over their peaceful choices, in the name of your morals makes you "normal". Edited January 9, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Who said anything about staying off the streets? One option is to choose a vehicle built with cage protection. Â Â Did you know it's illegal to use a tank, even if it's been disarmed, as a personal vehicle? That sucks, man. What is this country coming to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 So in other words, you think tank driving should be illegal? Hey, if I got the money, and it fits on the road, I should be allowed to drive the damn thing. Anything else would be unamerican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Hey SC, Â You dismissed trask's statement about DDT being a good mosquito killer as a joke, but it's true. And I remember reading a year or two ago that some scientists were saying that the increasing rates of malaria in the 3rd world could be reduced significantly and safely, if DDT were carefully applied in very small amounts in and around living quarters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Hahahahahaha! Â So, you think it's wrong for people to be coerced into not buying an SUV, which makes other people feel unsafe. So, your suggestion to those people is to buy a car that they would not otherwise buy so that other people can drive their SUV's and not smash people? So you're fine with just passing the coersion buck down the line, is that correct? Â Much hilarity ensues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 What would the impact of its use be on that particular environment? I'm not really familiar with DDT, beyond its effects on bird eggs, and the resultant near extinction of certain bird species. I'm not familiar with the rising malaria occurences globally either, and what effect this is having, but I'd have to say that with DDT's known harmful side-effects, it'd have to be way low on the list, as far as being an answer. (?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I'm still waiting to hear if I can drive my goddamn tank to work tomorrow. It's been disarmed. Â Mtgoat, let me know, ASAP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Hey, no one's forcing the others to buy a safer car, so they can make it to work alive. It's a choice, see? And that's the difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.