babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Large vehicles and other personal choices

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Large vehicles and other personal choices
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Inspired by the thread drift in the Michael Coren/ gay marriage thread, and also by several past threads expounding on the kewlness of vandalizing SUVs In The Name Of All That Is Right, I get to wondering about other personal choices, all of them legal, but all of them with some cost to society. What makes (or doesn't make) them personal, private choices, and what should a concerned citizen do about them? Examples:

1. The unmarried woman down the hall hasn't had a job in several years, though judging by the party noises coming from her unit, she's managing quite well on social assistance. She's already got 3 kids by various dads, and now she's expecting a 4th! Clearly the taxpayer will be paying to raise this one too.

Question: should we be covering her door in stickers that read "I'm abusing the system: ask me how!"?

2. Walking past a burger joint I see a hugely obese man eating two double burgers with a super-size side of onion rings. Although breathing is all but too difficult for him, his massive arms are shovelling fries and greasy meat into his mouth at a frightening rate.

Question: should we slap a sticker on his obese ass that reads "I'm draining the health care coffers - ask me how!"?

3. At the local shopping centre I see 2 parents and 2 kids climb into their Toyota. The instant they're seated, mom and dad both reach for a pack of smokes and light up. Now the two kids are swimming in blue smoke. You can bet the parents smoke at home, too.

Question: why hasn't anyone slapped them with a sticker that reads "I'm killing my own children because I'm selfish - ask me how!"?

4. Sitting on a park bench I notice a young mother who looks like she can't be more than 17. Her baby is crying, and to shut it up she's feeding the baby Coca-Cola. She can afford a cellphone apparently, and a head to toe Adidas track ensemble... why can't she afford to give her child something nutritious?

Question: should her sticker read "I'm giving my child Diabetes: ask me how!", or "I really don't give a crap about my baby: ask me why!", or what?

Now please note, all of these scenarios are going to cost society something in the long run, and as long as I point that out, you can't accuse me of making any moralistic judgements (nope!), and it's irrelevant that there are worse things in the world, because there are also worse things than driving a Ford Explorer.

So, given that, what should we do about all of these things? Let them remain private decisions, which we don't have to like, but don't have a right or obligation to interfere in? Or should we fire up the Sticker Maker on our computer and start printing up a little Truth© for these people?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 September 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm creating a strawman, ask me how!
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 04 September 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One picks one's battles depending on a number of factors.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 02:32 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sarcasmobri: I'm asking why some choices are sacrosanct and others are open to vandalism. If you have an answer, let's hear it. If not, feel free and slink sheepishly to the back.

Mandos: what "factors"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 04 September 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Political and institutional arrangements represented thereby.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 04 September 2003 02:36 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While observing an anti-G8 protest, I see a number of protestors smash the local McDonalds and Starbucks windows and wreck a parked BMW.

Question: should we be covering the protestors in stichkers that read "I'm increasing the cost of your auto insurance. Ask me how!"


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 02:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Political and institutional arrangements represented thereby.

Okay, suppose my wife and I have 2 kids. Our son plays hockey, our daughter plays soccer, and we we live in Agincourt. We had a Honda civic that we bought when the kids were babies, but we find now that we don't have enough room for groceries, hockey equipment, the family plus the dog, camping gear, etc., so we bought an SUV.

What political and institutional arrangements have been represented, and how do they (in the words of another babbler) "pick your pocket or break your leg"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 04 September 2003 02:44 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Okay, suppose my wife and I have 2 kids. Our son plays hockey, our daughter plays soccer, and we we live in Agincourt. We had a Honda civic that we bought when the kids were babies, but we find now that we don't have enough room for groceries, hockey equipment, the family plus the dog, camping gear, etc., so we bought an SUV.


It is amazing how our parents functioned with only the family sedan.

Okay I fondly remember the family vacations, six of us with supplies crammed into a Studebaker.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 04 September 2003 02:48 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Minivans are somewhat better than SUVs, at least in the cultural dimension (dunno about the rest). Don't they hold all the stuff?

However, I do realize the life these days is arranged around cars, unfortunately. Some forgiveness stems therefrom, but I am still reminded of the (was it SNL?) skit about the SUV owner who only had one small child...


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 September 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My take: Magoo is trying to argue that people who sticker SUVs should consider stickering other people who make bad choices. That tactic is used to make the stickerees feel bad about themselves for targetting the poor, woeful, ignorant, slightly misbegotten, SUV driver by associating them with other groups we may feel sympathy towards, rather than anger or befuddlement. The tactic fails, however, because the sticker-worthiness of the other examples has no bearing on whether SUV owners are worthy of stickering, and vice versa. Ergo, strawman (or maybe red herring? I'm never sure about the distinction).

Disclaimer: I've never stickered an SUV, a welfare recipient, or a single mom, and probably never will. Despite this lack of action, I continue to consider the person that drives an H2 to the office everyday as obnoxious.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 04 September 2003 02:57 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If SUVs were held to the same mileage and emission standards as cars there would be less of a problem. Because of the farm lobby in the US, trucks are held to less stringent standards.

We recently bought a SUV. My wife informs me it gets the same mileage as the equivalent van.

I do penance for it by walking and cycling to work.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 03:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Magoo is trying to argue that people who sticker SUVs should consider stickering other people who make bad choices.

I can't imagine for the life of me that anyone would ever consider stickering anyone in the examples I gave. That's why I'm curious what the real difference is between them, and someone who drives an SUV, and specifially the difference that makes sticker an SUV okay in some people's mind.

I think that the whole "let's vandalize some SUVs" movement is an example of (some of) the left being as bad as the right in terms of being moralistic and dishonest. The sticker brigade is going to point to the slightly higher emissions from an SUV as being their motivation, but I believe it's really more of an emotional reaction to a middle class, "bourgeois" consumer, and/or the concept of anyone buying anything that the sticker brigade couldn't afford or doesn't really want in the first place.

quote:
I continue to consider the person that drives an H2 to the office everyday as obnoxious.

I'm deliberately not trying to influence people's personal opinions (although I am curious as to their origins). Your thoughts are your own. But for some, those thoughts have given way to vandalism (at the low end) or arson (at the higher end), and at that point what started as a personal opinion about someone else's choice has crossed the line, often with the tacit approval of people who've never really given much thought to why they feel that strongly about a vehicle.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 04 September 2003 03:12 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My guess is that SUVs are a very visible representation of all the excessive consumption perpetrated by people of the upper middle and upper classes at the expense of the whole population of the earth. They're a big hulking effigy of arrogance and self-righteous, selfish, careless greed.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 04 September 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Okay, suppose my wife and I have 2 kids. Our son plays hockey, our daughter plays soccer, and we we live in Agincourt. We had a Honda civic that we bought when the kids were babies, but we find now that we don't have enough room for groceries, hockey equipment, the family plus the dog, camping gear, etc., so we bought an SUV.

To add to Mandos' response:

quote:
Minivans are somewhat better than SUVs, at least in the cultural dimension (dunno about the rest). Don't they hold all the stuff?

We actually looked at a number of vehicles, and found that, while SUVs look big on the outside, they are designed in such a way that there is very little usable cargo space. If one is interested in utility, ie: transporting sports gear, family dog, groceries, etc, you are much better off with a minivan. Most minivans have the added bonus of being better on gas than most SUVs.

quote:
We recently bought a SUV. My wife informs me it gets the same mileage as the equivalent van.

The question is, how do you evaluate equivalency? Motor size? Cargo capacity? Seating?

If you equate a full-size van to an SUV, I agree, the mileage, in a general sense, is similar, as is engine size. However, if you look at it from a utilitarian point of view in terms of cargo space or seating, the SUV doesn't measure up to a full-sized van (we had one that seated 8, most SUVs don't do better than 6 or 7). You would then have to equate it with a minivan, and very few SUVs have equal or better gas mileage than a minivan.

I have noticed a few SUV-looking vehicles out recently that have smaller engines and better gas mileage. I have friends that purchased one. I think they're poorly designed vehicles, but as long as they aren't pumping excess junk into the air, whatever.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 04 September 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't care WHAT you drive; I'm more concerned HOW you drive. If someone wants to drive A SUV, that's OK by me. Me, I drive a full-size pickup and I like it, except when I have to take it into a congested area. My next vehicle will probably be a station wagon of some description (a type of vehicle that is again becoming popular after a few years of being 'unfashionable')

The SUV craze seems to have peaked now anyway, people, so be patient. It's only a matter of time before you will start to see fewer of them on the road.

From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
LocoMoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4120

posted 04 September 2003 04:41 PM      Profile for LocoMoto        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's only a matter of time before you will start to see fewer of them on the road

I wish. All those older used Expeditions, Yukons, etc. will be the preferred "first car" for 16-20 year old guys with more horsepower than sense. Be very afraid.

From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 04 September 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I fully support those who destroy SUVs. It's them or us.

What really pisses people off about SUVs is that they are absolutely unnecessary. We don't have dirt trails through town. The roads are plowed in winter, and when they aren't, well, there was nothing my little honda civic couldn't go through, including mountain blizzards.

On top of that is the degraded humanity displayed by SUV owners; the callous disregard for the safety of other motorists, the childish desire for attention, and the complete don't-give-a-shit attitude towards the natural world. For all those parents who justify their excess because of their children, they don't seem to care much what kind of a world they'll leave for them.

If you "need" space for your excessive cargo, get a minivan.
If you "need" safety, get a minivan.
If you "need" the ego boost, get viagra.

Now, if burning up a few of these beasts prevents them from hitting the road, oh well. Or maybe if more SUVs found themselves damaged in parking lots, or catching on fire for no reason at all, causing insurance companies to boost rates and become unwilling to insure them, then they'll die a "natural" death.

You can't appeal to an SUV owners sense of humanity, community, shame, or compassion since, by purchasing one in the first place demonstrates a lack of any of these qualities. You hit them in a place that they most care about: the wallet.

Okay, okay, I can't tar all owners with the same rhetorical brush. Maybe there are some caring, compassionate, gosh-darn nice people with these monsters.
But why?
Are they not smart enough to see through the advertising?
Are they not informed enough to see how unsafe and destructive these things are?
Do they not care that they are paying a premium price for ancient technology, around a 70%+ profit margin for auto makers?
Do they not care that by buying an SUV, they help the automakers avoid the necessary jump to clean technologies?
Do the violent wars and repression in oil producing countries twig their conscience when they fill up?
Do the images of oil-soaked sea birds from the Exxon Valdez pop up in their heads?

No one with any measure of conscience could support these things.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 04 September 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I swear Jingles, I like you more and more everyday.

From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 04 September 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I sympathise with your general view, Jingles, but...

One could argue that all cars are the problem, and then go about trashing your Honda Civic. After all, it's only a matter of degree. Your small car still uses fuel, pollutes, risks being in fatal traffic accidents, and ends up in the junkyard. The small car's gas still comes via big tankers, sometimes from such places as Iraq or Nigeria.

This may be more true of the SUV than of the small car, but it still applies. So would it be OK if somebody vandalized your car for that reason? I think not.

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hehe. You can't reason with "them", huh? "They" have no sense of community, humanity, shame or compassion, you say? "They" display a degraded humanity and show a "callous" disregard for the safety of others? Well then, I guess it is us or them! And it turns out they're monsters! Every one of them!

Well, it was on the Coren thread that the possibility of bigotry towards SUV drivers was brought up. Could you be a lamb and cross-post this little conjectural screed there too? Thanks!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 04 September 2003 05:25 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The difference is that SUV owners make a choice to buy the god awful hulking beasts, and gays and lesbians are people who don't get to choose who they love.

Making a stupid choice, when the ramifications of that choice are abundantly clear is worthy of some ire.

Simply being what you are and wanting to be able to express it as fully as anyone else does is not stupid, nor is it ire-worthy.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 04 September 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Guys, i'm a little shocked that anyone is saying its ok to valdalize ANYTHING, or break the law because you DON'T LIKE what someone else has done! Nothing gives you that right. Imagine that EVERYONE did that.

What if people who don't believe cats should be allowed outside started killing them in protest? What if people who thought the homeless are 'just lazy' started pitching eggs at them regularly. What if people who were anti-unionist started to slash tires of every union worker who picketed?

We have laws for a very good reason! It's abbhorent that you would try to change someone's attitude by willfully destroying their property. I can understand civil disobediance which breaks the law - it's understood that this is an accepted way to get arrested and get your case before a judge for a ruling to contest a law (or lack of law) that you don't believe in. But to target an individual, valdalize their property and run away and hide - That makes you a common criminal. There's no way anyone can justify that. Unless they don't mind the cat killers and the tire slashers takeing the same attitude in their neighbourhood.

If some company is breaking the law - you report it. If you don't like suv's, save up your money and take out ads that show the owners are irresposible. But for gosh sakes, don't break the law or ruin someone's property!

Try this sticker - "I'm a common criminal and I'm going to Jail. Ask me how."


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 04 September 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not a man that's quick to anger BUT if I caught some son-of-a bitch tampering with my ride, I would teach them some respect for property by stomping a god-damned mudhole in their ass and then walking it dry!

Peace.

Try this sticker: I f***ed with Brutus' ride and now I'm in the hospital. Ask me how!

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: mighty brutus ]


From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 05:38 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Making a stupid choice, when the ramifications of that choice are abundantly clear is worthy of some ire.

I gave hypothetical examples of some other stupid choices at the start of this thread. Where's the ire for them? Why only SUV's? And at what point does "ire" become vandalism or arson?

(For the record: I support same sex marriages 110%, and I don't expect people to "like" SUVs, just to respect the fact that the owner of one has made a choice that's no more of your business than what they choose to eat, how many children they have, how they raise those children, whether or not they go to church, etc.)


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 September 2003 05:42 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Guys, i'm a little shocked that anyone is saying its ok to valdalize ANYTHING, or break the law because you DON'T LIKE what someone else has done! Nothing gives you that right. Imagine that EVERYONE did that.

Ahem.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
scrabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2883

posted 04 September 2003 05:48 PM      Profile for scrabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five...

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey!!

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!
Woah Canyonero!
Woah!



From: dappled shade in the forest | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
zaphod
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4261

posted 04 September 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for zaphod     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good post Foxer. What we are dealing with are people who think they know what is right(for everyone else) and that they are above the law. Like that guy who killed the abortion doctor.
From: toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If torching an SUV dealership is somehow "civil disobedience" and is therefore sacrosanct, then so would be setting fire to a Mosque. Or a temple. Or a family planning centre. Or for that matter, your neighbour's house. The act is identical - the only difference is in the opinion of the arsonist.

You think that's what Thoreau meant? You think he was giving permission to ndividual citizens to target other individual citizens because of their legal choices??


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 04 September 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ronb -

Interesting article. Although, I think if i were to engage in an 'action of protest' my first would be to rip that guy's #$^*^$ comma button off of his keyboard..

I might even agree with the writer to a degree. I think it is better to have less gov't and have citizens play a more active role in setting the standards for their community. Certanly those who espouse concealed carry weapons for citizens would agree with the writer. But we still have to have a set of rules we all agree to play by.

There are some very important points that this document completely ignores - 1) if we all take it upon ourselves to act in a moral fashion and to do away with common law, and take others to task for our beliefs, you have to be prepared to accept that some people will not believe as you do and may take action against you. Where does that leave you.

and 2) - he's talking about how the gov't controls our lives. He also suggests that revolution against an unjust gov't is a right (which it kind of is in america - hence the right to bear arms). But that is not the same as attacking an individual citizen for conducting themselves in a legal fashion. The two have no relation whatsoever. What you are talking about is the same as in america when they began lynching people because they support the british. Or because they didn't believe blacks were men.

No, i'm sorry. One cannot act the coward, throw stones from behind bushes and run away, and hide behind some higher moral if they get caught.

Right now, every province except 2 (i think) has refused to enforce this immoral gun registry law out of protest for the gross unfairness of it. However, they came right out and said it. The people who disagree with it have stood on the steps of the gov't buildings in every province and said 'arrest me! I'm right here!'.

The protesters who blockade a forest and face the police are right there, and are prepared to stand in front of a judge and be heard so that they can challenge the rules themselves (and to pay the price for their convictions if need be).

Even these are weighty actions, taken only in the extreme of a sense of deep wrong that needs addressing right this instant. To actually take up arms or commit vadalizm against your fellow citizen (or the gov't) should be the blackest of decisions, taken only in the most extreme cases imaginable. Not because some twit is getting 10km per gallon less than you'd like him to.

Do you remember that simpsons episode, where homer starts slapping people with a glove because he learned how easy it is. Until someone took him up on that and decided to play that game too?

If i caught my own flesh and blood attacking a citizen because of 'belief' i would personally drag his/her sorry criminal ass down to the police and lay the evidence before the crown myself in the morning.

The only thing more disgusting than a common criminal and brigand is one who attempts to hide behind the facade of a 'cause' to justify their corrupt and contemptable behaviour when they're caught. Breaking the law deliberately and taking physical action against others or their property is such an extreme that it's difficult to imagine we would ever get there.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 September 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Okay, suppose my wife and I have 2 kids. Our son plays hockey, our daughter plays soccer, and we we live in Agincourt. We had a Honda civic that we bought when the kids were babies, but we find now that we don't have enough room for groceries, hockey equipment, the family plus the dog, camping gear, etc., so we bought an SUV.

What political and institutional arrangements have been represented, and how do they (in the words of another babbler) "pick your pocket or break your leg"?


Well, it breaks my leg if you zoom over me with that SUV.

Seriously though, as someone else alluded to and which I will suggest is, why not just buy a big ol' Mercury Grand Marquis or a Ford LTD Crown Victoria? You could shove three coffins in the friggin' trunk and have enough room left over to dump in a shovel and pickaxe and probably even a backhoe. (Well, Ok, I'm kidding about the backhoe...)

The point is that there are plenty of fine used large 1980s-era vehicles that have been decently maintained, do not need to go to the scrap heap, and will be perfectly serviceable as vehicles that can take junior's hockey stuff, groceries, doggie cage, and camping gear.

The advantage is that they're less unwieldy than SUVs, and they're lower-profile, so you're closer to the road and this is an advantage when trying to get in and get out. When I was a kid my dad's Suburban was a bit of a challenge to get into and out of. By contrast my mom's Toyota Corolla was a piece of cake.

I concur with Lima Bean's assessment that SUVs simply represent the grossest and most visible example of excessive consumption that is out of line with a rational assessment of personal requirements.

Hell, even my former boss traded in his (useless) Yukon Denali for a pickup truck.

And as for my own Crown Vic, I drive the thing about once in a blue moon. I'm fully aware of the impact my choice has and I take steps to minimize my use of the vehicle in favor of transit. *waves U-pass*

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 September 2003 07:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
excessive consumption that is out of line with a rational assessment of personal requirements.

So are:

- any wristwatch that cost more than $30.
- for that matter, any jewelry whasoever.
- a bicycle that cost more than $100.
- anything made of Gore-Tex (unless you're a professional mountain climber).
- any sunglasses worth more than $15.
- any sneakers that cost you more than $100(unless you're a professional athlete).
- etc.

Anyone have any of these items?? Care to tell us why you're so out of line with a rational assessment of personal requirements, and what we should do to you to show you the One True Way?

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 September 2003 07:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
So are:

- any wristwatch that cost more than $30.


No got.

quote:
- for that matter, any jewelry whasoever.

No got.

quote:
- a bicycle that cost more than $100.

Cost me $20.

quote:
- anything made of Gore-Tex (unless you're a professional mountain climber).

No got.

quote:
- any sunglasses worth more than $15.

Don't wear any and don't have any.

quote:
- any sneakers that cost you more than $100(unless you're a professional athlete).

$20!

I think I'm pretty far on the safe side of your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite.

If you doubt any of my statements that indicate that I lack those possessions or that the dollar amount of my possessions falls below your threshold you are invited to question sherpafish or Jacob Two-Two, both of who have been over at my place and know me personally.

However, the above are pretty small potatoes compared to the waste inherent in buying a single-occupancy SUV in terms of gasoline, plastic, metal and so on.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 September 2003 08:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see Mr. Magoo's point, and I don't think he was creating a strawman. It's true that other bad choices don't make the choice of buying an SUV any better. I don't think it's a good analogy to same sex marriage since SUVs harm others, whereas same sex marriage only concerns the people getting married. But feeding infants Coke harms others. Exposing children to second-hand smoke harms others.

I've always gotten a kick out of those stickers for SUVs, frankly. But when I think about it, I have to concede Mr. Magoo's point. There are all sorts of stupid decisions that people make every day, and lifestyle habits that are destructive to society and to ourselves.

Unless we're willing to let our opponents stick labels on us for our own peccadilloes (or for those of people we sympathize with if we honestly feel we don't have any ourselves), then Mr. Magoo has a point about inconsistency.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 September 2003 09:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ronb: One is speechless (because one is snorting sauvignon blanc at the moment -- ooh, that stings!).

See why I wanted him back? See see see???


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
scrabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2883

posted 05 September 2003 12:18 AM      Profile for scrabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lookit, you big dork(®Foxer), you've made skdadl fall down in a giggly fit!
quote:
Why don't you learn to think before you open your mouth and display your own stupidity for the world to see.

Foxer liebling - don't you hate it when your own advice comes back to bite you in the @$$? And so soon?

From: dappled shade in the forest | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 September 2003 05:03 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno.

I think we're becoming a nation of busy bodies, and I think the left should distance itself from this kind of nonesense, and takle problems systemically instead of playing the part of sanctimonious nosey person who believes thier own shit don't stink.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 05 September 2003 05:59 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lookit, you big dork(®Foxer), you've made skdadl fall down in a giggly fit!

Good lord.

Well - if i'm getting blamed for that i at least want 'special consideration' cause of the wine...


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 05 September 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to admit that Magoo is asking some very interesting and pointed questions. Why are some personal choices open to vandalism and public contempt, and some are not? Because ideological positions allow that some personal choices are sacrosanct and some are a viable moral target. Oh, the sheer hypocrisy it all.

Anyway, I most definitely do not support the humiliating or destructive targeting of individuals for their personal choices. It's none of my business how stupid or glutonous or arrogant those choices are. I'll happily target the corporatate or political entities who who preach stupidity, gluttony and arrogance as the preferred lifestyle, I will share my opinions on how stupid, arrogant, etc., I believe an individual's choices may be, but I won't target the individual or their property. Even if I thought for a moment that it was right to judge and punish individuals for their shallow consumer choices, I sure as hell wouldn't use it as a tactic for social change. It always backfires.

Hi, I work for PETA and am reviled by most of the Left and anyone else who might have supported my cause. Ask me why."


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Foxer, it's not fair that I didn't tell you why I was giggling -- I thought of doing that as I trundled off to sleep, but, well, you know sleep.

Henry David Thoreau, 1817-62.

You were of course right to note that Thoreau's style is markedly not modern -- which is maybe why I'm surprised you didn't wonder about who he might be rather than condescend to him as a writer.

Ah, well -- we could all do with a little more humility, couldn't we.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 05 September 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- any sneakers that cost you more than $100(unless you're a professional athlete).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$20!

I think I'm pretty far on the safe side of your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite.


Say Doc, what country were those $20 sneakers made in? Because you seem awfully proud to be wearing the product of slave labour.

As for me, I wear a $80 Swatch wristwatch. Swiss made. Explotation free. Sure, it costs a little more but some of us are willing to pay a little extra to make the ethical choices


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
scrabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2883

posted 05 September 2003 01:44 PM      Profile for scrabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't believe that we are really being asked to weigh the merits of four poor-bashing pseudo-'arguments' vs vandalising SUVs.
From: dappled shade in the forest | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 05 September 2003 01:47 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

Say Doc, what country were those $20 sneakers made in? Because you seem awfully proud to be wearing the product of slave labour.

As for me, I wear a $80 Swatch wristwatch. Swiss made. Explotation free. Sure, it costs a little more but some of us are willing to pay a little extra to make the ethical choices


Is it ethical to confine your purchases to exploitation free countries? I think an argument can be made that boycotting items manufactured by the poorest countries because of the treatment of the workers without a strategy is the unethical choice. I know the campaigners against the child slave labour in the chocolate plantations specifically asked people not to boycott chocolate as this would only exasperate the misery.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 September 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think I'm pretty far on the safe side of your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite.

I wasn't trying to paint you, personally, as a hypocrite. But as long as you were mentioning excessive consumption that's out of line with one's needs, I thought I'd ask anyone who cared to answer whether or not they might be allowing themselves a little of this excess consumption.

We seem to regard some things as "offensive" in their opulence: fur coats, for example. Then we forgive other, similar indulgences unthinkingly: a diamond ring, for example.

Nominally, at least, a fur coat will keep you very warm. What's a ring do for anyone, besides display wealth? Given the many labour abuses in the gold mining and the diamond mining industry, why aren't jewelry wearers chastised the same way a fur coat owner could expect to be? Or a Ford Explorer owner?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 September 2003 02:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can't believe that we are really being asked to weigh the merits of four poor-bashing pseudo-'arguments' vs vandalising SUVs.

You're being asked to weigh your own consistency. Is it all about "rich vs. poor" for you? Is that why you see merit in vandalizing someone's vehicle if they're "rich", but leaving "poor" people alone in their choices... even choices that harm their children??

Y'know, if the whole anti-SUV thing boils down to a resentment or hatred of the middle classes and (one of) their excesses, you can come right out and say so.

Otherwise, tell me why you think that some people's legal choices are your business, and require your intervention, while other legal choices aren't, and don't. (Please ensure that your answer isn't "rich bashing".)


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 05 September 2003 02:31 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You were of course right to note that Thoreau's style is markedly not modern -- which is maybe why I'm surprised you didn't wonder about who he might be rather than condescend to him as a writer.

HA HAA! - you know, when it opened in my browser I didn't see the title or author. I'm not that familar with his works (other than to have heard reference to them). When i got to the bottom it said 'typed by...' and I do remember thinking "who the hell signs their work 'typed by'?"

I'd also just come off 6 straight hours of researching technical documents and studies on a series of cisco switch/routers, so any writing seems a little weird

I thought it was thoughtfull and interesting, but written by someone with limited formal writing training who perhaps had had a few too many during certain parts hehehe

Naturally i therefore assumed it was the work of a first year arts student and left it at that.

But i'll take my lumps - teach me to read a little more closely in the future. However, you should probably stop drinking wine while reading my posts, at least till your nasal passages recover. Just in case.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 05 September 2003 02:54 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Poor-bashing"? Give me a break. Criticizing a 17 year old mother for feeding her baby a can of coke is poor-bashing? We're supposed to think "oh, she's poor. She doesn't know any better" The guy stuffing his face with two supersized meals at McDonalds? "he's poor. He's not smart enough to resist their advertising. He needs the help of enlightened people like us, not our criticism, because he's too poor and stupid to know any better."

Nice attitude. Very respectful of the poor.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 05 September 2003 03:01 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We seem to regard some things as "offensive" in their opulence: fur coats, for example. Then we forgive other, similar indulgences unthinkingly: a diamond ring, for example.


In all fairness, I think that the "left" (whatever that may be), and people on babble in particular, have been very consistent in their opposition to gross material acquisition, whether it's an SUV or a diamond ring.

Especially in the case of diamonds, it's been leftist groups who have really pushed to get this issues surrounding diamond production and the misery it brings along with it, onto the radar screens and into the minds of the general public. You can find quite a few thread on babble on the subject of diamonds and jewelry.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 05 September 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cars have become a major indicator of personal value. "What do you think about the new guy?", "All I know is that he drives a 20 year old Ford, so you gotta wonder". SUV's are almost exclusively very expensive so owning an SUV is an indicator that you have money. That a lot of the features of SUV's are extraneous to the needs of most users makes them even more demonstrative of the wealth of the owners (Thorstein's Veblen's 'conspicous consumption').

I think as long as we have a market based system we will have the excesses. I say luxury taxes, insurance by weight, gas taxes are the way to go instead of vandalism. Owning one of these vehicles is like as sign saying I have money to spare Mr. Taxman.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, worker_drone. Magoo, just do a babble-search on blood diamonds.

And thank you, Foxer. That was very graceful.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not quite sure that I get the point that the defenders of SUV owners are making here. (You are making a point, yes?)

Are you suggesting that those of us who have criticisms to make of excessive consumption and of polluting vehicles should shut up? That there is something wrong with our arguing those criticisms forcefully?

It is true that no government has yet outlawed badly insulated houses or energy-inefficient household appliances -- but governments have certainly started to subsidize upgrades, and a progressive tightening of standards seems reasonable to predict. Do you guys also object to increasing social and legal controls of that sort?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 September 2003 04:39 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you suggesting that those of us who have criticisms to make of excessive consumption and of polluting vehicles should shut up? That there is something wrong with our arguing those criticisms forcefully?

No, you needn't abandon your beliefs, but you might ask yourself if they're consistent, or if they're directed towards some types of excessive consumption and not others. Or some types of polluting vehicles and not others. If you believe, for example, that only SUV's pollute, or that SUV owners don't need SUV's, but car owners all need their cars, then you might want to start by questioning that. Likewise, if you think that owning an SUV is an ostentatious display of wealth, but wearing a big gold ring isn't, you might ask yourself why. And if none of this applies, then carry on!

quote:
Do you guys also object to increasing social and legal controls of that sort?

I have no objection whatsoever to, for example, vehicular taxation by emissions, or some other objective governmental sanction which indexes a cost to the owner to the actual damage his or her vehicle causes. But you may want to ask the anti-SUV crowd whether they'd be satisfied with this, or if maybe it's just not punitive enough.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 05 September 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the point is that criticism and debate about conspicious consumption is all fine and dandy.

However when you end up with vandalism and other not-so-nice stuff, you cross the line. Statements like:

quote:
I fully support those who destroy SUVs. It's them or us.

As much as some of hate the idea, people have a choice and they may not make the "right" one. And, lets face it, some people really don't give a damn about making good choices, like the right car, or public transit, or proper food, or $5000.00 watches. What are you gonna do? Yell until you're blue in the face? Feel free? But I wouldn't support anyone physically doing something, as much as I'm against it, to them or their personal object of hatred.

Just doen't fly, yet there those on both side of the right/left fence who would do just that.

Edit: I don't own a car by the way, and don't especially like SUVs. I would take DrConways advice though and get an older car. Perhaps a '70 Challenger, or a '69 Barracuda.

By the way a Studebaker back in the day probably got less gas mileage and was a bigger polluter then todays SUV.....

[ 05 September 2003: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Magoo, none of that applies, so I shall carry on.

(Honestly: who do you think is here on babble? People who wear great big pinky rings??? Fur coats??? Own a car for each appendage??? Eat langoustines ... ok: scratch that one. )

I don't have a car and am in favour of socialized transportation. To me, a taxi is socialized transportation.

I do not understand most conspicuous consumption and believe that we should simply shame people out of it by sniffing about vulgar show and the vanity of human wishes.

I loved langoustines, though. They're pretty close to extinction now ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 05 September 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well right now I'm wearing 2(!!!!) pinky rings (huge things,) a fur trench coat, and a pair of alligator skin cowboy boots. nothing else mind, but to each his own......
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 05 September 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you really need that second pinky ring Tommy?
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy, I was about to sniff at you, but the "nothing else, mind" bit got me ...

You would perhaps like to expand?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 05 September 2003 06:37 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
EXPAND?!?


for babblers attitudes on things like McDonald's, diamonds, oil companies, et cetera, I like this thread.

[ 05 September 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 05 September 2003 07:58 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For those who would buy SUV's for cargo capacity, note that when there was the rash of Ford Explorers flipping and killing all aboard, it was revealed that Ford designed the massive Explorer to carry the same amount as their Taurus. Only the Taurus never flips over and is legally obligated to get decent gas milage.

There is a great book out now called "High and Mighty" by Keith Bradsher that proves how car companies manipulated the public into thinking these abominations were the greatest thing. Anyone who owns an SUV and has kids should read this and then sell their death-trap.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 05 September 2003 08:06 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For those who would buy SUV's for cargo capacity

Isn't it funny. When the SUV rage was in full swing, people were buying them so they could get the cargo capacity of a station wagon without the social stigma of driving an "uncool" car. Now, station wagons are making a great comeback. Because people want the cargo capacity of an SUV without the social stigma attached to driving one!

Personally, I love the new VW Jetta Wagon. I'm hoping I can find one in diesel.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 September 2003 08:23 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Say Doc, what country were those $20 sneakers made in? Because you seem awfully proud to be wearing the product of slave labour.

I didn't even pay for them. I was home one day and my mom shoves these brand-new sneakers at me and goes "here". Uh, thanks, mom.

When *I* have a choice as to the shoes, *I* get the Doc Martens that are Made in England.

So sucks to your ass-mar, or something.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So sucks to your ass-mar, or something.

Do you people just make this stuff up or what? "Asshat." "Sucks to your ass-mar."

"Ass" is so versatile!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 05 September 2003 08:36 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't even pay for them

Ah, so you're exploiting both your poor mother, and a third world worker at the same time! Now that's private sector efficiency for ya Doc


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 06 September 2003 02:32 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you seen those Ford Expedition limosines? The epitomy of idiocy and baaaaad taste. For this reason, they are highly popular with the newly wedded.

About personal choice: Now, the thing is, these personal choices are not harmless. Their size, weight, and instability (combined with clueless and incompetent drivers) make them a threat to all around them. Their emissions add to the poor air quality (although they don't take all the blame, their sheer excess marks them for special consideration). The hazards from SUVs are well documented.

I'm able to overlook perfectly harmless common stupid behaviour, like listening to Celine Dion or being a Maple Leafs fan. It's the uncommonly destructive stupidity that garners my anger, like SUVs and The WalMart.

I also don't agree that destruction of property is necessarily a bad thing, if it isn't mindless, useless destruction like busting Gap windows. There is a logic behind monkeywrenching; taking away the profit motive. If replacing destroyed equipment or increased insurance premiums become to onerous, the objective is achieved. If enough H2's become too hot to handle, they become too hot to handle.

Disclosure: I ride my bike, I rollerskate, don't drive no car. Don't go too fast, but I go pretty far.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 September 2003 10:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But buying an SUV is patriotic!

Hey, it's my choice!

[ 06 September 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 September 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Disclosure: I ride my bike, I rollerskate, don't drive no car. Don't go too fast, but I go pretty far.

Me too, Jingles. Some people say I've done all right ... for a girl.

Fuller disclosure: Actually, I don't rollerskate: I walk or take trains or taxis. I could ride a bike ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 06 September 2003 02:17 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You could pick up a pair of roller skates and just hang on to the back of passing cars and cabs... that's probably the best of both worlds

(oh, YOU'RE carpoolin buddy...)


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 06 September 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
okay time to fess up. i own an explorer.it's a v-6 with over-drive,standard transmission.i also own a taurus. the explorer gets noticeably better gas mileage than the taurus.
i also owned a 79 crown-vic with a 455 engine which got less than half the mileage than either of the others.
in defense i rarely drive anywhere other than to work,which tends to be 100+ k usually up at least one mountain pass,carrying a weeks worth of supplies and a couple hundred pounds of tools.biking is not an option.
i've also done the bus thing, which usually entails finding a ride in the middle of the night in the middle of Nowhere,Canada.
generalizations are hard to apply to the overall user base. when i lived in regina, i bused to work everyday, but the boonies are still pretty inaccessible without personal transportation , and gas is still the only easily accessible option.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
scrabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2883

posted 06 September 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for scrabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're a bit of a sweetheart under all that, aren't you, you big dork(®Foxer)?
From: dappled shade in the forest | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 September 2003 03:16 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A 455 cubic inch engine? Gawd almighty, no wonder you had such lousy gas mileage. Mine's got the 351 Windsor block in it.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dr Gas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4410

posted 07 September 2003 12:07 AM      Profile for Dr Gas        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Redshift, not to be a nit-picker, but your Crown Vic is probably a 460 ci, (455 was a Pontiac, and once upon a time also a Buick or Olds engine). You do have a point in that it is (of course) easier to live without a car when your in the city, if the transit system works well.But the power for that subway comes from a power plant somewhere where something is burning, just most people can't see the smoke.
From: Maritmes | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 07 September 2003 12:15 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
sorry dr.g. your absolutely right 460 it was. my buick was the other monster.
the only real choice we have is harm reduction and education is key there.
hydrogen and hybrids are a long way off and ethanol is going to face stiff resistance from the petroleum lobby.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 September 2003 05:27 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like those examples that McGoo gave at the beginning. These people need to be informed about their choices as much as SUV drivers need to be informed about theirs. Then again, maybe they don't care what the moralizing self-righteous think about them any more than do SUV drivers.

I don't think it's quite appropriate to slap a sticker on a glutton, though. Stickering SUV's is something one would do when one can't be caught, am I right?

It's impersonal, not like handing someone a leaflet, which is how I assume one would confront the welfare mother/party animal and the others.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 08 September 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alot of people by these gas guzzlers for no reason at all. I do drive an SUV myself and before that I used to drive a geo metro and it was a great car. I'm an outdoors person, and I don't mean a walk in the park. I mean North, rugged country that gives the city boys goose bumps. For the longest time I used my dads 14 year old toyota 4x4 with a 4cyl and he still has it. So about a year 1/2 ago it was time for me to get my own. I sold my metro. I had my heart set on a 4Runner (mid size SUV). I needed something with a "frame" and a rear diff. They only come in V6 and V8 models. I found out that the last year they made a 4 Cyl was 1998. I searched 2 Months until I finally found one with a 4cyl. I'd really be pissed off if someone vandalized my 4Runner, when they don't know that I made a conscience desision when buying it. This is because of the enviromentalist in me.

On the other hand when I see men or woman in their business suits travelling to work in a big shiny Escapade or one of the many GM variations available, I get upset. I don't think I'm hypocritical either! They drive these big SUV's and they don't even need a quarter of it. They make a conscience think bigger and more H.P. is better. My respect's go out to those who settle for the smaller SUV's that have 4 cyl engines like the RAV4 or the CRV, etc...


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 September 2003 04:05 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As Blind_Patriot says, there are SUVs and then there are SUVs. When a logger uses a F250 crewcab 4x4 on the job, he's doing so because the frame and chassis will survive the pounding on very rough roads. Your little fuel efficient imports won't take the punishment. However, those Cadillac, Lexus and Mercedes SUVs, and those monster motorhomes, are about conspicuous consumption; about showing off. Luxury vehicles don't go down logging roads; at least not the kind we have in the BC interior.

As a result of the 1973 oil crisis, those who could afford to bought smaller fuel efficient cars. Poor people wound up with the gas guzzlers. Would those of you who are so anti SUV be so out of sorts if another crunch came and the only cars poor people could afford were SUVs?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 08 September 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think we're becoming a nation of busy bodies, and I think the left should distance itself from this kind of nonesense, and takle problems systemically instead of playing the part of sanctimonious nosey person who believes thier own shit don't stink.



The libertarian left has voice! Right on Tommy.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 08 September 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I'm a little late on this, don't have the babble time I used to...

quote:
If torching an SUV dealership is somehow "civil disobedience" and is therefore sacrosanct, then so would be setting fire to a Mosque.

No no no, NUKING SUBURBS is what I am all about, dude, cuz that's where all the Expedidiots are. Torching SUV dealerships! Pfft. How unimaginative. I quickly grew as tired of that as you have of sticking to your original strawman outrage... stickers. "Argghh. i've been stickered!!!! My life is RUINED"

What was your acronym again? Outrageously Exaggerated Scary Sterotypes was it?

Foxer pooh-poohed breaking laws to protest what "someone has done", so I referred him to a famous tract that I assumed he would be familiar with. Even though he wasn't, I must say I'm impressed that he not only took the time to read it, but comprehend it.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 September 2003 06:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No no no, NUKING SUBURBS is what I am all about, dude, cuz that's where all the Expedidiots are. Torching SUV dealerships! Pfft. How unimaginative. I quickly grew as tired of that as you have of sticking to your original strawman outrage... stickers. "Argghh. i've been stickered!!!! My life is RUINED"

'nuther hall of famer, ronb. God, but you are doomed, are you not?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 September 2003 11:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're missing the point. If you believe someone else's choices are your business, and you want to sticker their vehicle to show your disapproval of their choices, then why not sticker the bad choosers in my examples?

Why restrict your disapproval to SUV's, when there are so many people making other selfish, harmful choices?

I think Ronb may have provided the closest-to-true answer so far when he sarcastically mentioned nuking the suburbs.

I get the distinct sense reading posts re: SUVs, on this board and other places, that much of the resentment towards SUVs is really just resentment towards their owners (or the stereotype of them):
- suburban
- well-off
- selfish
- "905'er" attitude
- politically conservative
- lazy
- consumeristic
- etc.

I've even seen SUV backlash rationalized because they're all "bad drivers" (Wait! Isn't it Asians who are the bad drivers?)


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 September 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But if we're not outraged by these things:

quote:

- suburban
- well-off
- selfish
- "905'er" attitude
- politically conservative
- lazy
- consumeristic

then why should we bother to have any political conscience (or consciousness) at all? At least at the local level, these are things that we on the left should be fighting, as they represent all that is wrong with our society.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 September 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps, but my point is, this is a stereotype. If you believe this list represents "the truth" about someone who owns a Ford Explorer, then you're buying into it. Why?

And do you believe "fighting" these attributes is best done by vandalizing property, or is there perhaps a better way?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 09 September 2003 12:32 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
these are things that we on the left should be fighting

Wait a minute? We're supposed to be fighting against being "suburban" or "well off"? Doesn't this just play into the stereotype that the left wing wants to make everyone equal by making everyone poor?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 September 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And do you believe "fighting" these attributes is best done by vandalizing property, or is there perhaps a better way?

There probably is a better way, but I don't have any problem at all with the stickers. I don't advocate blowing things up or other kinds of vandalism or sabotage, of course, but stickers seem pretty harmless to me.

quote:
Wait a minute? We're supposed to be fighting against being "suburban" or "well off"? Doesn't this just play into the stereotype that the left wing wants to make everyone equal by making everyone poor?

We should be fighting against urban sprawl, which is most clearly seen in the suburban explosion. Urban sprawl is wrong in so many ways, I hope I don't have to list them all. And excess wealth has been discussed on other threads here at babble, with many differing opinions posted. I am one person who thinks that the very rich keep everyone else poor. I don't think anyone has to be poor. If you want to know more about it, go find the thread on wealth caps. I think only really rich assholes on the right think that attempts to balance the distribution of wealth mean we want to make everyone poor.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 September 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr. Magoo has a point. I don't think leftists have any more right than rightists to judge other people's life styles. It's very difficult to understand other peoples' motives. For example: why do so many old people drive full sized Cadillacs? Because they can get in and out without banging their heads and knees. Now, they probably don't say that; they may not even think of that. It comes under the heading of comfort. But, older people make purchases that have a lot more to do with their comfort than young people do.

So, do we get mad at the ostentaciousness of older drivers who can't even drive that boat? So why don't the manufacturers make cars that meet the comfort needs of older people? Well, they do. They're called SUVs.

I would rather we put the pressure on government to put fuel economy and polution regulations on all vehicles - get this: I said ALL vehicles. It is possible to make smaller vehicles that meet the comfort needs of older people, but the manufacturers don't like to do it because they don't make as much profit on the smaller cars.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 09 September 2003 01:08 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think anyone has to be poor. If you want to know more about it, go find the thread on wealth caps. I think only really rich assholes on the right think that attempts to balance the distribution of wealth mean we want to make everyone poor.

Yah, I participated in that thread, but under my old nick "leftylicous".

I think you're wrong though. I don't think it's just really rich right wingers who think the left wants to make and keep people poor. But the message in the wealth caps thread (and often from the left in general) is all about taking wealth away, instead of about creating wealth and bringing people up. Seizing money and property from rich people does not guarantee that it's going to trickle down into the hands of the poor.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 September 2003 01:21 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There probably is a better way, but I don't have any problem at all with the stickers ... stickers seem pretty harmless to me.

So if I stickered some wasteful fat slob eating a quadruple cheeseburger, you'd support me on that? Or the "party hearty" social assistance recipient of my original example? And if not, why not? After all, they're making selfish, wasteful and harmful choices too.

Again, I didn't start this thread to debate the merits of stickering things you disapprove of - I'm asking why it's apparently everyone's business if you buy a wasteful vehicle, but nobody's business when you make other selfish or wasteful or even harmful choices.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 September 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yeah yeah yeah. It's part 795 of "Why target Mcdonalds, when Wimpy's does it too?" Same old crap. Boring.

Every SUV is a physical representation of how seriously astray North American energy policy has gone. If you park one in gridlock everyday getting to and from work, you are by far the most visible proponent of that deranged energy policy on the road, wittingly or unwittingly. Like it or lump it, your highly visible dumb consumer choices make you a target.

Are cars bad? Yes. And for some reason, a bunch of status-obsessed, sense-deficient folks have chosen to be the living embodiments of WHY. So they get stickered. Boohoo. Would I personally ever vandalise one and show the same disrespect to their precious property as they show to the commons? No I would not.

Remember who popularized the SUV in the first place? I'll give you a hint. White Ford Bronco driven by an egotistical psychopath paying no attention to the rest of the traffic on the freeway as he jabbered away on his cell phone. Posterboy for SUV ownership, that guy.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 09 September 2003 01:33 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Defend it all you want, but to me, slapping nasty bumper stickers on someone's car while they're not looking sounds passive agressive, cowardly, and petty. If you truly believe SUV's are the epitome of all that is wrong with North American society, then at least have the courage of your convictions. Go picket a dealership. Go confront an SUV owner directly. Hell, go to university and learn to design a better car!

What's next in the bag of activist tricks...ringing people's doorbells and running away before they come to the door? Flaming bag of dog poo on the doorsteps of people with PC party advertising on the lawn?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 September 2003 02:09 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So if I stickered some wasteful fat slob eating a quadruple cheeseburger, you'd support me on that? Or the "party hearty" social assistance recipient of my original example? And if not, why not? After all, they're making selfish, wasteful and harmful choices too.

Here's the problem with your scenario, Magoo:

SUV = material thing.

"some wasteful fat slob eating a quadruple cheeseburger" = a human being.

Call me a softie, but I'm not about to go humiliating and degrading other human beings because I don't agree with what they're doing at any given moment. The big ugly automobile, however, will not suffer any ill effects by having a sticker slapped on its bumper, and nor will the driver, really.

It's not the same thing at all.

[ 09 September 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401

posted 09 September 2003 02:12 PM      Profile for Olly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Again, I didn't start this thread to debate the merits of stickering things you disapprove of - I'm asking why it's apparently everyone's business if you buy a wasteful vehicle, but nobody's business when you make other selfish or wasteful or even harmful choices.

I don't disagree with you on the intent of your thread, Mr. Magoo. But I have a big problem with your choice of examples. People on welfare are not "party-hearty" types, so I don't know why you would resort to a non-fact to try to make your argument.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 September 2003 02:16 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sure, sticking around and waiting for the SUV owner to show up and then saying "Excuse me, SUVs are the least fuel efficient, most dangerous vehicles on the market today. Owning one makes you look like a knob, driving one makes you look even more of a knob" would be the manly thing to do, but this is SO time consuming. You can sticker every SUV in the parking lot in the time it would take you to get to that one person.

Effiiciency - isn't that the buzzword for the neocon era?

Why am I still typing about this silly non-topic? Sheesh.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 September 2003 02:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Call me a softie, but I'm not about to go humiliating and degrading other human beings because I don't agree with what they're doing at any given moment. The big ugly automobile, however, will not suffer any ill effects by having a sticker slapped on its bumper, and nor will the driver, really.

Nonsense. Humiliating and stigmatizing SUV drivers are what the stickering movement is all about. Nobody's trying to coerce the vehicles themselves to change, are they?

quote:
People on welfare are not "party-hearty" types, so I don't know why you would resort to a non-fact to try to make your argument.

Uh, it's a "non-fact" because it's a made-up example, Olly. But for what it's worth, I don't think it would be impossible to find an actual, real life example for each of the examples I gave.

quote:
You can sticker every SUV in the parking lot in the time it would take you to get to that one person.

More nonsense. You're talking as though education were somehow the goal. If it were, then a photocopied sheet of informative facts could be left under the windshield wiper (there's nothing educational about "I'm ruining the environment: ask me how!"). Stickers serve the purpose of stigmatizing the driver in front of others, and you can't really do that in a face-to-face human way. Not to mention the obvious physical dangers of going around calling total strangers "knobs" because you disagree with them. Good way to get your dentures a few years early.

[ 09 September 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 September 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nonsense. Humiliating and stigmatizing SUV drivers are what the stickering movement is all about. Nobody's trying to coerce the vehicles themselves to change, are they?

But the sticker goes on the SUV, not the driver. In all your examples you're suggesting we sticker the person. We can stigmatize the driver without humiliating his person.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 September 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. Unless the person is naked, Mr. Magoo is suggesting that we sticker the clothes of the person, not the person.

Both the clothes and the SUV are shells which protect the user. Both are a reflection of the style, needs, and economic status of the owner. To sticker a persons SUV is just like stickering their jacket.

quote:
We can stigmatize the driver without humiliating his person.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. How can one stigmatize a person without humiliating them. Isn't the point of stigmatizing to humiliate someone?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 September 2003 02:36 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sheesh. Fine then. Let's all visit our hard-partyin' social assistance recipient and sticker her inanimate door then. K? And obviously the parents smoking in the car will get their car stickered, and maybe the mom feeding her kid cola can have the baby carriage stickered with "My mom's poisoning me: ask her how!".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 September 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd be more inclined to run through the grocery store and sticker the 6packs and bottles of coke with a "this is poison" sticker. The other function of the SUV stickers is educational, just in case there are people out there who still think they're a great consumer choice.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 September 2003 03:01 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about...

Stickers that can be plastered on the windows of any old fast food restaurant:

"We make out money feeding people crap and making them sick"

The sticker for any old car that people are smoking in (regardless of the passengers or driver):

"This car is a cancer box"
(we could make a similar sticker for smokey bars and restaurants)

I can come up with more, if you're interested.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 September 2003 01:12 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Am I humourless today, or are there actually people serious about putting stickers on other people's stuff and or person?

Who the hell do we think we are?

I do some stuff that bothers other people. I know. I try to do better, try to be considerate, try me best to wiegh everthing.

But you know what? No one is particularly interested, it seems, in curbing the things they do that piss me off to no end.

I mean, as bad as I am, everyone else really deserves a much worse Tommy Paine than what you have.

So, how about a mutual hands off?

I think that's called tollerance. Quid Pro Quo.

These larger issues of SUV's, dietary habits, these are things we can deal with in systemic terms, not ad-hominem.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 10 September 2003 03:12 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree tommie. If people decide to inflict their beliefs and lifestyle choices on others by use of force or coersion, who knows where it could end?

Well, who besides the people of Iraq I guess..


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 10 September 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lame, foxer. It's a pretty egregious comparison to make, don't you think? We're talking about stickers, remember.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 September 2003 11:44 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Much more realistically though, it did recently "end" with arson.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 10 September 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Controlling individuals through the threat of public humiliation, appealing to people's need for acceptance and loathing by forcing them submit to someone else's idea of what is best for them and the planet, that's what you do when you target individuals for their lifestyle choices.

Generally, that's the kind of thing I've always fought against, although certainly not on behalf of the privileged, or SUV owners. But it comes down to the same thing pretty much.

Do you want to live in a society where people's behaviors are controlled through fear of public shame and humiliation? Do you really believe the ends justify the means? To follow the Iraq analogy, the US got rid of an evil tyrant, guilty of mass crimes against humanity. Does that make the US invasion of Iraq OK? No, no, and NO! Those tactics always backfire. Always.

There are far better ways of building a more just and sustainable society. Ways that actually effect change. Now, if you just want to punish people you've judged as morally wanting, by all means, stick 'em in the stocks and throw rotten eggs at 'em. But don't try to tell me you're doing it for the good of society and the planet, because you sure as hell aren't doing it for me.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 10 September 2003 01:09 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you want to live in a society where people's behaviors are controlled through fear of public shame and humiliation?

But that's where we live anyway. I'd just like to exchange the behaviours that are considered to be shameful for more helpful ones. For instance let's exchange the shame over conspicuous poverty for shame over conspicuous consumption.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 10 September 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[aside]"sucks to your ass-mar" is a quote from Lord of the Flies[/aside]
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 10 September 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lima -

quote:
Lame, foxer. It's a pretty egregious comparison to make, don't you think? We're talking about stickers, remember.

Lima, i can see how you'd feel that way. On the surface, it's true (i mean it's just a sticker, right?)

But the fact is it's more than that - it's an acceptance of a type of behavior. It's the exact same attitude that led to iraq. Many citizens were prepared to gloss over the 'does he have WMD' stuff because the man himself was 'evil' in their estimation, and that therefore justified taking action against him.

This isn't even a 'thin edge of the wedge' concept, either you decide it's not ok to persecute others based on your own beliefs, or you decide it IS. You can't vasillate back and forth when it's convenient, because others won't. Once you accept the principle of acting against others outside of the law based on your beliefs, then the only question is what kind of action would you draw the line at - and you can bet wherever you draw it someone's going to draw it a little further. It's a bankrupt position, and it's so insideous BECAUSE it seems harmless.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 10 September 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
But that's where we live anyway. I'd just like to exchange the behaviours that are considered to be shameful for more helpful ones. For instance let's exchange the shame over conspicuous poverty for shame over conspicuous consumption.
I haven't noticed that the tactic has worked on poor people. They still seem to be poor, albeit far more miserable with the stigma. What makes you think it'll work with anyone else? And if that's the status quo, "where we live anyway", why would we want to continue with it if it doesn't work?

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
R. J. Dunnill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1148

posted 13 September 2003 08:45 PM      Profile for R. J. Dunnill   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People on welfare are not "party-hearty" types, so I don't know why you would resort to a non-fact to try to make your argument.
Umm, there was a reason a feature for a liquor store point-of-sale system I worked on was called the "Long Weekend-Welfare Wednesday factor" (it allowed for a predefined percentage boost in restocking orders to prepare for dates with unusually high demand).

On topic, I don't like SUVs, but I don't believe in people taking the law into their own hands, either.


From: Surrey, B.C. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 13 September 2003 09:13 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wilst waking down Whyte avenue I noticed a wedding procession made up of white SUVs all decorated with the usual crepe. My first impression was that these are SUV enthusiasts who are driving their own trucks, however I then noticed that they were all rented. Therefore someone made a conscious effort to make sure that on their special day the wedding party would travel in as fuel innefficient, obnoxious, dangerous method of travel possible.
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 September 2003 09:23 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think they are a means of making people reactionary. One need only look up at the comments of certain (presumably) formerly progressive and environmentally-conscious babblers. Oh no, one must not take them to task for destroying the planet, heavens no.

Cars kill. SUVs do it in spades. Nothing to do with a personal choice.

I have never bumper-stickered SUVs, but I have left "parking tickets" under their windshield wipers, especially after seeing one person emerge from a particularly large and pristine one (presumably not used by a contractor or an outfitter). They have to be reminded that the damned things pollute, are dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians, and even smaller, more energy-efficient cars, and yes, we hate them.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3477

posted 14 September 2003 10:52 AM      Profile for Vee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Humiliation and getting in someone's face about their bad choices will not work. I believe in leading by example. I live close about 5km from where I work so when it is nice enough, I bike. My example inspired one of my other co-workers to do the same this summer. My neighbours were against the new composting/garbage program when it was first introduced, but they saw me make it work so they now participate. (I have not convinced them to recycle, but maybe once we get curbside pickup.....). I am learning better eating habits by working every day with someone who is very conscious about the healthiness of the food she eats. Most wasteful people (SUV drivers, those who are excessive in their spending, etc.) are perpetuating what they learned from their parents.
Sorry Magoo, I can not give up my Gore-Tex jacket...It is a necessity for surviving a Maritime winter!!

From: East Coast | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 18 September 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Porche SUV?

quote:
Actually, this SUV is only $96,000 and change, but as it manages 13 miles to the gallon, it's best to keep gas money on hand. Now, the sole reason this vehicle exists is that you might buy it. For $100K. And therein lies a story.

Last year roughly 90 percent of the profits of General Motors and Chrysler were generated by sales of their SUVs, although these rides account for only one of every four vehicles sold.

Such legerdemain is enabled by the margins on an SUV, especially on the luxed-up, leather-clad, elephantine ones, which can throw off $10,000 or even $15,000 in profit per vehicle. (Your average Saturn contributes about $300 to the corporate coffers.)...

The Cayenne is a fearsome machine -- one that can out-sports-car most sports cars and out-macho any other SUV. I had hold of the Cayenne Turbo, whose twin-turbocharged V-8 conjures 450 horsepower and a frightening yawp. Such oomph can goose the Cayenne's 5,600-pound bulk from idle to 60 in an extraordinary 5.6 seconds, and then keep blistering until you hit 165 mph. It's by far the fastest SUV on the market. Heaven help you.


A true 'squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!'


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
rev biff mojo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4392

posted 18 September 2003 08:39 PM      Profile for rev biff mojo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Er . . . at the risk of being lynched, I own an SUV. It's a small one; little 4 cylinder job 'cuz that's all I can afford. But I rationalize that I need it in the shitty weather. I work in a large urban area for that city's emegency medical services but live far out in the country because I don't get paid enough to live in the city. (Not that I would want to anyway).

Ya know on those days when we get a foot of blowing snow and the cops are telling us to stay off the roads? I don't have the luxury of staying home. I gotta go in. Ergo, the 4X4 high road clearance small engined good gas mileage little truck!

OK, I've said it! Please kill me quickly! Don't let me linger in pain!


From: mortal coil | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr Gas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4410

posted 18 September 2003 10:43 PM      Profile for Dr Gas        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd call that a vehicle that suits your job. You use your vehicle for work, and can probaly run in 2 wd mode to save some gas in good weather.

If folks would just stick to the speed limit they save 10% to 30% on fuel alone, and they'd have time to avoid critters too. There wouldn't be such a problem if people used SUV's for what they were designed for (going off pavement). Nobody's driving to the office in a dump truck.


From: Maritmes | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Southside Red
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4135

posted 19 September 2003 01:50 AM      Profile for Southside Red   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't care what kind of SUV or minivan or truck any of you drive. Just, for God's sake, stop parking the damn thing so close to the corner that I can't see around you to turn safely into the intersection. When your fellow "tall vehicle" is across from me and we're both making a left turn, don't pull up 6 inches from my back bumper wave to let me know that you can see it's all clear coming my way and that my 14 year old beater should just barrel through. If I can't see, I ain't movin', no matter how loud your horn is.

As far as cargo space, I regularly drive my 15 year old grandson (he's 6'2") and his two buddies, with all their hockey gear, to practices and games in my Pontiac. (I had a 1988 Topaz, until some dipshit in an extended cab pickup ran a red light and totalled it - he was alone in the truck.). Can you tell I'm not a big fan of oversize vehicles?


From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 19 September 2003 09:32 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Er . . . at the risk of being lynched, I own an SUV. It's a small one; little 4 cylinder job 'cuz that's all I can afford.

Rev Biff, having been in your vehicles, I can say that's not an SUV, it's a freakin' dinky toy. We're talking about these huge monstrous victories of money and ego over taste. Besides, you need your little truck to further all the good work you do in maintaining your part of the Bruce Trail.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rev biff mojo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4392

posted 19 September 2003 02:51 PM      Profile for rev biff mojo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dinky Toy??? I don't make fun of YOUR short-comings!!

(Besides, when have you been in the Tracker?)


From: mortal coil | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 19 September 2003 10:40 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ya know on those days when we get a foot of blowing snow and the cops are telling us to stay off the roads? I don't have the luxury of staying home. I gotta go in. Ergo, the 4X4 high road clearance small engined good gas mileage little truck!

Well, like I said earlier, the little, good on gas ones are fine. I still think they've got an odd design to them, but whatever. Especially if you're somewhere that needs high clearance, that makes sense.

It's the Mercedes SUVs and such like... You KNOW these are not going to be used off road or in rough conditions. It's frivolous.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2003 11:20 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
97% of all SUVs will be "off-road" only when they hit the gravel shoulder on a highway.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 20 September 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True, and because of the way they're balanced, they tend to roll when they do. We get a lot of rollovers in ditches out here to begin with, I wonder if they've increased with the number of SUVs on the road... Hmmmmm...
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 21 September 2003 04:28 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is a body of evidence that suggests global oil production will peak in the not-too-distant future (5-15 years). This doesn't mean we'll run out of oil but it does mean that the amount of oil produced will begin a permanent decline. For more details, enter the words "hubbert curve" in Google.

Unless there is an equivalent replacement source of energy, prices will go through the roof with potentially dire consequences. There will be spikes in the price of food and other products dependent on energy. Economies will implode. Maybe there will be mass starvation or wars. The Olduvai theory suggests that civilization as we know if could collapse.

If even the mildest of these scenarios comes into play (i.e. if the oil supply starts to decline and there are no viable alternatives), nobody will care who stickered whose vehicle. Our society will be remembered as the one that wasted precious energy reserves. Our houses are too big, we drive too much, and fuel is thrown away on everything from car races to leaf blowers to ATVs.

And the people who claim they have no choice but to live an hour's commute by car from their place of work? Suddenly, they will find that there really were other choices all along.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 21 September 2003 07:39 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The ultimate in SUV's.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 21 September 2003 08:45 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't wait until this thread dies so we can start up another: "Large vehicles and other environmental evils". Destroying the planet has nothing to do with a personal choice, and on a more mundane level, neither does driving a thing that I can't see around when I'm cycling.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 September 2003 02:52 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I say luxury taxes, insurance by weight, gas taxes are the way to go instead of vandalism. Owning one of these vehicles is like as sign saying I have money to spare Mr. Taxman.

...and I say Pogo has the solution nailed.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 September 2003 07:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 September 2003 10:32 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If they really do tip over easier than other vehicles, and if they really are driven by the worst of North America's drivers (as asserted anecdotally) then insurance companies should have no trouble hiking premiums on them. The excess gas tax is already built in as a function of their fuel consumption - if they use 25% more gas, they already pay 25% more tax. And the luxury tax kicks in at a certain price threshold that undoubtedly the largest of them will exceed.

But will all this be punitive enough to satisfy the stickerers? What if an SUV driver can afford the extra cost and doesn't seem to be miserable enough? What if these measures don't have the intended effect of the driver, sobbing, head-in-hands, asking "What have I done? How, oh how, could I have been so selfish, so inconsiderate, so wrong??"


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 22 September 2003 12:53 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But will all this be punitive enough to satisfy the stickerers? What if an SUV driver can afford the extra cost and doesn't seem to be miserable enough? What if these measures don't have the intended effect of the driver, sobbing, head-in-hands, asking "What have I done? How, oh how, could I have been so selfish, so inconsiderate, so wrong??"

You still don't quite unnerstand. People who needlessly buy a 7-foot behemoth when a 4-foot microcar will do are selfish. Such guilty thoughts do not enter their narrow brains. The selfishness accounts for the bad driving / parking habits so lovingly recounted by others here, too.

DISCLAIMER: I used the word "needlessly"! Read into that what you will!

PS...Southside. You live in Edmonton, and hate large vehicles? I take it you live in or near Strathcona from your handle. How do you prevent white-hot-burning-rage when you are on the Calgary Trail? From my experience, 80% of vehicles on that road are an over-suspended ExtendaKingCab, a 15 passenger van sans passenger, or a 10-12 mpg luxury SUV. In fact, I think my mom owns one of only 28 cars in the entire city.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 September 2003 04:58 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But will all this be punitive enough to satisfy the stickerers?

Obviously not.

I'm thinking of something like gas pumps that sell you your first 10 litres for 55¢ per, your next 10 for 65¢, your next 10 for 75¢, and anything beyond for $1.25 or so....

Otherwise, they can drop a bundle of those bumperstickers by my place anytime.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 September 2003 12:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You have to print them up yourself. Here's a sticker you can slap on yourself in the meantime though:



I'm so arrogant that I think
I know what's best for you.


Unless you want a tedious lecture, you won't ask me how!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 23 September 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these are things that we on the left should be fighting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute? We're supposed to be fighting against being "suburban" or "well off"? Doesn't this just play into the stereotype that the left wing wants to make everyone equal by making everyone poor?


No. I'm fighting against those things cuz I don't want everyone to be boring.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca