Author
|
Topic: Large vehicles and other personal choices
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 September 2003 02:21 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 September 2003 02:41 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885
|
posted 04 September 2003 02:49 PM
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 September 2003 03:05 PM
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
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 04 September 2003 04:02 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 04 September 2003 04:53 PM
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
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 04 September 2003 05:06 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251
|
posted 04 September 2003 05:29 PM
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 September 2003 05:38 PM
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
|
|
|
scrabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2883
|
posted 04 September 2003 05:48 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251
|
posted 04 September 2003 06:28 PM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 05 September 2003 10:29 AM
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
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 05 September 2003 01:37 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 05 September 2003 01:58 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 05 September 2003 03:01 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 05 September 2003 04:39 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 05 September 2003 08:06 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 06 September 2003 02:32 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116
|
posted 08 September 2003 06:08 PM
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 09 September 2003 11:45 AM
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 09 September 2003 12:12 PM
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
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 09 September 2003 12:55 PM
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
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 09 September 2003 01:08 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 09 September 2003 02:09 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 09 September 2003 02:19 PM
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
|
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 09 September 2003 02:35 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 09 September 2003 03:01 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 10 September 2003 12:29 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251
|
posted 10 September 2003 05:05 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 13 September 2003 09:23 PM
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
|
|
|
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290
|
posted 18 September 2003 06:51 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Southside Red
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4135
|
posted 19 September 2003 01:50 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 21 September 2003 04:28 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 22 September 2003 10:32 AM
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
|