Another reason to Demonize SUV's

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-01 06:44pm

aphexmonster wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
aphexmonster wrote:i didn't know you were so self concious about someone questioning your oppinion Sir Nitram. Do you flame everyone that inquires you about something ?
No, just idiots. Or are you just horribly ignorant?

You're calling me an idiot, and you blame the gas economy on SUVs single handedly. As if it had nothing to do with the increase in cars and drivers on the road in the last 10-20 years.

Nope! Nice try for a strawman fallacy, though. I'm saying that poor fuel economy is objectively bad, doubly so because of the economy. Maybe you should try learning some reading comprehension.

edit: Are we thread hijacking ? .... maybe we should take this argument somewhere else ? =T

Why? It's about the bad things about SUV's. This thread is about the fact SUV's are bad.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2004-03-01 06:50pm

again with the insta-flame

i dont see all SUVs as being bad, i mean you guys are bothered by like ... jeep cherokees are you?

The only real problem i see with them is size. Perhaps SUVs shouldn't be allowed to park in some locations. Or put vehicle size limitations of specific licenses. I mean, you're not saying that every SUV is a spawn of hell are you ?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-03-01 07:11pm

1. idiot drive is one thing

people confuse the porblem posed by a vehicle that is just too fuckin HUGE that it presents a visual obstical and displaces more water due to it's larger tire size, and mass. walking to work on the footpath/bike path is bad enough with out having one's uniform soaked through by a four foot high wall of water,

or how about a car that takes up one and one half parking slots?

or how about having to drive behind such vehcles, getting mud sprayed on your front broken windshields from thrgravel spray, or not being able to see the road and hazzards ahead of you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-01 08:20pm

aphexmonster wrote:again with the insta-flame

Again with the whining that I'm not playing by the style over substance bullshit rules.

i dont see all SUVs as being bad, i mean you guys are bothered by like ... jeep cherokees are you?

And no actual rebuttals...

The only real problem i see with them is size. Perhaps SUVs shouldn't be allowed to park in some locations. Or put vehicle size limitations of specific licenses. I mean, you're not saying that every SUV is a spawn of hell are you ?

No rebuttals at all. Just whining that saying 'SUVs, in general, are bad' is condemning everything.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-03-01 09:10pm

Hmm... I live in the area...

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-03-01 09:22pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:1. idiot drive is one thing

people confuse the porblem posed by a vehicle that is just too fuckin HUGE that it presents a visual obstical and displaces more water due to it's larger tire size, and mass. walking to work on the footpath/bike path is bad enough with out having one's uniform soaked through by a four foot high wall of water,

or how about a car that takes up one and one half parking slots?

or how about having to drive behind such vehcles, getting mud sprayed on your front broken windshields from thrgravel spray, or not being able to see the road and hazzards ahead of you.

During rain and the like I don't usually walk close to the curb because of stupid drivers and the risk of getting water splashed on me by passing vehicles. Once again a competent driver can see if someone is walking on the sidewalk and not drive close to the curb. Perhaps someone with an SUV doesn't like you?

I completely agree with you about any car that takes up one and one half parking lots, but I've never seen an SUV of that size.

As for being sprayed by mud or not being able to see. How close do you drive to these vehicles? Do you tailgate because I can see hazards, the road ahead of me, and the only time I get hit by rocks is on the freeway.

The only problem I see with SUVs is they are a waste of resources.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-01 09:42pm

When I'm back in CT, where I grew up, I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee, Laredo. My parents drive one as well, but one of the larger, newer ones. It's also a Limited (with the leather interior). Neither of these vehicles takes up any more parking space room than your average four-door car. We have made considerable use of the interior space of both vehicles (especially in the past few years with transporting my belongings up to Boston where I go to school). We also live in a suburban area that sees a great deal of snow, has very curvy roads, and wherein not having a vehicle equipped with four-wheel drive is a bad idea. My family and I are very satisfied with our vehicles. It is true that they consume gas much more quickly than a smaller car, but a smaller car does not possess the range of abilities that our Jeeps afford us, which we require.

Further, many people often tell me that driving a SUV is dangerous because it will tip over. I politely (not) inform them that this only happens when people drive like idiots and don't account for the type of vehicle they're driving. I have never once even come close to tipping my Jeep, and I routinely drive well in excess of the speed limit (there's a long, straight road near my house that leads into a curve; the posted speed limit is 20 MPH -- I usually drive this at 50-60 MPH, but slow to 30 MPH when I reach the curve). I have also never been in a car crash of any kind.

SUVs are only dangerous when people drive poorly.

SUVs are only problematic for the economy when people who don't expect to fully use their capabilities purchase them.

My family and I fall into neither of these categories.

As such, I put forth that you should be angry at the majority of people who drive SUVs that don't need to rather than at the vehicles themselves, which can be very valuable, versatile vehicles to those of us that make use of them.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-03-01 09:45pm

the bike path was a good five feet from the roadway.....

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2004-03-02 02:46pm

SirNitram wrote:
aphexmonster wrote:again with the insta-flame
Again with the whining that I'm not playing by the style over substance bullshit rules.

i dont see all SUVs as being bad, i mean you guys are bothered by like ... jeep cherokees are you?
And no actual rebuttals...

The only real problem i see with them is size. Perhaps SUVs shouldn't be allowed to park in some locations. Or put vehicle size limitations of specific licenses. I mean, you're not saying that every SUV is a spawn of hell are you ?
No rebuttals at all. Just whining that saying 'SUVs, in general, are bad' is condemning everything.

So do you think vans, busses, semi trucks, and ford F350s should be demonized as well ?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-02 02:49pm

Try making a reply that isn't a strawman, and I'll consider it worthy of a thought our reply.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2004-03-02 02:51pm

i didn't think you had a resonable response either. Since they've all been the same, absolutly nothing.... is why i suggested that we might as well take it to PM. You care alot more about insulting then prooving any kind of point.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-02 02:57pm

aphexmonster wrote:i didn't think you had a resonable response either. Since they've all been the same, absolutly nothing.... is why i suggested that we might as well take it to PM. You care alot more about insulting then prooving any kind of point.

Thank you for an appeal to motive and style over substance fallacy. I've shown why SUV's are objectively bad. Will you just show some rebuttals instead of whining?

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2004-03-02 03:03pm

SirNitram wrote:
aphexmonster wrote:i didn't think you had a resonable response either. Since they've all been the same, absolutly nothing.... is why i suggested that we might as well take it to PM. You care alot more about insulting then prooving any kind of point.
Thank you for an appeal to motive and style over substance fallacy. I've shown why SUV's are objectively bad. Will you just show some rebuttals instead of whining?

You've also shown why the majority of non SUV vehicles are bad as well. You've done nothing but shown you have a personal quarrel with the things.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-02 03:06pm

Strawman.. Again. Try actually addressing my points.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2004-03-02 03:08pm

SirNitram wrote:Strawman.. Again. Try actually addressing my points.

Your points have been universal with most cars - they're hardly valid

blah blah blah

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-03-02 03:15pm

aphexmonster wrote:So do you think vans, busses, semi trucks, and ford F350s should be demonized as well ?

Vans- Typically people don't buy a van just to have a van and feel "Safe" Because of it's massive size. or for a status symbol.

Busses- that was a dumb thing to say.

Semis- that was even Dumber. What do you suggest to replace them?

F350's- Admittedly there may be an argument for this, but it needs to be shown that many, many, many people buy these gas-guzzlers with no intention of using them as they were designed.

I'll draw more fire when I get home.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-02 03:20pm

SirNitram wrote:<Throwing fallacy claims around left and right>

Instead of calling him on fallacies that aren't really there, why don't you try answering his questions? He's asking for clarification on your points. Let's look at what you call fallacies:

So do you think vans, busses, semi trucks, and ford F350s should be demonized as well?

Question, not statement or argument. A fair one, I think.

i didn't think you had a resonable response either. Since they've all been the same, absolutly nothing.... is why i suggested that we might as well take it to PM. You care alot more about insulting then prooving any kind of point.

Valid response, since the post he's replying to didn't have any points for him to refute. You are dodging him as much as you claim he is dodging you.

You've also shown why the majority of non SUV vehicles are bad as well. You've done nothing but shown you have a personal quarrel with the things.

Statement of observation, not a strawman. He's not misconstruing your argument to make it easier to attack, he's summarizing your arguments the way he understands them. If this is an incorrect assessment, it's your obligation to enlighten him.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-02 04:09pm

McC wrote:
SirNitram wrote:<Throwing fallacy claims around left and right>
Instead of calling him on fallacies that aren't really there, why don't you try answering his questions? He's asking for clarification on your points. Let's look at what you call fallacies:

Funny, he's claiming I'm saying all large vehicles are bad, when I clearly did not. That would be.. Yes.. A strawman. He complains about me not acting prissy and nice.. Yes.. That is a style over substance. He appeals to motive.. By it's nature, a fallacy. I would guess those fallacies really are there, huh?

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-02 10:00pm

It's only a fallacy if he uses it as an excuse to invalidate your argument. He hasn't done that with style-over-substance, that I've seen. You are being hostile and intolerant towards him. He's not saying that doing so invalidates your argument, just that he doesn't like it. I don't much care for this debate posture myself. That is not a style-over-substance debate fallacy, however. If he said, "You're being an asshole, so clearly whatever you say is bullshit," then he falls under the fallacy.

Your strawman accusations have recently only been in response to questions. I concede, however, that he did earlier seem to construct a strawman when discussing the economy of SUV fuel efficiency.

I'm unfamiliar with the appeal to motive fallacy (it's not on Mike's list, so far as I can tell). Can you elaborate?

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2004-03-03 04:28pm

Forget it, this is getting way off the subject