Key an SUV

It already did back in 1915 or 1916 when they had that flood.

For me, LA is the city of "WTS do they need a f*ckin dualie for?!"

Or insert any big vehicle. The biggest I've seen was the stretch LIMO-HUMMER.

pfffft

Hah. I bet that hummer was 100% driveable.

'Driveable' is subjective.

Sure, it's driveable and probably really good at it if you're climbing over rocks, small children or the occassional compact - but it has poor road manners, horrible ergonomics and low safety standards. But yeah, it's driveable after that - if you'd be caught in one.

If you want to criticize the safety aspects of an SUV, then be my guest. That doesn't make SUV owners bad, it just means that we maybe got ripped. Either way, punishing the buyers instead of the manufacturers isn't appropriate.

As to emissions controls... I know that my most recent smog test on my Explorer was (adjusted for the fuel consumption) similar to my Toyota Paseo.

And the argument about trucks.... a large number of the vehicles I see on the road every day are open-bed pickup trucks. Maybe one in 20 of those trucks is actually carrying something that couldn't be carried in a passenger car. Most people I know who own trucks own them for reasons completely unrelated to their utility - it's usually for the "trendiness" involved.

And compared to a station wagon... there is no way that a typical wagon could haul the amount of stuff I throw in the back of my Explorer or tow a trailer with half a ton of cargo on it. It just wouldn't happen. Likewise, an open-bed pickup has no way to lock up my possessions when I have to carry things. Mini-vans just don't have the engine or transmission to tow, and since they're generally front wheel drive, they're completely unsuitable for towing.

Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see everybody driving an Insight or Prius for their daily driving and be able to keep a van or truck for hauling or towing. However, in a world where most of us can only buy one car, the SUV is really the only choice.

Ideally, I'd like to see 90% of your daily commuter traffic go by mass transit: taxi or shuttle bus to regional hubs, high speed rail to metro centers, and mini-taxis to urban destinations. However, that just won't happen any time soon in the metropolis I live in.

So why is it okay to lump me in with the yuppie slime who see their new Expedition as nothing more than a status symbol?

Maybe you missed some of my earlier comments, where I specifically noted that there are people who actually need an SUV for carrying cargo, driving down poor roads, etc.

I also clearly stated that my 'beef' was with 'yuppie slime' who buy one to be cool and rarely, if ever, use the vehicle to its full extent.

Okay. I'll buy that.

But you're one person who is somewhat more intelligent than your average tree hugger.

I make a distinction between an educated, intelligent, sensible environmentalist and the kind of tree-hugging morons that make up the bulk of the environmentalist movement. The latter made California adopt MDBE's, which cost the state billions of dollars and ultimately harmed the environment. The end result? MTBE's were taken back OUT of the gas, and the station owners who spent $100,000 each to upgrade their tanks to contain the toxic substance? They're still out $100,000. Many of them lost their businesses because of stupid environmentalism.

My parent's home burned down because of stupid environmentalism: the policy that used to allow people to pay to go out to the forest and cut deadwood was revoked. The California wildfires were largely a result of deadwood accumulation.

Our OHV areas in the desert and wilderness areas are being systematically shut down by stupid environmentalists doing "impact studies" which ulimately bear no fruit and serve no purpose but to frustrate thousands of people that use that land every year.

The San Joacin Valley in California has had new environmental legislation that will put the small farmer out of busines.

These same people get on the radio and TV and spout the mantra "SUV BAD" over and over again. Again, never a mention of other vehicles that pollute just as much and waste just as much fuel.

I'm just getting sick of seeing these psuedo environmentalists going after their favorite cause of the week and harming real people in the process. They don't care about being responsible or doing things in a way that benefits everyone. They just want to go nutso on their causes to the detriment of common sense.

THOSE are the kinds of morons who key SUV's.

A sober clarification: ALL movements that contain a bulk are supplemented by a large portion of morons. A bulk wouldn't be possible in any movement without filler. You'll never crap straight kernels, it just ain't gonna happen (but you can get a few out intact if they're supported by a nice cushion of poo mush).

This is true because the majority of human beings are idiots. If everyone was educated, intelligent, and sensible, then who would do all the dirty work?

Be careful not to knock principled movements because of they caca slingers on the frontlines. Knock principled movements because you disagree with them.

YOU are the kind of moron who drives SUVs.

I'd just like to take a moment to bathe in the glory of this post.

~Ulrika~

tsk tsk... 14 pages of beauty and you want to have it closed now for personal attacks?

Hey!

I'm a lot of things, but definitely not a moron.

I'm not sure which is worse: the fact that you called me a moron or the fact that you couldn't come up with something more creative. You're slipping, Ul.

It's a rhetorical tool that points out a fallacy by mirroring a preceding personal attack.

Thanks for your services though. I don't know how my threads would otherwise survive without a gaggle of finger-wagging puritans commenting on my methodology.

~Ulrika~

*slaps forehead*

You stated "THOSE are the kinds of morons who key SUV's" in your previous thread. I quoted that and returned the insult to you to demonstrate that an insulting generalization is universally applicable.

~Ulrika~

Aren't I supposed to say "Fool" here or something to save keystrokes? I can't remember the exact phrase.

Your addendum should be, I have been slapped down for being a forum nanny.

~Ulrika~

Someone obviously read 'How to win friends and influence people’.




hmm where are my keys at...

I actually misspelled a pair of words in that phrase for humorous irony but, as of yet, no one has caught it.

~Ulrika~

I know you'd never stoop to vandalism, so I wasn't referring to you.

1. The inconsistent viewpoint of those people who think that vandalism is an answer to the ills of oversized, polluting vehicles has been pointed out by those with better verbal skills than me. Specifically, it has been asserted that damaging the vehicle in question will not remove the vehicle from the road.
   
2. I have also pointed out the inconsistent viewpoint of those people who think that SUV's are generally worse for the environment than other types of vehicles that get similar fuel mileage and also pollute the environment. So far, no one has directly rebutted that statement with relevant data. Juro has pointed out that the Expedition is a polluter, but has not shown ratings for the worst of the vehicles in the passenger van class or the pick-up category.
   
3. Several individuals have illustrated situations where an SUV is not a luxury but is instead a required part of their lifestyle. These individuals cannot use a station wagon, passenger van, or even pickup truck for their daily activities.
   

If the preceeding is true, then an individual who singles out a Sport Utility Vehicle for abuse, vandalism, or ridicule is engaging in an activity that is contrary to common sense, logic, and the law.

One word that can be used to describe individuals who act in a manner contrary to common sense is the word "moron".

Therefore I submit that the word "moron" is approprate when used to describe the type of individual who would vandalize a Sport Utility Vehicle to "make a statement".


Furthermore, I contend that the word "moron" is not insulting in this context, since it is an accurate description.

You thought wrong. Fool.

~Ulrika~

That is the most well thought-out and stated comment I've heard or read about the issue.

FYI:
Nissan has built a full-size pickup hybrid.
Ford has built a hybrid SUV (although I wouldn't tow a trailer with it; it's only got about 130 hp).
GM is currently designing the "skate board", a fuel cell chassis that will support passenger, utility, and cargo bodies.

The day is coming when some sort of hybrid powerplant will run everything on the road. My bet is on hydrogen fuel cell/electric drive, but there are still other options. The only thing that concerns me about the Hydrogen Fuel Cell design is the fact that it's still difficult to store hydrogen safely and in large enough quantities for a 300 mile trip (the typical range of most cars on a full tank).

I agree with this statement. This thread and a couple of my posts above are deliberately incendiary with the goal of drawing folks in for conversation. Don't mistake the performance art for for reality.

Finally, remember that causing damage to a vehicle in excess of US$500 is a felony and if convicted an individual could lose the right to vote.

~Ulrika~