Is traffic so bad due to Toyota's fault?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Is the SUV Loophole Finally Closed?
Next: wrong group! sorry Re: hey evan post proof! (was: hey evan post proof!)
From: Matthew Russotto on 13 Apr 2010 21:28 In article <l9pun.14632$vC3.884(a)newsfe04.iad>, JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: >In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the >following question, which NEVER gets a response: > >"Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing emissions? >This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it." I'm sure it gets a response. What it doesn't get is an answer, possibly because you're not Socrates and don't get to write both sides of the dialog. If you want to advance a reason for reducing emissions that you think is so compellng that only insane people would disagree with it, then #1) You're engaging in the dishonest rhetorical technique of "poisoning the well" and #2) You actually have to advance the reason. Your opponents aren't going to guess it for you. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 13 Apr 2010 21:36 In article <_9qdndBkRsDuASfWnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: > >Philadelphia (another city with pretty good public transport and a >pretty good rail system) and NYC are making a lot of strides with making >the cities bicycle rider friendly. Philadelphia's public transit system is an outpost of the fifth circle of Hell. The slothful run the system and the ones consumed with rage ride it. Though there is some overlap. >In NYC, there are a lot of bike lanes >as well as bike paths. And a lot of signs for bike riders. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get the bicycle into NYC in the first place, if you don't live there. Can't take a bike onto a rush-hour train or bus, and you certainly can't ride one through the Holland Tunnel... -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: lil abner on 13 Apr 2010 21:44 Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <l9pun.14632$vC3.884(a)newsfe04.iad>, > JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: > >> In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the >> following question, which NEVER gets a response: >> >> "Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing emissions? >> This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it." > > I'm sure it gets a response. What it doesn't get is an answer, > possibly because you're not Socrates and don't get to write both sides > of the dialog. > > If you want to advance a reason for reducing emissions that you think > is so compellng that only insane people would disagree with it, then > > #1) You're engaging in the dishonest rhetorical technique of > "poisoning the well" and > #2) You actually have to advance the reason. Your opponents aren't > going to guess it for you. > You're not seeking an answer but only reenforcement of your ideas. The whole Emissions thing is out of whack. e want clean air, water and an uncrowded existence. What we are getting is an agenda by those who don't have a clue. Eliminating CO2 is unobtainable and undesirable and ludicrous. Elimination, of nitrogen is unobtainable, unobtainable and ludicrous. Overcrowding is the problem. We cannot into a non consuming thus no emissions world? Too many people will sink the boat. Only plagues and war as in history will eve limit the problems. there is no way we can eliminate the problem. there are many way to address the real problems but they are not politically viable or even desirable. It's every man for themselves.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 14 Apr 2010 08:35
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:z46dnVjpLLnKh1jWnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > In article <l9pun.14632$vC3.884(a)newsfe04.iad>, > JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: > >>In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the >>following question, which NEVER gets a response: >> >>"Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing >>emissions? >>This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it." > > I'm sure it gets a response. What it doesn't get is an answer, > possibly because you're not Socrates and don't get to write both sides > of the dialog. > > If you want to advance a reason for reducing emissions that you think > is so compellng that only insane people would disagree with it, then > > #1) You're engaging in the dishonest rhetorical technique of > "poisoning the well" and > #2) You actually have to advance the reason. Your opponents aren't > going to guess it for you. You forgot #3: The reason has been known to all sentient humans since the 1970s and I find it amusing that not a single person has named the reason. Anyone who needs to GUESS is a complete idiot. You know this is true. |