Topic awaiting preservation: What would Jesus drive? (Page 1 of 2)

When I was walking the dogs the other day I was thinking about SUVs - as here in the UK there seems to be atrend towards smaller cars for nipping around in and SUVs really stand out. And this article was in today's paper:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,940698,00.html

I enjoyed this:

quote:

---

Evangelist Jerry Falwell, who believes that global warming does not exist because "God would not let that happen", is for them. The Evangelical environmental network, which last year launched a campaign asking, "What would Jesus drive?" is against them.

---

I really can't see the justification for the majority of people to have such vehicles. Granted some people do need these vehicles but they must account for a very small majority of the owners but everyone else? I know its a matter of personal choice but I suspect the low fuel prices in the US help make these monsters a feasible option.

I do feel like I am missing something though..... I suppose they are safer (for the driver anyway - they banned the use of bull bars here years ago after too many people got mangled in minor collisions) but other than that.......

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Personally, I never understood how Americans could buy cars that have a V8 that consumes 20 liters of oil every 100 kilometers (about 60 miles if I am right)

So that I'm not of agreat help

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

Low fuel prices in comparison, I suppose.

I don't have a problem with SUV's beyond the fact that I think it's stupid for people to own them. It makes them overconfident drivers and isn't as much of a 'statement' as they think it is.

All it states to me is 'I have to much money and I don't know how to spend it wisely. I would rather funnel my money into the gas tank of this steel beastie here than help anyone with anything, unless of course it made me look good.'

Okay... I have a problem with SUV OWNERS. =)

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

I'd be willing to say that about 90% of the people who own a 'suv' (and what a stupid name as well) have absolutely no need for anything even resembling one.

It's a status symbol.

The ads on TV even openly present them that way, and pander to the afffluent housewife...

It truly sickens me quite frankly.

SUV = pSeUdo Vehicle

And I think Jesus would drive sandals.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

well, personally, i take offense to the insults of you guys... as an owner of a '91 Ford Explorer... i find i need it quite often. I carry around musical equipment for half my band sometimes, we go off-roading quite a bit and sometimes the back can serve as a well conditioned tent. Though i will say, even with low gas prices in the US... the mileage on the explorer can be a bit of a problem, nothing a steady job can't fix. Though.... i can't say i dont have some subs... as i'm an audiophile.... i like to get the most out of my music....

just my 1.56 cents (economic deflation)

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

GD: I think the problem most of us have with them is the environmental impact of these gas guzzling monsters. And yes I think he would or he'd ride a bike

Sanzen: If you actually go off-roading then that is another matter (although there were issues with that kind of thing here too with peopl carving up the countryside ) as I said:

quote:

---

Granted some people do need these vehicles but they must account for a very small majority of the owners but everyone else?

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Carving up? well, not really.... it depends on the trail i suppose, there have been some that have existed for a long time, made by feet and ATVs, you should blame them for tearing up the countryside....

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

He'd drive this of course:






.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

I used to off-road in a Dodge Omni. You don't necessarily need a big truck to do it.

And Jesus would drive a Honda Accord.

{bit snuck that one in on my, pretty funny...}


-->Ozone Quotes<--

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 04-22-2003).]

Damn bitdamaged you managed pull out a smile of my atheist convistions But I know it come from here, or at least from Google

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

ROTFLMAO

That was good, Bit.

Thanx

[EDIT] Hey cool! I'm on the Asylum quote list. When did that happen?[EDIT]

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-22-2003).]

Yes, Gilbert, I believe his disciples all shared that vehicle. They were, of course, all in one Accord.

quote:

---

I know its a matter of personal choice...

---

Yes, it is. And I think a free society should keep it that way. The last thing I want to see is a "nanny state" here.

Personally, I agree very much with GD's feelings. I think most of the people who own them, are wasting their money and taking up two parking spaces and generally pissing off those around them.

But this depends on where you live though too. I just got back from visiting my parents in Las Vegas. My sister lives out of the city a little ways and she has a large SUV but they use it to haul their camper and they go off road all the time with it. They actually use their SUV in places where it is appropriate. I don't see anything wrong with that and passing a blanket law to punish SUV owners would make no sense in her case.

No, there's no way you could limit sales or punish owners, as there's no way to really define who 'needs' one or what is appropriate use.

I think it is a matter of common sense, and a matter of general responsibility to know if you're the type of person who actually has a need for such a vehicle.

Too many people buy them simply to look important in their big car. Or because the neighbor bought one. And to own and drive one in a place like manhattan is just blatant stupidity.

I want to strangle such people.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-22-2003).]

quote:

---

I want to strangle such people.

---

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO OUR FELLOW AMERICANS :

Do never, ever try to drive a SUV near DL-44 home...

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

......but if you do make sure you are mooning and flipping the bird (although not if you are driving, of course).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And about the 'Nanny State' - where do you draw the line:

1. Legislating to make them more fuel efficient (a law which I believe got shot down)?

2. Increasing the price of petrol to make them more difficult to run (the price of petrol in the US is pretty low if we want to try and do something about the over comsumption)?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

everyone knows jesus would drive a VW Bus.....

i've never owned a suv...but being raised and living in Montana, i've always had a 4x4. i may not have been necessary, but i thought it was. though....that could just be redneck hillbillie thinkin besides, if i'm goin to be in an accident, i'd rather have my butt firmly planted in a big rig than a tin box!


__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

I heard on the radio that they passed some bill which says that starting 2005 all automobiles, I think this may not include SUV's, have to comply with the same emmision standards.

Emps, I don't think the government has any business implementing #1 or #2. So I would draw the line somewhere else for sure.

So, do you generally think a government has no business in pushing for more protection of the environment?

If so, is that because you believe the free market and/or public common sense will protect the environment, or
because you don´t believe nature needs to be protected at all?
Or do you think it would be nice to do something for the environment but it´s just not important enough to warrant even the slightest limitations to economic growth and individual freedom?

I've had more 4x4 rigs than I can count (I have difficulty going over ten, without removing shoes and socks) , and a few of them have been SUVs. But in certain parts of Alaska, with a small herd of kids, they actually make some sense.

My favorite vehicles have been Toyotas, I really loved both my '83 pickup and my 4wd van.

As for Jesus, just picture this:
"Hey Dad! Can I have the keys to the car.....?"

I think that automobile manufacturers have an inherent responsibility to attempt to make vehicles that are more fuel efficient. I believe our government has an inherent responsibility to also work towards that end, in whatever ways it can - be it legislation, funding for r&d, etc.

I think we as people in a nation in which people are running like idiots and spending 30-40 thousand dollars on vehicles that are far larger and far less efficient than our needs dictate have an inherent responsibility to change such behaviour and to pressure both industry and government to act more responsibly on such matters.

I think the government certainly does have the right to institute legislation that encourages fuel efficiency.

They certainly have no right to say that you can't own such a vehicle however, and it is obvious that there are a large number of circumstances in which people will need large unweildly vehicles, whether it's a pick-up truck, a van, a SUV, whatever. Going clubbing around manhattan or going to the grocery store once a week doesn't qualify





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-23-2003).]

well, at what number of children do people qualify for/justifiably buy an SUV or other large vehicle?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

what justifies need for an SUV in the first place? if you can afford the gas, and if the car passes state emissions (BOTH OF WHICH CAN BE RAISED) then why question personal choice?

who are we to dictate judgement on opinion in taste?

edit: US would never raise prices on Oil (very drastically) when we're going to war to get more to feed the economy. if less people payed for gas because of high gas mileage vehicles, the US would lose tons and tons of money each year.. and then maybe the french wouldn't be paying 6/gallon for gas..... cuz we all know how America loves to help the french..../ /// // spelling

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali


[This message has been edited by Sanzen (edited 04-23-2003).]

fig:

I believe the answer to your question is, that when you have more children than can be stuffed into your small vehicle (without damaging the children or the vehicle) and you live in an area with no public transportation, you are then justified with driving big rig. And if you live in an area that has snow, ice, and poor road mantainance, a 4x4(read:SUV) is a wise choice.

Trying to be environmentally correct , I figured that I would transport the family by dogsled. But when it got much below -0, the kids started to whine "Daddy, I can't feel my feet...." You know how kids are. And then we started getting threats from those PETA people. So I gave in and put the kids (and the dogs too) into a fullsize Ford Bronco, and we all drove happily everafter.

heh, nicely put norm. i'm a car guy myself but sometime down the road when its a lot easier to stick 2.5 kids in an SUV than an accord i'll definitely consider it. actually, after my recent experience of stalling my car in high water, which sucked up some water into a cylinder and eventually rather violently bent a rod and blew a hole in the front of the block, a vehicle with some ground clearance doesn't seem like such a bad idea...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

and then maybe the french wouldn't be paying 6/gallon for gas..... cuz we all know how America loves to help the french....

---

6$ a gallon ? Wait that should be... 5,47 euros for 3.78 liters that is to say 1.44 euro per liter ? No I don't think so. These are GB prices, not French ones

And about America, hrrrm can you hear my teeth creaking ?

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

quote:

---

well, at what number of children do people qualify for/justifiably buy an SUV or other large vehicle?

---

Well, that's what I've been saying...you *can't* in any reasonable manner specify what is ok and what isn't...it all depends on individual circumstances.

It is both the blessing and the unending curse of american society that such choices are left to the individual.

We can't take away such freedoms and remain what we have always claimed to be, and yet...our society is rife with pure idiocy that mocks and takes for granted the beauty of that freedom.

Our personal freedoms demand a great amount personal responsibility. Unfortunately, the responsibility end of that has been lost on the last generation and a half of americans who quite frankly have grown up with too much freedom that they haven't in any way earned.

And then you just have the people with small penis' who need to compensate....

*************************************************************************
"And then you just have the people with small penis' who need to compensate...."

*************************************************************************

Maybe that would explain why I got laid so much more after getting that Bronco! And all this time, I thought it was because of getting divorced......

While living in Seattle, I have had no vehicle except my bicycle. No wonder I get those enlargment ads in my email !

Uhhh...you get more, now that you are divorced??!!??

Ain't touching that one...nosirrreee!

It seems with all these laws controling our every descion people have forgotten what it means to be free. They think freedom has something to do with not being bothered by other people. Like smoking for example. The non-smokers think they are not free to breathe clean air, so they take away the freedom's of the smokers. People today tend to think that for them to be free, they have to take away the freedom's of others.

And with this car thing, you know, what DL and Sanzen said.


-->Ozone Quotes<--

WebShaman:

*************************************************************************
"Ain't touching that one...nosirrreee!"
*************************************************************************

Wow! That is almost a direct quote from my ex-wife........

I guess where I'm going with this is... when did the "grocery getter" become an SUV instead of a Station Wagon or a minivan? Or even moreso a regular extended cab pickup truck?

Of all the things that surprise me the most... Pickup trucks get far better mileage then SUV's. Why? I dunno for sure. They weigh about the same. The truck can actually move more... has a bigger engine, more clearance... they're cheaper(usually). I dunno, Trucks sound better to me. So why get and SUV? Because it's more important to have an expensive vehicle that eats gas so you can bitch about how much you have to spend on your expansive vehicle.

pSeUdo Vehicle - Not necessary in the evolution of vehicular science. A bastardization of pick-up and minivan that does a poor job of replacing either.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

MW,

quote:

---

So, do you generally think a government has no business in pushing for more protection of the environment?
. . .
Or do you think it would be nice to do something for the environment but it´s just not important enough to warrant even the slightest limitations to economic growth and individual freedom?

---

Excellent questions. Generally, I think the government should keep its nose out of the public's business, yes. I think the government should be limited because it is has the largest potential for abuse, waste, and infringement on freedom. I think government should be the last resort when it comes to correcting social and environmental ills. If the scientific evidence clearly shows major impact to the environment, then I definitely support government intervention when all else has failed. But if you're telling me that driving SUVs reaches that level of impact, then I have to disagree.

And talking about limiting economic growth concerns me deeply. This world is not suffering from too much of that but far too little! We need more trade and economic growth to increase the amount of security, health, freedom, and prosperity for the world's population.

I would be interested to hear how you view the potential for increasing these things I just mentioned via capitalism compared to the European model of socialism. It seems to me that socialism does limit economic growth and individual freedom far more than we do here in the States. But I don't see a flourishing economy and prosperity as much as we see here in our system.

quote:

---

I think government should be the last resort when it comes to correcting social and environmental ills.

---

It is already the last resort, because it´s the only one. Social and environmental problems are typical examples of what a government is needed for. The easiest way to go for the individual and the most profitable way to go for the industry is always the most damaging to the environment. Want mining operations in your national parks? Just tell your government to keep out of it - they are protected by law, not by individual responsibility and certainly not by the free market.

quote:

---

And talking about limiting economic growth concerns me deeply. This world is not suffering from too much of that but far too little! We need more trade and economic growth to increase the amount of security, health, freedom, and prosperity for the world's population.

---

This sounds nice... Let me just think for a moment, what could our governments do to enable more economic growth... Oh yes, let´s just make every manager´s dream come true and abandon environmental laws, workplace safety laws, social security, minimum wages... you get the point. I guess you will agree that this would make for a leap in economic growth - but somehow I can´t see how this would provide more security, health and prosperity for most people...

quote:

---

I would be interested to hear how you view the potential for increasing these things I just mentioned via capitalism compared to the European model of socialism. It seems to me that socialism does limit economic growth and individual freedom far more than we do here in the States. But I don't see a flourishing economy and prosperity as much as we see here in our system.

---

There is no socialism in Europe. Socialism was the system of Eastern Germany, the DDR before ´89.

Yes, we need capitalism. There does not seem to be any other way, and I don´t deny it has many good sides. But we need to be clear that a society must be judged based upon how it suits the needs of the people. If free trade and economic growth help fulfill these needs, fine. If not, don´t hesitate to put the people first, the economy second. In my opinion the free market should serve the people, not the other way round.

And no, our economy is not flourishing right now. Neither is yours AFAIK. There is a wordwide near-recession, and there are some reasons why this affects europe more than the US.
Also, I need to add, I am in no way satisfied with my government - they seem to be afraid to actually do, leave alone change anything, probably because everytime they try, they manage to look very incompetent about it. But I think they are the smaller of the two possible evils.

Trucks VS SUV's... well, *shrug* beats me. perhaps for safety reasons (carrying expensive equipment in an open bed is very very bad, even with one of those UGLY ass camper shells)

as far as mileage goes... lol .. if you can afford it .. who cares. if they bitch about their mileage/payment problems, i give you the innate right to bitch smack them... but eh? who cares.

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

who cares about gas mileage?

I do.

Such wastefulness is a big part of the reason we are tearing up the alaskan wilderness and doing this little thing you may have heard of - you know, war in the middle east?

the environmental and political impact of the mindset of 'who cares about gas mileage' is one symptom of the big problem with modern society...