Hummer Rhetoric
On topics somewhat related to this post, here is an article entitled, "Driving; My Life, My Hummer," showing love for the Hummer. The author claims that it "does something to women" and lists all the negatives associated with the Hummer, basically undercutting any positives the car could have, yet she stands by her vehicle despite the obvious detriments. She then compares anti-SUV groups to those calling for city-wide smoking bans, essentially trying to link two "I know it's bad, but I do it anyway" choices, making a Hummer an irresitable "vice" like smoking. If we have a smoking ban because of its damage to the public, could we then have Hummer ban? I wish.
15 Comments:
Cigarette smoke is pollution. Smoking is littering. It's littering the atmosphere and eventually it will attract the same kind of universal scorn as the emptying of personal trash into the local aquifer. As for this woman and her stupid Hummer, she can bite me. And I don't have to explain my position on the matter because I'm not wracked with guilt.
b.s. -- a major volcanic eruption (like the one we had in the 1800s) dumps more pollutants in the atmosphere than the entire race does today.
Smoking is absolutely negligible to global pollution.
One car's pollution in a month of rush-hour commuting puts more pollution in the air than a lifetime of smoking.
Right. But what does that have to do with anything? There are a great many things that damage the environment more than cigarette smoke. But it's still pollution. I likened it to littering for a reason. If I pitch a fast food wrapper out my car window, I wouldn't be doing massive enviromental damage... but I would be a dick. As such, society has rightly stigmatized that behavior. That's hardly "b.s."
What does pitching a fast food wrapper out of your car window have to do with anything? One Chernobyl will do more environmental destruction than a lifetime of littering. It doesn't make any sense.
Would you be opposed to the idea of using an area of your own head, which is currently not used for such purposes, using this as a storage place for sugar?
Fuck the police.
I really dont like any law or ban or legislation that is 'for my own good'.
If the legislation is not addressing a clear and present danger to the public, it's bullshit.
Now wait a minute. My feeling is that there is no – absolutely no need for me to have a storage place for granulated sugar in my head. The restaurant supplies the packaged sugar for the tea or the coffee or the cereal or whatever.
What about when you're not in a restaurant? What about when you're just down on the street and somebody says, "Here's a cup of black coffee"? He says, "I forgot the sugar"?
Tampering with a skull to put sugar in there... why?
You in a snese would be a human sugar bowl.
Why?
If you could bend over a hot cereal in the morning and just - from your head, sugar would flow onto the cereal.
Wouldn't it be easier to have sugar, say, in your fingertips? Or elbows?
I'm working on a nanotech device that will allow me to create sugar from free-floating molecules in the atmosphere.
I think that if I was going to have a part of my body store sugar, there's no doubt where I'd put it nor any doubt how I would distribute the sugar. I'm not saying anyone would want the sugar after it came out or be willing to wait until I triggered the appropriate release mechanism but still, I'm just saying, I know where I'd want the sugar repository in my body to be.
There is the question about whether the distribution of said sugar would itself be considered "pollution" and then whether this "pollution" would be equivalent to the hypothetical fast food wrapper. Would it?
All right Coyle and Sharp, take it on the road.
Post a Comment
<< Home