No matter what you put for the rest of the sentence, by definition I don't agree by default.
Surly you must agree that using this sentence structure, by definition you don't agree by default.
BOOM! Nailed!
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No matter what you put for the rest of the sentence, by definition I don't agree by default.
"Don't call me Surly."Surly
I'm having trouble parsing (not a grammar or spelling nitpick), but I think you're assuming that "not agreeing by default" is the same as "disagreeing by default". I don't agree with that assumption.Surly you must agree that using this sentence structure, by definition you don't agree by default.
BOOM! Nailed!
Also: Didn’t you just put up solar panels on your roof? Was there really no environmental concern whatsoever behind that decision?
Surely you must agree that ...
Perhaps you can try and rephrase it in a way you can read then? Just a suggestion.No matter what you put for the rest of the sentence, by definition I don't agree by default.
Since I’m unable to read your mind, thanks for clarifying.I wasn't "arguing" anything. I was pointing out what I saw as an unproductive jab that doesn't really help the discussion.
I’m not going to look for that.If you can't find printed and internet examples of this regarding the people and groups you mention in your "[1]" then you're not looking hard enough.
And making it a debate about the debate is productive?It's a bit uncomfortable that you like to make assumptions about why other people think and do what they do so aggressively. It makes me not interested in sharing information at all, frankly.
I have many friends that are anti-EV biased. I am sure that if they tested the Roadster and the Model S they would change their mind. Quality is the key. Any other points based on climate change and global warming don't work at all with them.
I'll take a swing at one example. Even if not necessarily "dogma", it's easy to find people on these boards that blindly advocate cutting carbon emissions without considering the cost. I can agree that the consequences of not cutting carbon emissions is terrible, but if one is unwilling to weigh the cost of cutting carbon emissions, the argument becomes silly.So, what liberal "dogma" specifically are you pointing at?
While that question wasn't directed at me, I did put solar panels on my roof. Cost was pretty much the only factor. With a large house to air condition, a swimming pool, and a BEV, filling my roof with solar panels in CA pays me back in about 4 years. The environmental benefit might make me feel good, but the 4 year payback gets me on the phone with installers.Also: Didn’t you just put up solar panels on your roof? Was there really no environmental concern whatsoever behind that decision?
and it doesn't work with me, either.[regarding buying an EV:] other points based on climate change and global warming don't work at all with [some].
How to deal with anti-EV biased friends?
Get new friends! :tongue:
When considering whether I should buy my Tesla, ideologues on this site implied that if I could buy a Model S, not buying the Model S was morally irresponsible. I find that logic ridiculous.
What is the difference in utility to me between a Model S and a competitive car?
What is the value in the emissions that the Tesla will save?
Those are logical questions. Saying everyone that can afford a particular BEV should buy that BEV is dogmatic lunacy.
Everybody has different motivations for why they bought their Tesla Model S. Here are mine, in order:
1. High performance
2. Supporting Elon Musk's vision of the future
3. Advanced technology and features
4. Environmental concerns
5. Annoying conservatives by having a practical, high-performance EV
The closest thing to a "negative" comment I've received was along the lines of "it's a great car if you're willing to deal with the compromises".
I also agree with you that buying one Model S isn't going to change the world on its own -- and you're probably right that buying a less-expensive car and carbon offsets to go with it is going to be less pricey overall and likely do just as much good with regard to CO2 emissions for that one vehicle.
...My original point was/is simply that language such as "surely you must agree" is almost always followed by a wild and/or contentious assumption that is pivotal to the subsequent argument. It's kind of like "I probably shouldn't be saying this but" and "no offense but" where the language itself cues an instinctual reaction.
First, FWIW thanks to Andrew, nwdiver and jaanton for pitching in.Even if not necessarily "dogma", it's easy to find people on these boards that blindly advocate cutting carbon emissions without considering the cost. I can agree that the consequences of not cutting carbon emissions is terrible, but if one is unwilling to weigh the cost of cutting carbon emissions, the argument becomes silly.
At the moment, the marginal cost of cutting carbon emissions seems extremely small compared to the consequences of not doing it, so I can agree with the liberals that we should reduce emissions. but if we were in a world where we had already cut all of the easy to cut emissions, and CO2 levels were still rising (e.g., we were still flying jet fuel airplanes), I'd be willing to say "so be it". To me, the ability to fly airplanes is worth a 0.001°C/yr rise (or whatever airplanes contribute)
My reasoning is basically the same as Andrew’s and jaanton’s above.When considering whether I should buy my Tesla, ideologues on this site implied that if I could buy a Model S, not buying the Model S was morally irresponsible. I find that logic ridiculous.
What is the difference in utility to me between a Model S and a competitive car?
What is the value in the emissions that the Tesla will save?
Those are logical questions. Saying everyone that can afford a particular BEV should buy that BEV is dogmatic lunacy.
If you still feel like your argument wasn't addressed:
It sounds like you are confusing a cost calculation based on your personal preferences (in this thread you already acknowledged that the S7 would "probably" be a better comparison to the Model S than the S6) with a more general argument about the environmental efficiency of buying an electric car.
First of all, if you buy an electric car which is, let's say, $8k more expensive (and get back the difference in gasoline savings), it's not just the $8k which work for supporting electric cars, but the whole price of the car. And, in a sense, twice that, since not only will there be that much more support for electric cars, but also that much less support for ICEs. (If you would otherwise buy an ICE, that is). So those $8k actually work maybe $180k in favor of electric cars.
Then, if everyone argued the same way as you, and similarly compared a Prius to the Leaf, and a Cruze to the Volt, there'd be no more electric cars. [My underline.]
Which might not be that much of a difference in the short-term, if everyone gave the money to "TerraPass" instead. But by the time much of our electricity is generated from sustainable sources, we'd still have this huge fleet of ICEs producing CO2 and smog and consuming oil. [My underline.]
Whereas if we ignore the kind of thinking which you are promoting above, then we'd have a huge fleet of electric cars by then, therefore fresh air, and *much less* CO2 production and oil consumption. [My underline.]
Of course, you could always contribute to "TerraPass" additionally.
See my previous answer above.Here's the thing: with a $66/year donation to carbonfund.org or terrapass.com, I could offset all of the CO2 emissions from a BMW M5. Let's say I own a car for 8 years, that means that the CO2 emission savings of my Tesla is worth about $500. $0.5k worth of CO2 emissions isn't going to swing me to buy one $100k vehicle over another.
I'll be happy to vote for a carbon tax to make a real difference in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, but my emissions are essentially irrelevant. I'm not about to change my way of life to cut emissions (e.g., not run my air conditioners) unless others are required to do that also. and if everybody had that attitude ("I'll willing to change if and only if the rest of the country is required to change"), the world would be way way better off than it is now (where 60% have the attitude of "Let our kids deal with the consequences of our emissions." and 1% has the attitude of "I'll make a change regardless of what the rest of you are willing to do.").
the current amount of CO2 in our atmosphere: Currently around 400 ppm. According to best scientist on the planet we must go back till 350 ppm CO2 as soon as possible, and we passed 350 ppm in 1988.
…My original point was/is simply that language such as "surely you must agree" is almost always followed by a wild and/or contentious assumption that is pivotal to the subsequent argument. It's kind of like "I probably shouldn't be saying this but" and "no offense but" where the language itself cues an instinctual reaction.
So…Reminds me of "Some people say"
Watch from 3:47, point starts at 8:40. [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-[/video]
This would be very good but the trend now is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increasing at a rate of 3 ppm per year. It means that the efforts that are being done to decrease CO2 emissions are not enough.
I would like the target of 350 ppm for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere be formalized at a global level as a goal to be achieved in 15 years.