Round Earthers and other progressions

[Chaka-Z0]

*snicker* If you think any automaker can meet a CAFE mark of 50MPG next year, you're out of your skull. Very few vehicles can meet that standard. And those that can aren't much use to a significant portion of the population. They just won't sell.

I see you're not familiar with planned obsolescence and the "taking it off the shelf". As in *well look at what I just found under the rug! Come on down Cali! It's a Brand New Car!* You don't think they got the tech already?

Guess in your world automakers sit on their butt meanwhile an ever-changing market where the tech evolves each year passes by them and they somehow stay above competition.

I'll take my CAFE with 1 cream that's it.

[Gatefan1976]

Do you own an equal share in annoyed's tin foil industry?

[Chaka-Z0]

Guess it's your week of the month, have some chocolate

[Gatefan1976]

Guess it's your week of the month, have some chocolate

A post got deleted.

[Chaka-Z0]

A post got deleted.

And they never come back

[Gatefan1976]

And they never come back

In 9 years of posting here?
No, usually not. Edited ones are merely edited, not deleted.
The only mod who even really deals with our crap is Bagpuss, and bagpuss tends to have a hands off approach and only steps in when really needed.
We fight, we bicker, we call each other mean words, but we discuss as well.
If all we did was fight, we would all get the ban-hammer.

[Annoyed]

I see you're not familiar with planned obsolescence and the "taking it off the shelf". As in *well look at what I just found under the rug! Come on down Cali! It's a Brand New Car!* You don't think they got the tech already?

Guess in your world automakers sit on their butt meanwhile an ever-changing market where the tech evolves each year passes by them and they somehow stay above competition.

I'll take my CAFE with 1 cream that's it.

Look at what types of car sells in this country. Light Trucks/SUV's are far and away the most popular models. These are what consumers need, want, and will pay money for. They need the hauling/towing/space capacities, and they want the protection of a larger vehicle. Those types of vehicles do NOT get anywhere near 50 mpg,


Calif. can require whatever it wants, but if people won't buy them, game over.

[Chaka-Z0]

Look at what types of car sells in this country. Light Trucks/SUV's are far and away the most popular models. These are what consumers need, want, and will pay money for. They need the hauling/towing/space capacities, and they want the protection of a larger vehicle. Those types of vehicles do NOT get anywhere near 50 mpg,


Calif. can require whatever it wants, but if people won't buy them, game over.

Why does any of this matter? It's a regulation, you think people will stop buying car? Who are you kidding? If those trucks don't meet the requirements, they won't be able to sell them at all. And yes, they exist Annoyed. Automakers such as Ford or Honda don't ''bluff'' an announcement of that magnitude dude and besides NO company would ever let free reigns to their competitors, don't worry about the products they will deliver.

No offense Annoyed but I think you might be a little behind in the car world news. I've seen high-end luxury electric cars with 3-4 engines that are ridiculously fast, you have electric Porshes, lambos, etc. Hell, I've seen 18-wheelers fully electric. Among many other reasons, HP goes straight to the wheel there isn't any transmission in an electric car. No parts breakage. No need to heat the car during cold seasons. And fuel is much more cheaper than the overpriced gas we buy right now.

[Annoyed]

Why does any of this matter? It's a regulation, you think people will stop buying car? Who are you kidding? If those trucks don't meet the requirements, they won't be able to sell them at all. And yes, they exist Annoyed. Automakers such as Ford or Honda don't ''bluff'' an announcement of that magnitude dude and besides NO company would ever let free reigns to their competitors, don't worry about the products they will deliver.

If people can't buy the vehicle they need due to govt. regulations, they will simply vote in different officials next election.

No offense Annoyed but I think you might be a little behind in the car world news. I've seen high-end luxury electric cars with 3-4 engines that are ridiculously fast, you have electric Porshes, lambos, etc. Hell, I've seen 18-wheelers fully electric. Among many other reasons, HP goes straight to the wheel there isn't any transmission in an electric car. No parts breakage. No need to heat the car during cold seasons. And fuel is much more cheaper than the overpriced gas we buy right now.

So, maybe the CEO of Google or something like that can afford to buy one. What about the average working stiff?
You can't ignore reality. which is one of the biggest flaws of the left to begin with; ignoring inconvenient facts.

While these 50MPG sounds good on paper, that's the only place it exists for the larger vehicle market, for the same reason as always. We don't yet have anything that can take the place of petroleum. Nothing on the shelf can match it for energy density.

We eventually will, and when something that is better, more efficient does come along, it will replace petroleum in response to market pressures.

[jelgate]

Your argument would mean more if you didn't ignore reality all the time. GF, my hypocrisy bacon please

[Gatefan1976]

I am running low on that.
Perhaps some stupidity bacon will suffice?

[jelgate]

I would think you'd run out of that first

[Gatefan1976]

get more hypocrites who happen to be stupid.

[Chaka-Z0]

your post is Chaka-bait, a couple names come to mind.

[aretood2]

how about that I could've sworn you're the one who started down that line
ah yes here it is

That was part of a somewhat different discussion I had with Chaka in response to what Chaka said, not in response to you. That had to do with "Racist Jokes". How do you take that, a different conversation with a different person to be a slight against you? This is a stretch at best and more bad faith nonsense on your part at worst. Do you know what bad faith argumentation is?

(though admittedly that was aeons ago)

5 months is aeons ago? In any case, when was the last Abortion clinic bombing anyway? You know what, don't answer. It doesn't matter. It's not relevant to my post that you have refused to discuss. I pointed out that your idea for faux-propaganda was peddling islamophobia. You never dealt with that and instead went on with the list of assumptions and attacks and bringing up of irrelevant things.

exactly - and that's the problem & that's what I'm trying to get through to you

Then why not just say "I think it's not that big of a deal because < insert how little you think that would actually promote islamophobia> since this abortion thing is a greater issue". Instead you made a vague comment about ISIS and then after a response from me (albeit I was confused why you leapt from hijabs to ISIS but instead of explaining what you meant you went ahead and assumed that I approved of....

the real reason was because you approve of those extreme Prolife(tm) policies & the islamophobia comment was just a means of attempting to defend those policies while at the same time trying to shield yourself from counter attack by invoking islamophobia - a devilish strategy that would work on the PC crowd but that don't work on me :| busted

This is the bad faith act and you just kept going on from there.

actually there were several paragraphs in between but hey who cares at this point correct in fact you weren't even addressing abortion (it's natural to respond to bad faith argument with bad faith argument)

What paragraphs are you referring to? How were these other paragraphs relevant? How do they justify your assumptions and and justify not discussing what you meant versus just claiming that I am OK with extreme practices other people do? Why must I list a manifesto of things I disagree with before I deal with one item in a discussion? None of this makes sense beyond wanting to just go on the attack because I dared call you out on a bad idea.

iirc I admitted I may have had you mixed up with another christian who's catholic
that said there are non-catholics who are even worse in the human rights department like the evangelists

Why is this even relevant? It's like you're looking for a reason to assume the worst of me.

tbh american isn't my first language but since we're splitting hairs maybe lot suggests 'most' in the US since you folks are a bit different but elsewhere a lot just means a lot I could've said 'many' or 'large number' or 'sizeable percentage' or ' ****load' if you prefer
that said whether it's 30% or 50% doesn't change anything it's still a lot of people.
why would you suddenly care about how many anyway? new goalposts?

When you throw so much irrelevance out there I will be drawn into responding to some of it, I'm only human. You are using "a lot" to make a point so I am asking you to quantify "A lot" and to back it up with evidence. Never heard of htis being a "sinister" thing to do in a discussion before.

I could ask you the same question how many people would support bombings on mosques? certainly not the majority of the NZ population (who accepted a new law in the wake of the attack).

I suspect the answer would be similar to christians who support abortion bombings and muslims who support terrorists. A small minority.

consider a false propaganda showing a veiled woman equating this with Prolife, Prolifers in the US usually don't like muslims BUT they also dont like abortions so this is unlikely to arouse their dislike of muslims (they'll probably react like "ok so the muslims agree with us on this, big deal"), progressives on the other hand (those you call "liberals") are pro-choice but they dont hate muslims so this is unlikely to cause islamophobia in them either in other words risk is low to none;

Then what's the point of this faux-propaganda? Because you initially proposed it as a way to "get back" at the pamphlets you responded to. By the way, this would have been the type of response you should have given me in the first place. We might have found common ground way back.

on the other hand Prolife(tm) propaganda depicting half eaten baby corpses......is much more likely to arouse choicophobia/libertophobia/womenwhoabortophobia in those who are already Prolife(tm)
so, you were saying?

I'm not sure what you mean by this bit.

It's not hard to write genuine responses. These last two quotes are actually genuine and worth "listening to" unlike the diatribe you've been posting.

absolutely that's what the OP was about & that's what I was responding to
you started with (what could be interpreted as) insinuations about islamophobia thereby also decrying a perceived problem while at the same time completely ignoring a far greater problem (to some this could almost be construed as provocation) , a double problem at that (violation of human rights + a piece of faux propaganda that encourages terrorist attacks against clinics the same way you said my idea might encourage attacks on mosques)

Eliminate the accusation of insinuation and this too can be a genuine response and not some bad faith attack. Maybe instead of accusing me, ask for clarification after having elaborated what you meant as you did so above.

so when you start there don't be surprised it goes down that roadhey maybe if you hadn't gone there things would've headed differently but for reminders all this is because you somehow made a connection between showing a veiled woman & shooting up a mosque you know as if one inevitably leads to another (that's like comparing a burp & a volcanic eruption because both contribute to global warming)
(besides I came up with an even better idea showing Bin Laden or Abu Bagdi's mug instead & you were good with that)

No. I didn't make that connection. The two statements were in two different posts in response to two different posters. You're the one making that connection yourself.