[murderspice]

Originally Posted by Dan B

I never said or implied anything like that. I stated both rabid groups exhibit the same behavior, but nowhere do I imply equivalency.



Where do I endorse the radical left? Never have and never will. I think radicals on both sides are wrong. Period. I hate the stop oil movement. I think they are pretentious cancer and cause harm. Now, if there was a reasonable person with the same viewpoint as them, without the radicalization, I would love to debate them.

Lastly, putting works in someone's mouth, yelling (yeah I know it is words but you get my point), and basically reducing the discussion to attacking/defending, is the reason people no longer have polite debates.

So, well done, you have successfully driven me away from this conversation. You can continue to yell your opinion into a self reinforcing vacuum.

This is actually a politics thread disguised as an EV one. You will have as much success here as you would with a maga uncle. The ignorance is pervasive, and aggressive; a cesspool of reactionary, self-reinforcing dunning-kruger, coupled with belligerent psychopathy. Truly a creation of the internet, the only place where it can survive.

[portisleft]

It all comes down to cost of ownership, and EVs outpace ICE cars between 8-10X when it comes to money coming out of your pocket.

EVs are perfect as grocery-getter, kid-hauler and commuting vehicles - basically 95% of the types of things a car is for. EVs are far more efficient in traffic than on the highway, and even there, they're still 5-8 times less costly to run (vs 10-12x in the city).

Leno had a great comparison between ICE cars and horses - Just because cars replaced horses didn't mean horses and horseback riding went away. In fact, there are still about 1/2 as many horses as there were 100 years ago and they lead a MUCH better life today than before the transition took place. They went from a being primarily a working animal to a sporting animal.

Same with ICE - they're not going to go away, and the one that will remain will be enjoyed by their owners and cared for far better.

Source: we're driving an EV 95% of the time and I take my family out in the 'silly loud car' for drives every now and then when I feel like shifting gears and thrashing it through turns making my wife and kid giggle, only to realized that I spend as much money on gas in an afternoon as it would cost to charge the car for 2 months.

[beaups]

Originally Posted by murderspice

This is actually a politics thread disguised as an EV one. You will have as much success here as you would with a maga uncle.

It's cute you think that EVs and politics are two different things.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by beaups

It's cute you think that EVs and politics are two different things.

It should be marked as political then, just like the picture threads.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by murderspice

This is actually a politics thread disguised as an EV one. You will have as much success here as you would with a maga uncle. The ignorance is pervasive, and aggressive; a cesspool of reactionary, self-reinforcing dunning-kruger, coupled with belligerent psychopathy. Truly a creation of the internet, the only place where it can survive.

You're talking rubbish. It's an open thread to discuss how EV's are being forced onto the public through lies and double dealing also right from my first post how EV's are a mistake for a lot of people.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

You don't think it was your bonkers Right Wing and conspiracy theory-laden posts of the past that may have been the reasons why you're not overly convincing?

I'm not right wing though. I am NO BULLSHIT. I'd take Bill Clinton over George Bush. Bills wife is another story. Flipping antichrist.
Each, what you call conspiracies, proved to be factual. All of them.

Try some different research avenues because you're in the weeds, along with millions of other trusting souls.
Cheers.

[Equilibrandt]

Can't believe I just had to read four consecutive posts about how only the EV MPGe figure-generators are the people who cook their books.

In a 5 minute google search I could probably compile a blatantly-obvious list of bad actors in the oil/petroleum industry. These companies have embedded themselves to the highest levels; this industry has apparently brainwashed the masses into thinking they're looking out for the public's best interest.

Who was the biggest advocate for vapes to replace cigarettes? Marlboro's investment team, behind the scenes. MPG and MPGe are both a racket and it's asinine to think one is not because you like the torque-generating method of ICE or EV. But they're all we have to judge publicly.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

Can't believe I just had to read four consecutive posts about how only the EV MPGe figure-generators are the people who cook their books.

Its called brigading. They all get their info from the same source.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Dan B

I never said or implied anything like that. I stated both rabid groups exhibit the same behavior, but nowhere do I imply equivalency.



Where do I endorse the radical left? Never have and never will. I think radicals on both sides are wrong. Period. I hate the stop oil movement. I think they are pretentious cancer and cause harm. Now, if there was a reasonable person with the same viewpoint as them, without the radicalization, I would love to debate them.

Lastly, putting works in someone's mouth, yelling (yeah I know it is words but you get my point), and basically reducing the discussion to attacking/defending, is the reason people no longer have polite debates.

So, well done, you have successfully driven me away from this conversation. You can continue to yell your opinion into a self reinforcing vacuum.

That's the issue though. No one can take a position of "end oil" and not be radical. Rational, normal, mature people, realize the world runs on oil and will continue to run on oil because of performance and economics. Such normal people ignore stupid shit.

To get attention from rational, normal, mature people, one has to act like a petulant child. Hence... Greta.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by murderspice

Its called brigading. They all get their info from the same source.

I get my information from peer-reviewed scientific text books written before the internet existed.

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Alas Babylon, there is no debating with the Green Insanity. Some people are starting to speak up, but we'll all get to live through the stupidity. To many perfectly nice people such as yourself that just can't imagine the pain coming down the pike. Well, there is still some time and elections to come, so who knows, maybe sanity will prevail.

Also, Stop Oil without radicalization is an oxymoron.

I lied, in the interest of a spirited debate, I will make one last effort.

I did not say I would debate someone from Stop Oil. I said I would love to debate someone who was not radicalized. Stop Oil wants to end oil use yesterday with no viable alternative. A rational person thinks, at some point we will run out of oil and we should start working towards an alternative in a responsible manner.

See the difference?

Please actually read what I say without a preconceived prejudice. It is coloring your interpretation of what I am saying.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

That's the issue though. No one can take a position of "end oil" and not be radical. Rational, normal, mature people, realize the world runs on oil and will continue to run on oil because of performance and economics. Such normal people ignore stupid shit.

To get attention from rational, normal, mature people, one has to act like a petulant child. Hence... Greta.

Where do I say their stance is rational?

And it is foolish and short sided to believe we have and endless supply of oil. At some point we will need alternatives. We will also be forced to start prioritizing how oil is used. I am not saying this will happen soon, but why not responsibly start developing alternative technologies?

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I get my information from peer-reviewed scientific text books written before the internet existed.

If they were written prior to 1983 they are very out of date. I would suggest finding peer reviewed scientific journals written with today's understanding of science. Our understanding of the universe and technology has changed quite a bit in the last 41 years.

[murderspice]

Iykyk: In Lisa the Iconoclast, Lisa discovers that town founder Jebediah Springfield was a secret criminal con artist, and that the townsfolk’s lives are a lie. Realizing this is an important discovery, she desperately tries to get the townsfolk to listen to her. But they meet her with hostility, apathy, disbelief, and partisanship and she fails to get through to them. Ultimately, she realizes the town is so far gone that perhaps it’s better for them to be lied to by con artists, and she keeps the secret to herself.

[TboneS54]

Originally Posted by Dan B

If they were written prior to 1983 they are very out of date. I would suggest finding peer reviewed scientific journals written with today's understanding of science. Our understanding of the universe and technology has changed quite a bit in the last 41 years.

You don't need any recent knowledge or understanding to see what's going on.

Humans are doing what they've always done. Doesn't matter if it's 2000bc or 500ad or 2020ad.

Also, the most recent science/knowledge/stats is the most incorrect, corrupted, bought, twisted type. Our "science" on food & health is atrocious; purely propagated to support certain industry with no concern of actual health. Modern medicine is drug dealers pushing, and quite effectively - their drugs cause more disease which necesitates more drugs.

It's sad how many educated (read: indoctrinated) people don't see what's happening. Worse, they think EV is going to "save the planet"

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Dan B

If they were written prior to 1983 they are very out of date. I would suggest finding peer reviewed scientific journals written with today's understanding of science. Our understanding of the universe and technology has changed quite a bit in the last 41 years.

Actually no. The foundations have not changed.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

That's the issue though. No one can take a position of "end oil" and not be radical. Rational, normal, mature people, realize the world runs on oil and will continue to run on oil because of performance and economics. Such normal people ignore stupid shit.

To get attention from rational, normal, mature people, one has to act like a petulant child. Hence... Greta.

You’ve shown yourself to know that electric cars are older than combustion engines. So why is it so shocking humanity would transition (!) to them? Its not like theyre teleporters or something. We have the capability.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by TboneS54

Also, the most recent science/knowledge/stats is the most incorrect, corrupted, bought, twisted type. Our "science" on food & health is atrocious; purely propagated to support certain industry with no concern of actual health. Modern medicine is drug dealers pushing, and quite effectively - their drugs cause more disease which necesitates more drugs.

So you support tort reform? Im sure a giant public health lawsuit would clear up a good portion of that.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by Dan B

I lied, in the interest of a spirited debate, I will make one last effort.

I did not say I would debate someone from Stop Oil. I said I would love to debate someone who was not radicalized. Stop Oil wants to end oil use yesterday with no viable alternative. A rational person thinks, at some point we will run out of oil and we should start working towards an alternative in a responsible manner.

See the difference?

Please actually read what I say without a preconceived prejudice. It is coloring your interpretation of what I am saying.



Where do I say their stance is rational?

And it is foolish and short sided to believe we have and endless supply of oil. At some point we will need alternatives. We will also be forced to start prioritizing how oil is used. I am not saying this will happen soon, but why not responsibly start developing alternative technologies?

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

[RM7]

Da fuk?

[gonzo]

Done jumped the Orca.

[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by TboneS54

Also, the most recent science/knowledge/stats is the most incorrect, corrupted, bought, twisted type.

The astounding dichotomy of this situation is that y'all are apparently saying this applies to everyone but automakers and oil companies. One might argue they're one of the worst proponents.

Resources are scarce and only getting more scarce. Most of the current oil execs won't be alive to see that, so instead they attack anything that would harm their current dollar, and the ICE-hugging masses eat it up. Just as any EV-fanatic touts EVs as being the savior of the planet, which I also disagree with. Ouroboros, everyone's eating their own tail.

I've also just come to realize that rage-baiting in a subforum like this is an excellent way to artificially inflate your subforum Rep score. Echo chamber gon' echo.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by murderspice

You’ve shown yourself to know that electric cars are older than combustion engines. So why is it so shocking humanity would transition (!) to them? Its not like theyre teleporters or something. We have the capability.

Steam predates both gas and electric. 1888 for electric 1890 for gas production cars, not engineering development models. In terms of history they all came to provenance around the same time. Gas won out as the best fuel source then, as for today, because of its superior energy density.

That, and there really was no significant electricity available late 19th century rural life. Electricity was barely even a utility in the late 1800's in populated areas. And please don't try to contradict me on this, I live in a house that predates the invention of electrical generation.