Jump to content

Airplane and rocket fuel emissions


Recommended Posts

Another example would be why not protest at go-kart track, a nascar track (well I know why you wouldn't protest there), a F1 track, a motorcross track, a speed boat race, a fishing contest, the list is endless.

 

If it truely is about waste, picking on SUV drivers is hypocricy.

 

Wakeboarding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put an end to you all judging me. I have not stated my opinion on SUVs. I believe they are wastefull. It is pretty obvious.
No one judged your ungiven opinion on SUVs. Everyone was commenting on what you asked them to comment on, whether your argument was a good one. So far it is pretty unanimous that it is NOT.
Another example would be why not protest at go-kart track, a nascar track (well I know why you wouldn't protest there), a F1 track, a motorcross track, a speed boat race, a fishing contest, the list is endless.

 

If it truely is about waste, picking on SUV drivers is hypocricy.

 

Wakeboarding?

Again, a bad strawman argument. None of these examples are for vehicles used for traveling. These are all vehicles used for entertainment purposes. Believe me, you DO NOT want to go down that road in your SUV argument. If you did, you would need to provide statistics that show a preponderance of off-road recreational use for the average SUV, which is one of the environmentalists strongest points for their being so extravagantly wasteful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put an end to you all judging me.

 

To echo what Phi has said: You were not being judged or attacked, your crappy logic was. Arguments get attacked to see if they can be destroyed - that's what scientists do - in a trial by fire. If it survives, it's a good argument; yours was not. It's not personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone explain to me this whole strawman thing? I've never heard of it but it seems to be pretty well known here.

 

Making up a position that's easy to knock down - a straw man. But the made-up argument is not the actual position of the person(s) in question. In this case, people who criticize the poor gas efficiency of SUVs are generally not advocating zero fossil fuel use, they are advocating more efficient fossil fuel use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone explain to me this whole strawman thing? I've never heard of it but it seems to be pretty well known here.
Briefly, it's when your opponent in an argument shifts the target of the argument to something he can better defend (setting up a man filled with straw so he can knock it down because he can't knock down the real man).

 

* edit * Sorry for the redundancy. swansont said it better. I've GOT to stop letting work interfere with my posting. Where are my priorities, honestly?

 

* edit 2 *

I just like to point out Phi, that because of the other thread, I was able to recognize that Tully Beaver was employing the strawman fallazy (thanks ;-)
You're very welcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making up a position that's easy to knock down - a straw man. But the made-up argument is not the actual position of the person(s) in question. In this case, people who criticize the poor gas efficiency of SUVs are generally not advocating zero fossil fuel use, they are advocating more efficient fossil fuel use.

 

I've noticed that this sort of thing is difficult to overcome when there are a chorus of people holding up the same "strawman". Nice illustration, thanks.

 

Briefly, it's when your opponent in an argument shifts the target of the argument to something he can better defend (setting up a man filled with straw so he can knock it down because he can't knock down the real man).

 

Ah, thank you. Seems like a byproduct of debate. I don't know about everywhere else, but I know that here people taught debate are taught to defend their initial position no matter what, even if they've been proven wrong. That sort of close minded behavior makes me gag. What progress can be made if the truth isn't allowed to win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one judged your ungiven opinion on SUVs. Everyone was commenting on what you asked them to comment on, whether your argument was a good one. So far it is pretty unanimous that it is NOT..

I was actually just asking about rocket and airplane emissions. I gave a quick reason why, but I was not, in fact, asking for your opinions of my arguement, if you want to be so pedantic about it.

 

Again, a bad strawman argument. None of these examples are for vehicles used for traveling. These are all vehicles used for entertainment purposes..

To waste fuel for entertainment is OK, but to waste fuel because you want to drive a big giant truck/ SUV is not? I had a nice big SUV, and was quite entertained while I was driving it. So, "why not protest at a nascar race?" is still a valid arguement.

Believe me, you DO NOT want to go down that road in your SUV argument. If you did, you would need to provide statistics that show a preponderance of off-road recreational use for the average SUV, which is one of the environmentalists strongest points for their being so extravagantly wasteful.

Whether or not you drive your SUV off-road has nothing to do with the arguement. Nascars and F1 cars drive on the road too.

 

Oh Oh but you can't travel to work and back or to the shops and back as well at the same time as enjoying yourself in your vehicle?

 

You must only drive a yugo for these tasks, but at the weekend you are welcome to rag around in a V12 whatever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still strawmanning.

I don't care if I'm a strawman, an ironman, a witch, or even the wizard of Oz himself. It is wrong for someone to protest people driving SUVs and then go and support their favorite nascar racer or sit on an airplane full or not. That is hypocricy.

 

Really, if you can't see the simple logic in that being wrong, I guess you just missing the point as you are too caught up in trying to bash SUV drivers yourself.

 

That's how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had actually read posts in this thread, and not strawmanned when attempting to refute them, you probably would have understood this better.

 

The fact is, people protest SUVs because they are wasteful. People buy a huge gas-guzzling car so they can go to the grocery and buy milk, when they could get away with a Prius. Aircraft, when full, are the equivalent of that Prius. For each passenger, they consume a reasonable amount of fuel (I don't know how much, so don't ask me) rather than guzzling fuel like an SUV.

 

If you loaded an SUV like the VWs that clowns use, stuffing them with 14 people, it would be "environmentally friendly" because it takes the place of 14 SUVs and saves just that much gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually just asking about rocket and airplane emissions. I gave a quick reason why, but I was not, in fact, asking for your opinions of my arguement, if you want to be so pedantic about it.
Then I suggest you take your ball and go home. It took you two pages of opinions to come to the conclusion that you didn't want them. Pedants everywhere will rejoice that they can ignore you from now on.

 

Just so this thread is not a complete waste, this is a great example of a very bad debate. Anyone who is not ready to recieve new ideas about a subject shouldn't post on a scientific debate forum.

 

On the advice of our Chemistry Experts, I am closing and moving this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.