4 ms·
No matter how many times you claim I'm offended, that doesn't actually mean I was offended. Why do you keep making that claim? > the only thing anyone said is
by eridius 10y ago
No matter how many times you claim I'm offended, that doesn't actually mean I was offended. Why do you keep making that claim?
> the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla. That was my original point. The author didn't say "There exist Tesla 'fanboys'", instead the author very strongly implied that anyone trying to defend Tesla is a fanboy (and thus should be dismissed). You'll notice that after making that list of arguments in favor of Tesla, the author then proceeded to address none of them. After all, why should he, when anyone who makes those arguments is obviously a "fanboy"?
And no, I'm not offended. Why would I be? I'm not a Tesla "fanboy". What I am is annoyed. This kind of behavior is a pet peeve of mine (as are most attempts to dismiss an argument by evading it instead of addressing the points), and I bring it up because most people don't, or even leap to defend this behavior by claiming "but there are fanboys!", even though that argument relies on a logical fallacy (the existence of fanboys that defend the company does not mean that anyone who defends the company is a fanboy).
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
Again, give me a citation. I've searched and found the exact opposite of what you're saying, and linked it. You need to give me an authoritative link, just claiming this repeatedly is meaningless.
> Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable", please don't put words in my mouth. And secondly, you apparently either don't understand the article or don't understand my argument. Tesla's going to have a dip because of capital expenditures. These aren't per-unit costs. I said Tesla cannot sell cars at a per-unit loss (which is what I've seen a lot of people claiming over the past year), because they don't have any other way to make it up. But GM can sell the Bolt at a per-unit cost (whether they actually are is irrelevant, I'm not sure we'll know that unless GM tells us) because selling the Bolt allows them to sell more profitable gas-guzzling cars and still meet fuel-economy standards, which is something the article itself even admitted.
> if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat
Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
- dogma1138 10y ago>No matter how many times you claim I'm offended, that doesn't actually mean I was offended. Why do you keep making that claim? Because you've kicked off something that wasn't even discussed. >Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla. No one was implying anything, no one was saying anything negative or positive about Tesla. > Every talk he made about the Model 3 I'm pretty sure you can use Google and hear him talk when he says that the Model 3 couldn't happen without the Model S ;) Like the launch event where he said that the people who buy the Model S effectively are paying the way forwards for the Model 3. I'm also pretty sure when you know that Model 3 owners have to pay for everything including access to the Supercharger network it's not the same as the Model S. >Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable" >Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man. You claimed it would be more profitable than the traditional car companies at scale. "Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy"
- eridius 10y ago> Because you've kicked off something that wasn't even discussed. How do you think things get discussed? Because someone brings them up. Congratulations for pointing out the origin of literally every discussion ever made. > I'm pretty sure you can use Google Seriously, give me a link or shut up. When I ask for a citation, you can't just tell me to Google for it. That's not a citation, and I've already explained that when I search I find many articles that contradict your claim and none in support. > You claimed it would be more profitable than the traditional car companies at scale. No, not "than the traditional car companies". More profitable than it is at launch. And this argument comes straight from the article, it's not actually my argument, I only rephrased it for brevity: > And when its battery factory is running at scale, it should be able to produce batteries at a lower price, bumping up its profitability.
- sammydavis 10y agoDogma, you come across as one of those people that become fixated on a particular company or person being a failure no matter what happens. You don't ever supply information on the questions the other person asks. Saying "use google" usually don't get anywhere.