5 ms·
> if they are just buying it to impress people, who cares? The buyer cares. And if the buying is detrimental to more than the buyer himself (eg wastes resource
by chimpanzee 2y ago
> if they are just buying it to impress people, who cares?
The buyer cares. And if the buying is detrimental to more than the buyer himself (eg wastes resources, harms the environment, overtaxes infrastructure), then it makes sense for others to let that buyer know how they actually feel.
But I agree with your suggestion that it is entirely possible for a truck buyer to have reasons other than those supposed by the author.
- osigurdson 2y agoYou seem to suggest that the truck buyer is somehow causing you / others harm. By what metric?
- kitkat_new 2y agouse of limited resources, air pollution, noise, higher infrastructure cost, global warming, more kills in traffic
- osigurdson 2y agoSo fine then with a huge, shiny, lifted F-350 that the owner drives 5km once per week to the ice cream shop? Or is your largest issue perhaps "redneck culture"?
- coldtea 2y agoWhy would he be fine with a "huge, shiny, lifted F-350 that the owner drives 5km once per week to the ice cream shop"? Didn't he already explained he's against buying of trucks when there's no real need?
- osigurdson 2y agoYes, and then explained precisely the harms being caused to them personally - all based on distance driven. Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks. No one "needs" anything, least of all any kind of vehicle.
- coldtea 2y ago>Yes, and then explained precisely the harms being caused to them personally - all based on distance driven. To everybody, naturally including them personally. And none of the harms are based on distance driven. US-sized trucks are worse than smaller regular cars on those metrics for the same distances too. >Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks One can dislike both you know.
- osigurdson 2y agoHow much compensation, should you personally receive from the hypothetical situation described above?
- coldtea 2y agoLet's say someone purposefully spits on you. How much compensation, should you personally receive from that hypothetical situation? Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is especially true about things economists call "externalities", which includes the damage to the environment and things outside direct economic dealing.
- osigurdson 2y agoThis is an incredibly flaw analogy. Spitting on someone is a direct assault. Legally owning something unliked by various random people worldwide is not morally equivalent to spitting in someone's face.
- tcfhgj 2y agoMorals are subjective and a function of time. Just because you don't see it as equivalent, doesn't mean others don't
- osigurdson 2y ago
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago[dead]