3 ms·

Yes, 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

Yes, 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 ago
  How much compensation, should you personally receive from the hypothetical situation described above?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Let'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 ago
      This 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 ago
        Morals 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
        Certainly, people can come up with all manner of perceived injustices. Spitting on someone is considered a crime in many jurisdictions however. It is not the same thing as someone legally owning a vehicle that you do not like.
        chimpanzee 2y ago
        Perhaps focus on arguing against gp’s conclusion rather than against the analogy. Meaning, respond to this: > Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This conclusion is applicable regardless of the analogy’s aptness. You obviously don’t like the conclusion. But can you argue against it? Also, as you seem to be focused on the “buying” rather than the “driving” of a truck, would you be ok with a tax or some other disincentive aimed solely at truck drivers rather than truck buyers?
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        I don't know how it helps to introduce a legal layer here. Laws are not only an approximation of morals, but also a compromise among all stakeholders in a country. As said, it may not be the same thing overall, but morally it can be perceived on a similar level.

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 ago
How much compensation, should you personally receive from the hypothetical situation described above?
- coldtea 2y ago
  Let'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 ago
    This 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 ago
      Morals 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
        Certainly, people can come up with all manner of perceived injustices. Spitting on someone is considered a crime in many jurisdictions however. It is not the same thing as someone legally owning a vehicle that you do not like.
        chimpanzee 2y ago
        Perhaps focus on arguing against gp’s conclusion rather than against the analogy. Meaning, respond to this: > Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This conclusion is applicable regardless of the analogy’s aptness. You obviously don’t like the conclusion. But can you argue against it? Also, as you seem to be focused on the “buying” rather than the “driving” of a truck, would you be ok with a tax or some other disincentive aimed solely at truck drivers rather than truck buyers?
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        I don't know how it helps to introduce a legal layer here. Laws are not only an approximation of morals, but also a compromise among all stakeholders in a country. As said, it may not be the same thing overall, but morally it can be perceived on a similar level.