does anyone get the feeling...

[nostatic]

my toy is on the "wrong" side of the line, but I allow myself some latitude. As I said, the world is not black and white, and finding a balance between fun and environmental responsibility doesn't make me a hypocrit.

I have done the same with applicances and picking what vehicle to drive, one of which is an SUV, but it is a 4-cylinder 4-runner that gets over 20mpg...and we bought it back in '96 becuase it was "cheap". And by today's standard, it is barely an SUV.

In the end, each person does have to make their own choices about what is "waste" and what isn't...that is until the resources in question either become too expensive to use, or all gone altogether. Truth be told I'd actually love to sell the 4-runner and get a Prius, but I don't want to spend the $$$.

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
my toy is on the "wrong" side of the line, but I allow myself some latitude. As I said, the world is not black and white, and finding a balance between fun and environmental responsibility doesn't make me a hypocrit.
. .. . ..

Perhaps "hypocrit" isn't the right description. Something more like "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind. And, what comes out of that, are liberals telling society "do as I say. . .not as I do. ..the reasons it's right for me and wrong for you, you just wouldn't understand; for I (liberal) am capable of discerning; you are other. BUT, if you were on the environmental high-ground like me, you would buy a Prius, so gas would be cheap for me. . .did i say that last part out loud? . . .D'OH"

[nostatic]

I think the point is that some of us at least ackowledge that there is a problem, and make some changes in our life to address the issues.

You might call it cognitive dissonance, but at least I've got some cognition engaged in the process...

[fintstone]

I don't necessarily think it so much hypocritical to drive a Porsche as to lecture other folks for their choices about where the line should be drawn. For example, here in the desert, water prices make it cost effective for me to purchase the most efficient washer available. My old one still worked, and the best was about 3 times as expensive as the standard model. But it only took a year to make up the difference through water and energy usage....and the new washer has many nice features that my 16 year old washer didn't. I gave the old set to a fellow living where water is plentiful. Let me be honest about my motives. If I could have saved no money, I would not have purchased the new appliances. I probably conserve more than most people, but my motives are not purely altruistic. I believe that a lot of natural resources are either renewable or replacable. We just will not experience that until the costs of the resources we use now are in short enough supply that it becomes more cost effective to consider alternatives. It seems to me that most folks want someone else to conserve while that do as they please. It seems offensive to me that politicians with private jets and SUVs and multimillion dollar homes feel fit to lecture me on conservation and for celebs with expensive homes, maids and limos to lecture the "commoners" on hanging their clothes on a line and taking the bus. I wonder how many guys with older Porsches have spent the bucks to retrofit it with an oxygen sensor and cat?

I feel the same way about taxes. I find it hypocritcal that folks paying little or no taxes want to continually raise rates on those that are. My tax rates are so high that I can live almost as well unemployed as if I work. Sure takes away a lot of the incentive from finding a job.

[nostatic]

I don't lecture, but I would like people to understand that there *are* issues, and conservation, recycling, etc is important. As for the politicos and celebs, I'm in agreement...

Any my '79 passes CA smog.

It's nearly always about the money. Mr finstone is correct and makes his decisions just like you and me. There is no collective social conscience as some would like to believe.

[350HP930]

Speak for yourself mr borderline sociopath. Some of do care for our fellow man, even if some of them don't give a shizt about the rest of us.

Why am I not surpised to see this openly stated 'me first, and everyone else can suck it' attitude eminating from our OT conservatives?

At least fint tries to put a more friendly face on such a belief by just claiming just to be a cheap bastard.

I care enough about other people to let them decide their own fate rather than force them to live in your utopian "Big Brother" society. The difference is, I believe each person is best able to decide what is best for him/her. Your world would have some friggin agency regululating whether I fold or wad toilet paper to wipe my ass. Call me what you want, but I believe that people left to their own devices will find a way to survive.

[350HP930]

Well, unless you want to roll back history several millenia we are well past people surviving on their own.

The roads you drive, the food you eat, the legal tender you use for transactions are all the result of an elaborate social structure that man has been building for thousands of years.

Unless you are planning on living in a shack in BFE like ted kazinsky and growing your own food you have to play the game with the rest of us.

The fact is that we all have to work together to survive in modern society. Unless you want to live like a primative there is no opt-out so instead of clinging to your utopian anarchist ideals that cannot be achieved you should instead try to think of some solutions that avoid the dangers of a totalitarian state while at the same time protect mankind from destroying itself.

Originally posted by 350HP930
Well, unless you want to roll back history several millenia we are well past people surviving on their own.

I don't know about you, but I do survive on my own. I don't depend on any agency to feed, clothe or house me. The government should be there to protect yours and my personal freedoms as stated in the constitution - not to tell me how many children I should have or what kind of car I should drive.

[island911]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
. . There is no collective social conscience as some would like to believe.

social conscience - Hey, I use one of those reel-type push mowers JUSTso that I don't polute the environment.

Oh, wait. . . I suppose I do it so I don't polute my back-yard, and don't have to breath those nasty gas fumes. --so, nevermind. (But it sure does sound better, if I say its done out of social conscience.)

Careful Island. You may be labeled a....a....a....(whisper)....hypocrite. Guess that's better than a borderline sociopath.......


I officially have a new tag line. Thanks 350.

[ronin]

Originally posted by 350HP930

Why am I not surpised to see this openly stated 'me first, and everyone else can suck it' attitude eminating from our OT conservatives?

so that's how you describe people that tell you to buzz off and keep your nose out of their business

[350HP930]

Well, that sure doesn't appear to be their attitude when it comes to telling the rest of the world how to run their business.

[ronin]

only if they (row) start interfering first

[CamB]

There's not a lot of point in arguing - the "projections" of the impact to the world are open to debate, and no matter what they won't impact during our lifetimes.

Thus, people either fall into a class of people who can believe there is, or at least accept their may be, a problem and want to do something about it, and those who believe (or hope) there won't, and won't behave differently. Since they don't believe, and have an argument to support it, changing the second type of person's mind is pretty much impossible (ie, they are hardly likely to see the error of their ways when it imposes such restrictions on them).

ronin - you have no idea. The rest of the world pretty much ranges from dissappointed with the US to virulently pissed off (as a nation state - you guys are great people!). The best you have right now is UK/Australia continuing to support.

We MIGHT all be wrong....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
There's not a lot of point in arguing - the "projections" of the impact to the world are open to debate, and no matter what they won't impact during our lifetimes.

Thus, people either fall into a class of people who can believe there is, or at least accept their may be, a problem and want to do something about it, and those who believe (or hope) there won't, and won't behave differently. Since they don't believe, and have an argument to support it, changing the second type of person's mind is pretty much impossible (ie, they are hardly likely to see the error of their ways when it imposes such restrictions on them).

ronin - you have no idea. The rest of the world pretty much ranges from dissappointed with the US to virulently pissed off (as a nation state - you guys are great people!). The best you have right now is UK/Australia continuing to support.

We MIGHT all be wrong....

That is okay...we are pretty pissed off at the rest of the world too..Lucky the rest of the world has France to lead them.

[nostatic]

really? I'm not pissed off at New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Sweden, or any number of other countries. If the US is "pissed off" then its kind of like when you were a kid and couldn't get anyone do join you in some dumb-ass "good idea" you had ("hey Billy, let's take a baseball bat to that hornet's nest...it'll be cool"). Pout, pout...

[lendaddy]

I am not angry with other countries, just disappointed. I believe a big part of our countries success is due to the fact that we don't follow the old world mold. We do what fits OUR moral, ethical, economic agenda. It's worked pretty well so far.

[fintstone]

Yep, I am disappointed too. I was not suprised to learn about how many of those countries were profiting so greatly from the "Oil for Food" program. Their moral outrage was really their greediness and then their fear of being exposed. Too bad that their greediness cost so many US soldiers and Iraqi citizen's lives. That is the part that really bothers me.