Are SUVs "evil" and bikes "good"?

KingOfTheApes

I know many cyclists don't think about the implications of riding a
bike, but there's really a moral stand in these Last Days of Global
Warming, Globalization and SUVs. Yeah, of late all it seems to matter
is that you've got enough money to burn and buy an SUV. But you say,
"no!" and do the right thing. Well, perhaps you only do it for sports
or sightseeing, but still you better know you're not evil --that's if
you don't own an SUV.

"Evil is a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical
judgment, often used to describe intentional acts that are cruel,
unjust, or SELFISH. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which
describes intentional acts that are kind, just, or unselfish."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

(SUVs here mean Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles, the necessary ones or
the smaller ones are OK)

There's been some controversy whether SUVs are evil or not, so it's a
good thing we put it to vote. Nobody can deny the SELFISH element in
them, but some may be reluctant to use a strong word such as evil
(used for slavery or terrorism, for example), but then they want to
feel "good" about riding a bike. Bikes are friendly to the environment
and people, and get you in shape. Well, in order for something to be
good, something else must be evil. It's like yin and yang. And how
about cars? Well, they are OK. They are simply necessary when
distances get longer.

How about if you deny all this and say that there's no good and evil
in whatever you choose to drive/ride? Well, then many would ask, "Why
ride a bike!?" Oh well, for exercise. I may use my stationary bike as
well --with none of the risks. And also for sightseeing. A bike lets
enjoy the scenery like no car can.

So I can say that today I will do something that's OK, and then
something real good. Meaning I will drive a car and later ride some
bike. With these and similar thoughts I leave you with the poll.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=432477


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the Jungle
(only vegetarian lions are welcome)
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

Tim McNamara

No, you nutcase, SUVs are not evil and bikes are not good. They are
inanimate objects with no moral properties whatsoever.

You really need to learn something important here: being anti-car !=
being pro-bike. Bring pro-bike != being anti-car.

Being a repetitive sock puppet troll = idiot, however. You're giving
those of us who *are* pro-bike a bad name in the newsgroups where you
cross-post this blather. Cut it out, you pathetic attention-seeking
whiner.

Does that clear things up for you?

KingOfTheApes

On Jun 25, 5:52*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> No, you nutcase, SUVs are not evil and bikes are not good. *They are
> inanimate objects with no moral properties whatsoever.
>
> You really need to learn something important here: *being anti-car !=
> being pro-bike. *Bring pro-bike != being anti-car.
>
> Being a repetitive sock puppet troll = idiot, however. *You're giving
> those of us who *are* pro-bike a bad name in the newsgroups where you
> cross-post this blather. *Cut it out, you pathetic attention-seeking
> whiner.
>
> Does that clear things up for you?

No, you can't please God and the Devil at the same time. If there's no
evil in SUVs, then who's evil, the driver? Well, there has to be a
hope for him, some incentive, right?

It's better you drop the SUV, but some are just "elitist" riders.

Tim McNamara

In article
<b96fbe53-7005-41ac-b78e-935e15e8ec2a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 5:52*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > No, you nutcase, SUVs are not evil and bikes are not good. *They
> > are inanimate objects with no moral properties whatsoever.
> >
> > You really need to learn something important here: *being anti-car
> > != being pro-bike. *Bring pro-bike != being anti-car.
> >
> > Being a repetitive sock puppet troll = idiot, however. *You're
> > giving those of us who *are* pro-bike a bad name in the newsgroups
> > where you cross-post this blather. *Cut it out, you pathetic
> > attention-seeking whiner.
> >
> > Does that clear things up for you?
>
> No, you can't please God and the Devil at the same time. If there's
> no evil in SUVs, then who's evil, the driver? Well, there has to be a
> hope for him, some incentive, right?
>
> It's better you drop the SUV, but some are just "elitist" riders.

Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you need to
look in the mirror.

RicodJour

On Jun 25, 5:59 pm, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> No, you can't please God and the Devil at the same time.

Ah, God AND the Devil speak to you. I should have guessed. How many
other voices are crammed in there?

R

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

someone wrote:


>>> I know many cyclists don't think about the implications of riding
>>> a bike, but there's really a moral stand in these Last Days of
>>> Global Warming, Globalization and SUVs. Yeah, of late all it
>>> seems to matter is that you've got enough money to burn and buy an
>>> SUV. But you say, "no!" and do the right thing. Well, perhaps
>>> you only do it for sports or sightseeing, but still you better
>>> know you're not evil --that's if you don't own an SUV.

>>> "Evil is a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical
>>> judgment, often used to describe intentional acts that are cruel,
>>> unjust, or SELFISH. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which
>>> describes intentional acts that are kind, just, or unselfish."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

>>> (SUVs here mean Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles, the necessary
>>> ones or the smaller ones are OK)

>>> There's been some controversy whether SUVs are evil or not, so
>>> it's a good thing we put it to vote. Nobody can deny the SELFISH
>>> element in them, but some may be reluctant to use a strong word
>>> such as evil (used for slavery or terrorism, for example), but
>>> then they want to feel "good" about riding a bike. Bikes are
>>> friendly to the environment and people, and get you in shape.
>>> Well, in order for something to be good, something else must be
>>> evil. It's like yin and yang. And how about cars? Well, they are
>>> OK. They are simply necessary when distances get longer.

>>> How about if you deny all this and say that there's no good and
>>> evil in whatever you choose to drive/ride? Well, then many would
>>> ask, "Why ride a bike!?" Oh well, for exercise. I may use my
>>> stationary bike as well --with none of the risks. And also for
>>> sightseeing. A bike lets enjoy the scenery like no car can.

>>> So I can say that today I will do something that's OK, and then
>>> something real good. Meaning I will drive a car and later ride
>>> some bike. With these and similar thoughts I leave you with the
>>> poll.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=432477

>> No, you nutcase, SUVs are not evil and bikes are not good. Â*They are
>> inanimate objects with no moral properties whatsoever.

>> You really need to learn something important here: Â*being anti-car !=
>> being pro-bike. Â*Bring pro-bike != being anti-car.

>> Being a repetitive sock puppet troll = idiot, however. Â*You're giving
>> those of us who *are* pro-bike a bad name in the newsgroups where you
>> cross-post this blather. Â*Cut it out, you pathetic attention-seeking
>> whiner.

>> Does that clear things up for you?

> No, you can't please God and the Devil at the same time. If there's
> no evil in SUVs, then who's evil, the driver? Well, there has to be
> a hope for him, some incentive, right?

> It's better you drop the SUV, but some are just "elitist" riders.

I see you are religiously attached to your superiority citing "God and
the Devil". I'm certain that drivers of passing cars sense your
smugness and have no friendly feelings toward your presence. As I
wrote earlier, this superior attitude is not invisible and makes
bicycling more hazardous.

Jobst Brandt

Tadej Brezina

Where's the point in the promotion from dictatorship to monarchy?
Tadej


--
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.”
<Upton Sinclair in The Jungle>

KingOfTheApes

On Jun 25, 9:27*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <b96fbe53-7005-41ac-b78e-935e15e8e...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 5:52*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > No, you nutcase, SUVs are not evil and bikes are not good. *They
> > > are inanimate objects with no moral properties whatsoever.
>
> > > You really need to learn something important here: *being anti-car
> > > != being pro-bike. *Bring pro-bike != being anti-car.
>
> > > Being a repetitive sock puppet troll = idiot, however. *You're
> > > giving those of us who *are* pro-bike a bad name in the newsgroups
> > > where you cross-post this blather. *Cut it out, you pathetic
> > > attention-seeking whiner.
>
> > > Does that clear things up for you?
>
> > No, you can't please God and the Devil at the same time. If there's
> > no evil in SUVs, then who's evil, the driver? Well, there has to be a
> > hope for him, some incentive, right?
>
> > It's better you drop the SUV, but some are just "elitist" riders.
>
> Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. *Maybe you need to
> look in the mirror.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's true. Most of the world regards SUVs and evil.

KingOfTheApes

On Jun 25, 9:30*pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:59 pm, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, you can't please God and the Devil at the same time.
>
> Ah, God AND the Devil speak to you. *I should have guessed. *How many
> other voices are crammed in there?
>
> R

Jesus spoke to me and said, "Go ahead, son, and do the right thing"
which I interpret to mean "ride a bike."

Then the Devil said, "No can't be, you won't get bike lanes."

KingOfTheApes

Originally Posted by st0ut
"I have had the realization that arguing with you is like talking to a
post.
only the post is socialist and illogical.me and blue order may see
things differently but at least he is logical and stays on topic.

As for you. Lions do not normally eat monkeys. Primates are omnivors
so they eat the smaller things too.you logic fails o all counts.
your social class warfare is wrong
your racism is wrong

at times you bring up biblical reference only to to say that those who
are religious are fools.
You cant pick a side on anything and from a logical argument.
You sway to whatever side of the fence and abandon your ideas when the
argument goes against you.
you are not a monkey.
you are a weasel, a snake, or an insect that should be eaten by
monkeys."

You don't understand monkey strategy: JUMP FROM BRANCH TO BRANCH WHILE
MAKING NOISE. This noise means, "This jungle is dangerous to the
monkeys and all the little animals because the predators are out to
get us."

But it's not a matter of logic. The so-called "king of the jungle" is
not even from the jungle. Just that it makes it more fun and dramatic.
In my case I can reach the "Proles" easier, which justifies all my
metaphors.

Predators are selfish by nature --though it can be argued that they
rarely overhunt--, thinking about satisfying their hunger here and
now. Human predators (which sometimes can be poor, what I call
"survivors") do the same --100 times-- but avoid any moral judgement.
It's part of their camouflage game.

Their habitat is falling apart around them, but they only think about
what they know best since the dawn of civilization: WAR AND GRAND
PROJECTS.

Whether the pyramids or the Mars exploration, they sure know how to
waste money...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

while the Egyptian poor had to scrape a living. And today the Rich and
Powerful still surround themselves with statues of lions...

ROARRRRRR!!!

KingOfTheApes

On Jun 25, 9:30*pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> I see you are religiously attached to your superiority citing "God and
> the Devil". *I'm certain that drivers of passing cars sense your
> smugness and have no friendly feelings toward your presence. *As I
> wrote earlier, this superior attitude is not invisible and makes
> bicycling more hazardous.
>
> Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think they go that deep into energies. They just know I'm
smaller and push me around.

It's the same principle of the jungle: "The Big Fish eats the Little
Fish!"

KingOfTheApes

On Jun 26, 5:18*am, Tadej Brezina <tadej_use...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Where's the point in the promotion from dictatorship to monarchy?
> Tadej
>
> --
> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
> depends upon his not understanding it.”
> <Upton Sinclair in The Jungle>

Tadej, we are fighting the predators of the jungle through their
symbols of power and status.

I don't promote monarchy though, just monkey democracy. The alpha-male
monkeys that want to be lions will be put in cages. Unless they eat
the banana to prove who they are...

KingOfTheApes

Originally Posted by genec
'The thought that one needs an SUV for some 90% of the tasks that
people assign to them is baffling all throughout Europe where SUVs do
not have nearly the "penetration" they have in the US. And yes, as you
point out there are plenty of folk in frigid northern climates of
places like Finland that do not drive SUVs to get though the snow...
and in fact actually ride bicycles in that same weather.'

What you say makes so much sense. SUVs are just Selfish Unnecessary
Vehicles.

KingOfTheApes

You know what USA stands for?

USA stands for United Selfish of America...

I wonder how can anyone die for a country that stands for
selfishness?