First of all, let me begin by saying that I don't believe SUV's in any way support terrorists. Most vehicles in that class are made by American manufacturers (European and Asian consumers have no need for such large, unwieldy machines). Granted, America has a huge dependence on foreign oil. However, while many have nobly suggested that we find other sources of fossil fuel, the fact remains that no other region of the world has enough raw material to curb the energy needs of Americans.

You've got to be kidding me! The gov't has never liked the monstrous vehicles but to step over that line, that is the ultimate cheap shot. I myself am not an SUV kinda person, but you can't start taking shots like that or the whole country will self-destruct by pointing fingers at one another. The idea is absolutely absurd!!!

Normative, actually, is a word adopted by ethicists and theologians to describe a system of assigning value to social issues. To make a "normative" statement is to make a statement that implies a given right or wrong. Stating that someone should or shouldn't do x, y, or z is to assign normative value to x, y, or z. Therefore, the Detroit Project is making a normative statement about luxury consumption.

quote:

---

Here's an idea: Push car companies for better gas mileage. It's not banning anything, but it is helping alleviate the problem.

---

Lovely idea. Then maybe hybrid car technology can actually progress - because it's barely gone anywhere since it was conceptualized, and it's only because people are willing to pay so much for gas.

quote:

---

i think it is you that are missing the entire point... if someone is going to help form a group and then be the spokesperson for that group concerning "SUVs help support terrorism" because of their gas mileage, then they should live up to their own standards!

---

I think you are missing MY point. My point is that I don't give a damn about who it is that came up with the idea for the commercials. What really matters is that they are raising awareness about problems we have with over-consumption.

quote:

---

why SUVs and ONLY SUVs? there are many SUVs that get great gas mileage(the small economy ones) so do they count or not? then what about trucks and other large vehicles? many of them get worse MPG than SUVs.. then what about sports cars and muscle cars? they get less MPG as well... which brings us back to the question"

---

You know what - I agree with you. SUVs are not the only problem. Maybe they chose SUVs simply BECAUSE they are so popular. It's a status thing in this country to have a big SUV when there really is no need for it. How many people who actually drive SUVs really need them for the type of lifestyle they live?

quote:

---

if all of these vehicles get the same or WORSE MPG than most SUVs, why are they ONLY picking on SUVS? also they are simply trying to cash in on the war against terrorism.

---

I'm sorry - but explain to me how they're getting cash out of this.

O yea, Widget hit that one on the head. We need cars with better gas mileage but that would = lower profits for gas companies and they certainly cant have that! Damn corporations!!! **shakes fist vigorously**

Hipocrisy does not automatically invalidate a person's views. If it did, humanity would never get anything done, as hipocrisy is an integral part of who we are as a society.

Here's an idea: Push car companies for better gas mileage. It's not banning anything, but it is helping alleviate the problem.

Brooke you are dead wrong.

"It's about raising awareness that we should be making choices that reflect our needs" -Brooke
No its not, it is obviously about SUV's and gasoline. Mabey you should make a thread about "luxury items" but the point of the commercials in question as well as this thread is gasoline supporting terrorism which it obviously does not.

And just to be an ******* i want to let you know you used the word normative wrong.

NO ONE IS SUPPORTING A BAN ON SUV's HERE!

Dang, y'all. It's about raising awareness that we should be making choices that reflect our needs, not our luxury wants, particularly in our terrorism-conscious society. That is not to say that you can't make decisions to satisfy your luxury wants...The Detroit Project has the right to suggest that you shouldn't though...it's no different than religious zealots asserting that their religion is the right one, or politcal parties trying to get your vote. People try to convince people of other things by making normative issues of them...that's how a free society works...you are free to try to convince others of your beliefs and they are free to listen or not!

Well, I hope they add Caddilacs to the lists of gas gusselers that 'support terrorism'. Might as well add every car made before the 80s. Don't forget about trucks. We also better no forget about planes and boats. Hell, I guess everything that uses gas will 'support terrorism'. You people are morons, I truely believe that.

""So she has a jet. It's a luxury item.

The fact that she herself is guilty of having a luxury item, does not mean that SUVs are not ALSO luxury items.

Who cares about Arianna Huffington the person? The point is SUVs as gas-guzzlers.""

i think it is you that are missing the entire point... if someone is going to help form a group and then be the spokesperson for that group concerning "SUVs help support terrorism" because of their gas mileage, then they should live up to their own standards! if they don't, it proves they are hypocrites AND that there is something else they are really pushing for.. if they really believed that SUVs, due to fuel consumption, support terrorist, they should be trying to limit the amount of fuel they use also, right? but they are not. also why SUVs and ONLY SUVs? there are many SUVs that get great gas mileage(the small economy ones) so do they count or not? then what about trucks and other large vehicles? many of them get worse MPG than SUVs.. then what about sports cars and muscle cars? they get less MPG as well... which brings us back to the question" if all of these vehicles get the same or WORSE MPG than most SUVs, why are they ONLY picking on SUVS? also they are simply trying to cash in on the war against terrorism. nothing more. they are hypocrites, and why should we base any opinions on people that tell us what to do when they don't do it themselves. BTW she also rides around in a limo( they get about the same MPG as an suv)and what about cabs and police cars that are left in idle most of the day? should they be banned too? they are nuts.. period

I think that the whole issue o SUV's supporting terrorism is both pathetic, and stupid. My family owns an SUV and that was the dumbest thing that we ever heard. SUV's supporting terrorism? its just another plot to get rid of something so popular, like the attempt the US did to cancel pokemon because it encouraged violence, or them trying 2 get rid of spongebob because he's supposedly gay. though this is nothing compared to a car what they are tryingto do with SUV's is along the same line of what they tried to do with the things i just named.

What do you supposed we do, ban SUVs? then wouldn't we just start attacking the car that uses next-to-the most amount of gas? then more and more cars would be banned. then what? jogging 20 miles a day to work? i think that technology has benefited us enough so that we don't use as much gas as we used to for cars and the technology will keep getting better.This way we'll be better off in no time in the meantime, let the SUVs live in peace.

quote:

---

if it is luxury items, then why did Arianna Huffington rufuse to answer the question that was asked her about her jet? she flies around the country in a private jet, if that is not more of a gas guzzling luxury item than an SUV i don't know what is.. when asked about it she said she did not have to answer than... can you say hypocrite?

---

So she has a jet. It's a luxury item.

The fact that she herself is guilty of having a luxury item, does not mean that SUVs are not ALSO luxury items.

Who cares about Arianna Huffington the person? The point is SUVs as gas-guzzlers.

ok here is a simple question that will shut up any supporters of the SUV = helping terrorists idea. if it is luxury items, then why did Arianna Huffington rufuse to answer the question that was asked her about her jet? she flies around the country in a private jet, if that is not more of a gas guzzling luxury item than an SUV i don't know what is.. when asked about it she said she did not have to answer than... can you say hypocrite?

Yeah, Brooke really has a good point. All of our actions have consequences, and sometimes people don't think about those things.

I haven't personally seen the commercial, but I read about it in the paper. It doesn't seem to make sense at first, because all cars use gasoling, but if you think about it it kinda does, but not just with SUV's. Maybe these are the first steps towards more fuel-efficient cars, and possibly electric cars. We'll just have to see.

But SUV's are annoying anyway. They use a lot of gas, they make it hard to see where you're going if you're behind one, (I can't drive but my mom complains all the time) they're really destructive if they crash into something, etc.

Like Brooke said, we need to be more aware of our actions and their consequences.

~Cb526

As usual, Adbusters says it well:

http://www.adbusters.org/debate/suv_terror/
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/suv/
http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

Plus some educational links to check out! Have at it kids!

Brooke's post is 100% on target.


I think I hear the sound of Bushsupporter losing the argument ...

Interesting how people immediately believe that domestically grown cannabis supports terrorism and immediately reject the idea that the oil used to produce gasoline doesnt...

On that note, I'm certainly against any regulations on either. As a matter of fact, my car is a 54 chevy 210 with 235 straight six, but I get about 18 mpg with it on average.

They should, however, feel guilty about driving a vehicle that's bad for the environment, and not very safe.