I was just watching the news on TV and they were talking about how SUVs support terrorism because of how much gas they use. Apperently in some states (I'm sorry, I can't remeber which states they said) there is even a TV commercial about people who own SUVs are helping the terrorists attack this nation. There are several people they show who say things like "I helped hijack a plane," and other things along those lines. I have a couple of thoughts on this, but before I say anything I want to know what everyone else thinks.
Alright, for one thing, SUVs do use huge amounts of gas as compared with small cars. And some of this oil does come from the Middle East. And since American foreign policy in the Middle East has historically been mostly to obtain oil AND Middle Eastern terrorism comes partly as a result of American foreign policy in the Middle East, it's a natural chain of logic to presume that SUVs do support/create terrorism.
The question is, how big is the correlation between the two? How much do those limiters in that chain add up to?
However, more important than the gas they use is their symbolic importance. You see, to the world (in general, not just the Middle East), SUVs are a perfect symbol of BOTH American affluence and arrogance. Now, extremist Islam, the largest terrorism-spawning ground, is in large part a backlash against those two things. So hopefully you can see why SUVs are linked to terrorism.
locutus, it would be nice if the commericals actually were intended to mean that, because then it would show that the democrats have not lost touch with the real world and there was some intellegence present in the party. Instead, the democrats have once again proven that they are fools and are grasping for something to attack. Nice try.
You're missing the point, neptune. It is not a govt commercial, unlike the bullshi7 'drugs cause terrorism because I say they do' commericals. These SUVs and such are a reason that we are going to war as a matter of fact; we want oil. The point of the commercial, at least in my eyes, is that this 'war' is an outgrowth of the oil-grubbing populace, and secondly that the WOD commercials are bs.
I personally think, saying that SUV's support terroism is a load of crap. They're just trying to get you to side with them on the War against Iraq, I thought that was obvious. It is just a car! We'll soon be hearing that gas-grilling supports terroism. Anyone who believes that is not thinking clearly.
As for Nascar, that is really just a stupid sport and it does waste gas. Is seeing how fast you can drive on a track a sport? Be real, they do that for of lack of anything better to do with their time.
BloodRayne...I think you were writing tongue-in-cheek about Nascar, but it really made me think about how horribly wasteful that "sport" is. Can't believe that never occurred to me before. I wonder how much gas is wasted annually on cars driving around and around in circles!
And Aroseindec, I don't know what set Jookly off on an expletive-laden crusade against my use of the word "normative," but I was just trying to defend my word choice, which I think I've sufficiently proven was correct.
Personally, I think its just a bunch of blah. It's just America trying to brainwash you into siding with them on the war. C'mon it's a car. What about people who commute back and forth while they earn money? Are they terroist supporters? And what about Nascar? They waste all that gas and they don't even get anywhere! This is America. We're going to use a lot of gas unless you want ot ride bikes everywhere. Now that would be fun to see!
All right everyone, I posted this topic to get people's opinions on the SUV thing, not for you're vitriolic name calling and degrading language. That's ridiculous! We are all mature young adults who each have different views on the same topic. There is no reason for the language and name calling simply because someone has a different opinion or a different response then you do. I am not taking sides on this because I personally feel you are all acting immaturly. If you can't act like adults then maybe you should all leave or post somewhere else. I'm appalled by this, I really am and I'm hoping that you will please stop. I truely value EVERYONE'S opinion not matter what it may be and whether or not it agrees with MY opinion, but I don't want to be hearing these opinions at the expense of "sticks and stones."
it looks like you lose, and your not losing gracefully. i think it's time for you to pack up and leave before you make any more of an a55 out of yourself.
No need to be defensive. Just because I've proven you wrong twice now (and will do so in a more thorough and simple fashion below) doesn't mean you have to be all hostile...your anger only underscores your own realization that you are indeed wrong.
Now I'm sorry, but of course you said there was no such thing as normative ethics or at least very very strongly indicated that that was your belief...though you didn't say it flat out, you did say:
quote: The word normative is used for two things 1. relating to or prescribing a standard example:"normative grammar" 2.dealing with standards example:"a normative judgment".
You did say that, didn't you, on January 15 at 10:26am? It firmly implies that you think normative can only be used as an adjective to describe grammar or judgment. Therefore, it is notplainly seen that you believe in a worl in which "normative ethics" could exist.
Now normative ethics is the discipline in ethics--hence the "ethics" part of the name, which implies of course that the word "normative" carries it's own meaning as well--in which ethicists study the normative implications of social issues. It follows that to make a "normative issue" of something (as in my original use of a legitimate term) is to assign social value (a positive value for the good action and a negative value for the bad action) to both sides of said issue. "People shouldn't drive SUV's" is a normative statement because of the value-laden word "should." Henceforth, a normative issue has been made of the ownership and subsequent gas consumption of an SUV.
Are you ****ing blind and stupid? You can plainly see I never said there wasnt such a thing as "normative ethics".
You see brooke, we often take words and put them together. In this case it is the word normative (thats the one you used wrong remember) and the word ethics. Just because there is a field of study called normative ethics doesnt mean you can take the word normative and slap it down in front of anything and it will make sense.
50 bi73 m3 j00 m07h0rphuXin9 bi7ch. So bite me you mother****ing *****.
Also from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, such as moral rights to life, liberty, and happiness."
"Normative Ethics: attempt to answer specific moral questions concerning what people should do or believe. The word "normative" refers to guidelines or norms and is often used interchangeably with the word "prescriptive." Normative ethical theories are Kantian ethics, Virtue ethics, Utilitarian ethics, and so on."
I would check out these websites, Jookly, lest you ever find yourself in this dbate again.
Why are you trying to prove me wrong over something I've studied rather extensively when you clearly don't know what you're talking about? What do you think normative judgements are? Read on, jackarse. And bite me? Good one.
"The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics involves a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. Should I borrow my roommate's car without first asking him? Should I steal food to support my starving family? Ideally, these moral questions could be immediately answered by consulting the moral guidelines provided by normative theories. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"" --From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm
quote: if you don't know then maybe you should not be debating.. It can tell you in one word DONATIONS! just like the idiots over at PETA, they are using the publics sorrow and anger for their own advantage. donations paid for those SUV ads. she said it her self on tv in an interview.. ... so do want to withdraw that question now or what?
No. If the money is paying for the ads, why do you care? You haven't told me it's going into her pocket .. so if people want to donate, let them.
Brooke i am surprised you tried to bull**** your way out of that one. The word normative is used for two things 1. relating to or prescribing a standard example:"normative grammar" 2.dealing with standards example:"a normative judgment"
"I'm sorry - but explain to me how they're getting cash out of this."
if you don't know then maybe you should not be debating.. It can tell you in one word DONATIONS! just like the idiots over at PETA, they are using the publics sorrow and anger for their own advantage. donations paid for those SUV ads. she said it her self on tv in an interview.. it is just like when peta shows a picture of an abused animals and says please help this poor animal, people get out the checkbook and send money not realising that their money is not going for anything that even remotely has anything to do with that poor animal.. same here, after 9/11 when people hear someone say we are fighting against terrorism can you help, people get out the old checkbook once again and send money and look what it goes for..... a stupid hypocritical add that is doing nothing to fight terrorism or even the environment... so do want to withdraw that question now or what?
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. (And BTW, Alaska's fields and the Great Lakes are off-limits)
It has been mentioned that the US is willing to go to war in order to maintain its hold on the region and its oil resources. This is simply not the case. The US's impending war with Iraq (whether justified or not) is not about oil, but the possibility of nuclear proliferation becoming a widespread problem in countries which may seek to harm Americans (a la September 11th).
In short: America is too dependent on foreign oil, but until alternatives can be made cost-effective and easily accessible to the average consumer, must continue to deal with what may be termed a "necessary evil". Despite that, SUV's in all their gas-guzzling glory do not support terrorism in any way, shape, or form.
Topics 
*Star* 
Now that would be fun to see!
