Does Toyota market the Hilux over there?
In my area the suburbans and the like are people movers for soccer basketball and baseball teams plus equipment. And more women than men drive them here.
The closest to a Tacoma would be the Hilux. I see a few around but they are all right hand drive imports.Adams_BJ wrote:
Does Toyota market the Hilux over there?
We have lots of those and similar for tradies and farmers out this way. We dont do much bigger really.
Yeah that was what my wife had growing up. Wouldn't be sk bad for the summer, but there is no getting a sled in the back.
You people are FUCKING idiotic.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't know. In this thread, he's been repeating the same thing ad nauseam, expecting different results each time.Spark wrote:
seriously why are people responding to extra medium's posts
Anyone who disagrees is a troll, redneck, uneducated, or some other variation of trash. Don't try to argue or debate, just slam, insult and demean. Typical liberal strategy.
The fact of the matter is, all these things you think are stupid, pointless, or immoral all happen to be economic drivers (minor and major) and/or by products of the capitalistic system.
Meat consumption fuels several major industries, thus creating jobs and money, not to mention the fact we live in a free society means anyone can eat as much as anything as they wish and can afford. Rough example: If someone gave you $100 and threw you in a room full of women and said these women will have sex with you for 10 cents a go. Would you have sex one girl or a shitload more than you should/need?
People who drive big trucks either NEED them, WANT them or feel they may be useful at some point. They can buy all the big trucks they want and can afford.
You people cry about oil consumption and how it's terrible, yet every aspect of your life is made possible by oil. None of you have considered that oil use is prevalent because oil is the most EFFICIENT fuel source we currently have.
MY ISSUE, is that you aren't arguing against a capitalistic system but rather the inevitable by-products of a capitalistic system. You WON'T argue against it (nor anyone else here) because you enjoy it. You are all hypocrites at worst and unenlightened fools at best. The only way the masses will behave as you think they should is if they live in a system that doesn't allow people to have anything and everything they want by way of what they can afford. These places exist. They are called Communist countries. Go there.
Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-05-14 18:25:50)
If they were ugly women I'd probably just keep the money.
I can point out a number of reasons why you are wrong, again, but you ignore it each and every time someone or myself tells you what we're not telling you to do. How do you argue with someone who bitches about people on a forum trying to make him go vegan...when nobody on said forum is trying to make him go vegan? Arguing with you is pointless.Extra Medium wrote:
You people are FUCKING idiotic.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't know. In this thread, he's been repeating the same thing ad nauseam, expecting different results each time.Spark wrote:
seriously why are people responding to extra medium's posts
Anyone who disagrees is a troll, redneck, uneducated, or some other variation of trash. Don't try to argue or debate, just slam, insult and demean. Typical liberal strategy.
Now stop trying to make me stuff myself with animal fat 24/7.
ME too!
me as well
Steak and potato
and newbie, I was right about what I said.
and newbie, I was right about what I said.
Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2013-05-14 22:09:40)
I didn't say everyone should rent, obviously some people need a large vehicle, most people don't though - and would be better served by a van, but vans just aren't cool are they?-Whiteroom- wrote:
Yeah dils whole truck rental argument is stupid. Yeah it applies to a good amount of truck owners, especially in a urban environment, but not everybody, like he seems to think. I remember him telling me I should rent a truck every weekend to cart a snomobile around, as if that's reasonable.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Em, if people didn't consume meat they'd consume something else - which would also provide jobs and money, more efficiently and with less cruelty no doubt.Extra Medium wrote:
Meat consumption fuels several major industries, thus creating jobs and money, not to mention the fact we live in a free society means anyone can eat as much as anything as they wish and can afford. Rough example: If someone gave you $100 and threw you in a room full of women and said these women will have sex with you for 10 cents a go. Would you have sex one girl or a shitload more than you should/need?
I guess I'd pick the nicest one and bang her over and over, thus minimising the probability of catching anything but at the same time delivering as much pleasure.
Does half the american population live on a farm? Because they buy more trucks and SUV than cars.People who drive big trucks either NEED them, WANT them or feel they may be useful at some point. They can buy all the big trucks they want and can afford.
No? Then generally they don't need them.
Want? Why would anyone want a gas-guzzling deathtrap?
Wouldn't it make sense to use it efficiently and productively then? Not burn it up wastefully and pointlessly, unless you think helping losers try to compensate for having small penises is a good use of our most valuable natural resource.You people cry about oil consumption and how it's terrible, yet every aspect of your life is made possible by oil. None of you have considered that oil use is prevalent because oil is the most EFFICIENT fuel source we currently have.
Except capitalism falls flat when it comes to finite natural resources.MY ISSUE, is that you aren't arguing against a capitalistic system but rather the inevitable by-products of a capitalistic system. You WON'T argue against it (nor anyone else here) because you enjoy it. You are all hypocrites at worst and unenlightened fools at best. The only way the masses will behave as you think they should is if they live in a system that doesn't allow people to have anything and everything they want by way of what they can afford. These places exist. They are called Communist countries. Go there.
Strange that you claim to be a capitalist and yet you're fine with the govt subsidising petrol and sending the army abroad to guarantee supply.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-15 02:22:56)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Finally. Good points. That was all I was asking for.Dilbert_X wrote:
Em, if people didn't consume meat they'd consume something else - which would also provide jobs and money, more efficiently and with less cruelty no doubt.Extra Medium wrote:
Meat consumption fuels several major industries, thus creating jobs and money, not to mention the fact we live in a free society means anyone can eat as much as anything as they wish and can afford. Rough example: If someone gave you $100 and threw you in a room full of women and said these women will have sex with you for 10 cents a go. Would you have sex one girl or a shitload more than you should/need?
I guess I'd pick the nicest one and bang her over and over, thus minimising the probability of catching anything but at the same time delivering as much pleasure.Does half the american population live on a farm? Because they buy more trucks and SUV than cars.People who drive big trucks either NEED them, WANT them or feel they may be useful at some point. They can buy all the big trucks they want and can afford.
No? Then generally they don't need them.
Want? Why would anyone want a gas-guzzling deathtrap?Wouldn't it make sense to use it efficiently and productively then? Not burn it up wastefully and pointlessly, unless you think helping losers try to compensate for having small penises is a good use of our most valuable natural resource.You people cry about oil consumption and how it's terrible, yet every aspect of your life is made possible by oil. None of you have considered that oil use is prevalent because oil is the most EFFICIENT fuel source we currently have.Except capitalism falls flat when it comes to finite natural resources.MY ISSUE, is that you aren't arguing against a capitalistic system but rather the inevitable by-products of a capitalistic system. You WON'T argue against it (nor anyone else here) because you enjoy it. You are all hypocrites at worst and unenlightened fools at best. The only way the masses will behave as you think they should is if they live in a system that doesn't allow people to have anything and everything they want by way of what they can afford. These places exist. They are called Communist countries. Go there.
Strange that you claim to be a capitalist and yet you're fine with the govt subsidising petrol and sending the army abroad to guarantee supply.
In rebuttal:
Yes, eating more of something better would diminish the meat industry and raise another industry in it's place. However, demand calls for meat and the industry reacts to demand. The only thing that could reduce demand would be to come up with something people like better than meat and that product doesn't exist.
As far as whether or not half of America lives on a farm.....not exactly, however the vast majority of American land is rural and a considerable population lives within it. For example, the following map roughly shows rural counties based on population.
And finally on your oil consumption rebuke, it DOES make sense to conserve as much as possible, and car manufacturers are doing a great job in my opinion of making more and more fuel efficient engines. I remember growing up my first vehicle was a 1978 Blazer that got somewhere around 10-12 mpg. My next vehicle was a 1990 Silverado with essentially the same engine (350) but a much newer and efficient version of it and it got somewhere around 15-16 mpg. My last vehicle was a 2007 F-150 and it got 19mpg and recently when shopping around for my last vehicle the F-150's were getting upwards of 25mpg.
My issue with hybrids or electrical cars is not that they are "fer faygits and libs" but that the energy "saved" is not really being saved or going unused but rather simply pulled from a different and more inefficient source. Running a vehicle on a lithium battery...I mean, come on, it's full of toxic shit, mined from a toxic shit hole mine, then when it runs out of juice you plug it into a wall where it is recharged with electricity provided by (MOST LIKELY) coal, which is magnitudes more polluting than CO2 emissions from a gas powered car. Not to mention, with already growing problems with energy in places where electric cars are more prevalent (California), it puts added strain on an already maxed out grid (rolling blackouts and such).
Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-05-15 11:54:37)
I still don't understand how you didn't misinterpret Dilbert's post as an attack on the second amendment, big trucks and excess consumption of meat.
Not necessarily that simple, the meat industry is a hugely powerful lobbying and advertising group, its too superficial to say its simply supply and demand - they demand and get govt subsidies and they spend huge sums advertising their product to create 'demand' in the minds of consumers.Extra Meds wrote:
However, demand calls for meat and the industry reacts to demand.
They've done their work so well that the public at large believes that eating red meat is the healthy choice, the bigger the portion size the more healthynesss they're getting and anyone who says different is a homosexual, communist or has a mental illness (eg see Jay's comments).
I've never really got how a piece of partly burnt dead flesh oozing blood and grease can be appealing as a foodstuff, but then there's a lot of marketing hype and groupthink I don't buy into.
Is there consumer 'demand' for high fructose corn syrup? Nope, but its being rammed down your throats by the HFCS industry with the bought approval of the govt - because its a product they can make a profit out of, no other reason.
The comparisons with the meat industry, HFCS and big tobacco are apt, but at least with cigarettes it was the consumer who died a horrible and unnecessary death in that case, not lots of harmless animals.
Why wait for the manufacturers to solve the problem? Do you always wait for someone else to solve problems for you? Just buy a smaller, more efficient car now? People will point and call you gay but so what? They do it already don't they?And finally on your oil consumption rebuke, it DOES make sense to conserve as much as possible, and car manufacturers are doing a great job in my opinion of making more and more fuel efficient engines.
Most people have a car thats bigger than their realistic needs, I do, in the case of 'mericans its to the point of absurdity, high school kids driving full-size trucks for no apparent reason, office-workers commuting to desk jobs in vehicles most farmers wouldn't need, etc.
Like pretty well every country, Australia has the same landmass and fewer than 1/10th the population - and yet we do fine without Explorers and Suburbans to take the kids to school.As far as whether or not half of America lives on a farm.....not exactly, however the vast majority of American land is rural and a considerable population lives within it. For example, the following map roughly shows rural counties based on population.
I don't understand why 'mericans believe only 'merica has snow, ice, potholes and long distances (BTW your roads are getting potholes in part because you're driving stupidly heavy vehicles on them).
Except most of that isn't true, batteries are made from toxic materials - but not particularly so, and they can be recycled or disposed of at the end of the vehicle life. Burning coal to run electric cars is still more efficient than most petrol vehicles - especially for urban stop=start driving with braking energy recovery and low top speeds - so a lot of energy is literally 'saved' and stored and reused.My issue with hybrids or electrical cars is not that they are "fer faygits and libs" but that the energy "saved" is not really being saved or going unused but rather simply pulled from a different and more inefficient source. Running a vehicle on a lithium battery...I mean, come on, it's full of toxic shit, mined from a toxic shit hole mine, then when it runs out of juice you plug it into a wall where it is recharged with electricity provided by (MOST LIKELY) coal, which is magnitudes more polluting than CO2 emissions from a gas powered car.
If the energy can be supplied from a better source than coal then it works even better.
And that leaves oil for things only oil is good for, eg aircraft, heavy transport and actual farm vehicles like tractors and harvesters, not commuting and going to the shops for groceries.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-16 05:10:45)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
In reply to your meat argument:Dilbert_X wrote:
Wall-o-text.
I consume meat because I like meat, not because someone told me too. Of course there are advertisements on TV constantly for steakhouses and restaurants and the such, but there are advertisements for lots of stuff on TV, it doesn't necessarily mean that companies are trying to CONVINCE me that I want meat, they are REMINDING me that I like meat and thus trying to coax me to their place of business. That is plain capitalism, not brainwashing.
Also, I'd like to add that in the case of convincing people that meat is healthy so on and so forth, I'm guessing you are referring to things like the Atkins diet and the commercials for Pork "the other white meat". True. You are correct here. However, there are plenty of people on the other side of the fence being equally extreme. You may not find that piece of fish appealing but it doesn't make it wrong or that marketing makes it right. I could say I don't find making out with another man appealing and it must be mainstream media making it more prevalent in society and you would find that argument as equally asinine.
On your oil argument:
I wouldn't say I am waiting on automakers to solve the problem, however they are solving it a lot faster than the people trying to invent new sources. A smaller more fuel efficient car does not meet my needs, thus I drive an Expedition. Some people buy beyond their means but there is no way to stop that short of telling people what they can and cannot have. This causes 1 of two possible problems. Problem A is you have the government telling people what they can and cannot have based on their needs as determined by the government, which is not good. Or, abolition of things deemed harmful. Also, I'd say the reason our roads are falling apart might have more to do with the fact we have 10 times as many people and cars driving on ours versus yours, rather than the size (we also have a considerably larger number of large commercial vehicles).
Lastly, I'd love to see something that shows that using electricity to power a car is more efficient (ENERGY WISE) than oil. Using electricity solves nothing, your just robbing Peter to pay Paul and stressing an already overloaded power grid.
Go away troll, grown ups are talking.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I still don't understand how you didn't misinterpret Dilbert's post as an attack on the second amendment, big trucks and excess consumption of meat.
Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-05-16 20:27:05)
How am I the troll when you're cherry-picking posts to completely blunder through with your absurdly variable reading comprehension? Your limp attempt at taking the patronizing tone might actually mean something if your performance here was noteworthy...in a good way.Extra Medium wrote:
Go away troll, grown ups are talking.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I still don't understand how you didn't misinterpret Dilbert's post as an attack on the second amendment, big trucks and excess consumption of meat.
EM, the average power conversion efficiency of a gasoline engine is about 25%, which means 75%ish becomes unusable heat discharged through the block and exhaust. Modern steam plants with multiple stages of reheat can approach 70% efficiency. Even with transmission losses and battery bleed the gas engine loses rather handily in all but price.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So debate those absurd points and stop attacking me. Your the worst moderator in the history of anything.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How am I the troll when you're cherry-picking posts to completely blunder through with your absurdly variable reading comprehension? Your limp attempt at taking the patronizing tone might actually mean something if your performance here was noteworthy...in a good way.Extra Medium wrote:
Go away troll, grown ups are talking.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I still don't understand how you didn't misinterpret Dilbert's post as an attack on the second amendment, big trucks and excess consumption of meat.
You wound me, crass sir.
He's not so bad as far as mods go