Well, there’s always taking a defensive driving class so you learn how to better watch out for potential dangers from other drivers. They’re offered at a lot of colleges and will take up an entire Saturday, but I felt like it was worth it.
I do think “I’m safer so screw you guys” is on the scale of evil. Low on the scale, but it’s an uncivilized attitude.
Not evil, just entitled.
With God it does not require a separate answer. He wants to provide the way He wants to do it. If you thank Him for the resource is a free will decision on your part. He wants to provide transportation for you as you are the child of the King, and He wants to pay the cost. He really does not want you to worry about where the fuel is coming from.
Going out on more of a speculative limb, I believe the angels are charged to do those things, including things like rain, snow etc. Some of these angels didn’t really like that and tried to get us to do their work, and in the process glorify themselves in the process. They (fallen angels), got us to recycle our trash, now they no longer have to assist in the breakdown of waste in landfills and don’t have to provide as many raw materials (as we live in our own recycled trash, instead of the new stuff God wants us to have), irrigate our crops, they no longer have to supply rain for crops, make snow at ski areas, they no longer have to supply winter snows for recreation. If they can get us to do their work, they can get the glory.
Now if the angels will be put back in charge of these things or if we are living in the land of slavery (meaning humans will be doing the work that angels were suppose to do), is a societal & spiritual issue.
But for the believer who trusts in God to provide they can ignore all that foolishness as their Father will provide all their needs. If their CO2 is scrubbed out by angels or Al Gore’s carbon credits it doesn’t matter, that burden of guilt is lifted, and they are truly free to do the work of the Lord.
This is different from the uncaring person, who just puts CO2 up and walks away, that CO2 then effects society as it is his uncaring that is spread to all society. The believer is doing the work of the Lord, as such the Father will take care of the costs and provide the resources.
Are you sure you’re not thinking of someone else? Captain Planet, maybe?
What do either of those questions have to do with anything? If I wanted to drive an armoured Humvee down the road and it was street legal where I lived, I am perfectly able to do so, and I wouldn’t give two hoots about the answers to those questions. If you think I’m am doing something immoral, then that is the only result–you think I am doing something immoral. That would have no effect on me whatsoever.
Guys, let’s not let kanicbird hijack this thread. Thanks.
They don’t call Satan ‘the prince of the power of the air’(waves) for nothing.
Well…maybe you should look at who is telling you that you should or should not drive an SUV. Are these people you actually respect and care about? Are they people whose opinion means anything to you? If not than why do you care what they think you should do?
I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to live your life, but I completely object to the idea that permissibility and legality are the only relevant guides to living one’s life.
How you live your life is a profoundly ethical choice. It reveals the kinds of trade-offs you are willing to make for your own happiness and the degree you externalize the costs to others. The fact that you can justify owning a given vehicle does not really mitigate the harm of the choice itself. It just means that either you have made your choices without considering the impact it has on the rest of the world or that you simply do not think this impact is important enough to change your choices.
This speaks volumes about who you are as a person. Likewise if you are the kind of person who believes that only the law imposes real limits on his self-gratification. Again, I cannot judge whether anyone who does this is “evil”, but I certainly can judge the quality of the choices this person has made.
There are legitimate needs for an SUV. The problem is that most people do not fit within that narrow category. If you think that you do, then more power to you.
Things like Honda CRVs get about as good mileage as a Sedan anyway.
8-14 inches of snow predicted for today. The view outside my office window at 7:15 this morning. My camera phone does not do it justice.
I plowed yesterday, but suspect that I’ll have to plow again tonight.
Thank you for saying this. Since when did we stop being able to decide some behavior makes you a jerk?
I don’t think we ever really did. I think that some people, though, did relinquish the belief that anything constrains them possible punishment by legitimate authorityr. I think it is sad, because I believe that a lot of those people do not find happiness in their Mr. Toad lives.
Mrs. J. and I are a complex mixture of good and evil. Our hybrid Ford Escape (which is her primary vehicle) does get 32-35 mph in city and highway driving so we are saving the planet along with Nancy Pelosi, but on the other hand we occasionally cackle maniacally at the thought of its size terrorizing earth-firsters in their guinea-pig sized vehicles.
A few people take offense at the “Mr. Toad” personalized license plate, but they’re just a bunch of weenies gesticulating futilely from the ditch.
Oddly enough, one reason we have an SUV is for hauling lots of bags of decomposing plant remains from Mr. Mulch. Awhile back someone found a human finger in one of those bags, so either worker safety is not what it should be or mobsters are going green in their disposal of the unwanted.
As others have suggested, I think “evil” is the incorrect term. I do think that there are ethical aspects to many decisions regarding consumption. One’s choices reflect something about how they feel about themselves, and it is foreseeable that some choices will engender certain reactions from some portions of society. Not saying either of those ought to dictate any particular consumption decision. But they are expectable, and one ought not make a certain choice and then bemoan the foreseeable results they experience.
In your specific situation, I believe you are well within most peoples’ zone of perfectly acceptable behavior. I think few people would insist that everyone buy only the smallest possible vehicle that will suit the majority of their regular needs. A crossover - I assume that is like a Nissan Murano? - is a big station wagon. A large vehicle, but a far cry from the behemoth Hummers, Expeditions, and Escalades. And you describe a situation in which you clearly use much of the vehicle’s size. When our 3 kids got to be a certain size, we bought a minivan. I’d be hardpressed to argue that my minivan was a more “ethical” choice than your car. (Our main determinant was that 3 teens were more comfortable in a minivan than in a single bench seat. But my Sienna blocks views on streets and parking lots as well as an Explorer. And I never understood folk who said SUVs are great for hauling. Most SUVs have nowhere near the capacity of most minivans.)
Maybe you could have done okay with a smaller wagon - like a Subaru Outback or even a Pontiac Vibe. But your choice was well within the range of what I believe most folk would consider just fine.
I agree that folk should be able to drive whatever vehicles they wish. Personally, however, I would favor a substantial tax on gas, such that an individual’s choice reflected the externalities related to their consumption.
But what constitutes a legitimate need? If I buy a boat for recreation, and then claim I need an SUV so I can tow the boat on weekends, is that legitimate? If I choose to live in the countryside 50 miles away from the city where I work, and therefore need a 4WD vehicle in winter, is that a legitimate need for an SUV?
Or for that matter, if I choose to have 2 kids and 2 dogs, and choose to take them all (along with luggage) on vacations, is that a legitimate reason to use an SUV as a daily driver?
Since most people seem to think the OP is not evil, and just because I’m curious:
I also own an SUV
A Jeep Wrangler, to be specific. I almost never haul large loads. I primarily use it for commuting and daily errands. I do not routinely use my seatbelt, so I’m probably statistically less safe than in other cars. I live in Florida, so outside of maybe one hurricane a year, I do not need it for inclement weather. My reasons:
Frankly, I do not worry one whit about the environmental impact of my car. Issues of environmental impact involve huge, enormous, colossal amounts of pollution, and the extra 10 mpg or so I burn in my SUV are a drop in the ocean. I feel no guilt or irony whatsoever as I drive my Jeep out to do some volunteer work on the Florida Trail, dropping a check in the mail to the Nature Conservancy along the way.
So … am I evil, unethical, and/or irresponsible?
Why is this being put in terms of “need”?
There are a LOT of things none of us need. We want them anyway, so we work toward getting them. We don’t need them, but they are enjoyable, or nice, or just make things a little bit easier. If we only were allowed those things we absolutely need, our lives would be a lot different, and probably a lot less pleasant. W don’t need to live out in the countryside or the suburbs, but we can if we want to and can afford to. We don’t need a nice house or apartment, we could get by in a crackerbox shotgun shack. We don’t need a lot of things.
So why is it “need”? And who gets to decide what we need?
I never owned an SUV, I will probably never buy one. But, I kind of like the idea that I could if I wanted to. It’s all part of being allowed to make our own choices and decisions. When the “need” argument comes into it, as far as I’m concerned, the argument is over. You don’t NEED that computer either. You don’t NEED to be consuming electricity to be online right now. It’s the same argument.
That’s what I’m asking. In every SUV debate people always say there are legitimate reasons for owning an SUV, but those reasons seem to boil down to “because I want to do something that requires an SUV.”
It seems to me, the debate should be about whether SUV owners are paying the full cost of owning and operating that SUV. And that should include indirect costs such as increased wear and tear on roads, cost of dealing with air pollution (including CO2 emission and its effect on global climate), cost of our nation’s dependency on foreign oil, etc.
This story reminds me of my parents. They have two working vehicles–a V4 station wagon and a V6 sedan. The larger vehicle gets better gas mileage. (And they owe more on the sedan than it’s worth, so it’s not worth trading it in) Which works out well, I suppose, since the station wagon gets more miles put on it out of necessity anyways.
er, which one is the “larger vehicle”?
