You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote. The assertion isn't that no SUV is useful, it's that they are disproportionately wasteful for their level of popularity.
brianary
joined 2 years ago
My point was more about the fact that voting in our FPTP system, mathematically, is an act not subject to the same "black & white" fallacy label as a discussion about who is the best candidate, because it actually is a choice between the top two candidates, which is why splitting the vote has been an enduring strategy.
But your illustration about the Fallacy fallacy—that is to say that even if something were a fallacy, that doesn't in itself mean it is untrue—is also a fair point.
"Reasoning about" isn't the same as "performing" an action.
Fallacies apply to debate, not to actions like voting.
How did you read that into what I wrote?
You know what I meant.
Their myopic crusade will doom the whole planet.
Feels like a pretense to discourage protests.
Touché. Hit a nerve, I guess.
I'm pretty sure they only care about their performative solipsism.
Windows 10 keeps turning that stupid news feed back on on my taskbar, too.
While the "without any advantage over them" is an exaggeration, the point is that SUVs are using a disproportionate amount of resources. A fraction of SUV drivers routinely use them for the unique situation you describe, or for any jobs that a car couldn't do. I don't begrudge anyone using the right tool for a job, though rental often would work for infrequent exceptional needs. But the OP is an important point about wastefulness, and focusing on minor semantics or individual use cases is a distraction.