TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

New York Times ^ | Jan. 7, 2003 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[DoughtyOne]

SUVs are NOT a country vehicle exclusively. The first rains in southern California loosen six months worth of oil buildup on the freeways. The roads get surpisingly slick. The freeways don't drain well here either. Four wheel drive actually helps out quite a bit. I drive up to Mammoth in the winter. I drive up to northern California several times per year. The SUV makes it a lot easier to monitor what traffic is doing up ahead. Allowing me to avoid problems.

I know some people don't understand this, but SUVs are a sturdy safe vehicle, and certainly a product that I should be able to buy if I can afford one and I desire to.

This talk about SUVs is nothing but classism to the max. I thought we were better than this. Honestly, it is disturbing to see the ignorance on this issue.

I can't afford to buy a $10 million dollar home. I do not resent others who can and do. More power to them. I can afford an SUV. I desire to drive one. That's the end of it.

[Grig]

"What you said needs REPEATING OVER AND OVER!! Amen!"

I'm thinking animated banner. Anyone game to make it?

[lainie]

You're not a big fan?

heh

[MrLeRoy]

the purchase of oil vs purchase of illegal drugs and how much may go to terrorist groups is not nearly equivalent.

It would be like making no distinction between prescription drugs and illegal drugs as far as where the profits go.

If we imported prescription drugs from terrorist-supporting countries, as we do oil, that would be a valid comparison.

My advice to you is to stop taking illegal drugs.

I don't---nor the deadly addictive legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. My advice to you is to stop making ad hominem arguments.

[MrLeRoy]

Neither claim moral complicence. That was the whole point of the ad - that support was fostered unknowingly by drug use

The implied point was that now that you know, you'd be morally complicit if you continued your purchases.

[MrLeRoy]

Murder and intimidation and kidnapping and torture of judges, prosecutors, politicians, police, and civilians in order to intimidate a country into backing off from enforcing its drug laws *is* terrorism

And you expect us to believe that ALL "drug lords" engage in this form of murder/kidnapping/etc?

[MrLeRoy]

while some of our petroleum dollars *might* be diverted to terrorism, money spent on illegal drugs goes *directly* to drug cartels, which *directly* participate in terrorism themselves as part of the way they "do business".

Some do; no evidence has been presented that ALL do. So the cases have not been shown to be non-equivalent.

[MrLeRoy]

Try being a witness against them in court and see just how closely they resemble peaceful soybean farmers...

Don't be naive.

When you lack evidence, resort to sneering.

[FreeTheHostages]

I agree with everything you said, actually. But everything you said doesn't decrease my resentment of the stupid liberal yuppie lawyers who buy SUVs to drive from their city neighborhood to their downtown location in a bigger and badder car than their neighbors. I certainly don't oppose their right to buy the car or do that. Just don't oppose my right to mock them! :) FReegards,

[tallhappy]

I don't---nor the deadly addictive legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. My advice to you is to stop making ad hominem arguments.

Yeah, sure. My advice to you is to learn what argument means and what advice means.

I'd also like you to consider why you are not taken seriously. There are reasons.

[tallhappy]

The implied point was that now that you know, you'd be morally complicit if you continued your purchases.

Yes.

The idiocy of Huffington and this entire discussion is amazing. I mean, how did we become such a stupid society?

It's surreal.

[MrLeRoy]

learn what argument means and what advice means.

Right, your baseless and slanderous implication was not meant to have any bearing on the debate. Sure.

I'd also like you to consider why you are not taken seriously.

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

[MrLeRoy]

My advice to you is to learn what argument means and what advice means.

Quit squirming; you clearly implied that my argments are crippled by drug use: "My advice to you is to stop taking illegal drugs. It messes up your thought."

[tallhappy]

you clearly implied that my argments are crippled by drug use

Yes. I believe that to be the case.

Perhaps that is why your arguments are so weak and silly.

If that is not the reason for your irrational thought process, then perhaps you are simply not very bright.

[MrLeRoy]

you clearly implied that my argments are crippled by drug use

Yes. I believe that to be the case.

So you proudly proclaim your use of ad hominems. What a toad.

[tallhappy]

You need to learn what an ad hominum argument is.

I made my arguments in a straightforward way, with no ad hominums.

You understood them and agreed with me and admitted you were wrong.

My comments about the reasons for your muddled thinking (although in your favor you were able to recognize and admit when you were wrong) do not involve arguing any point.

You are not wrong because you use drugs and have messed up your mind. I never argued or implied that. You are wrong because you were wrong -- your logic was faulty.

[MrLeRoy]

My comments about the reasons for your muddled thinking [...] do not involve arguing any point.

Sure thing, Mr. Clinton---and I can't even tell you what the meaning of "is" is.

[eleni121]

As just about everyone knows by now, Arianna should go back to researching and writing about Maria Callas rather than sticking her nose into political matters of which she knows very little. Her sad experience with her husband notwithstanding she enjoys the spotlight and this is one wierd way of doing it.

As far as "SUV's and terrorism" are concerned this is such a stupid issue that it's amazing the media would give it so much hype (maybe not so amazing given the media's sordidness).

[tallhappy]

I see you are the one using ad hominum argument.

[MrLeRoy]

You are not wrong because you use drugs and have messed up your mind. I never argued or implied that. You are wrong because you were wrong -- your logic was faulty.

More squirming. The only thing you've shown me wrong on is the precise equivalence of the SUV and drug ads---and your false slander didn't come till after I'd dropped that claim.