bob4256

iTrader: (17)

But what your saying isnt contributing to this thread, all your doing is ranting about subjects that nobody asked you about. Yeah your comment about drilling holes in the muffler was acceptable but continuing to rant about environmental trade offs, public benefits, or childish behavior is unnecessary unless someone asks you about it.

bob4256

iTrader: (17)

Sounds sick bro!

brociouz

iTrader: (65)

Wow fbarbarosa, that was quite the rant. I used to engage in these types of debates more regularly, but have come to realize that they are an incredible waste of time. However, given that I've finished my work for the day two hours early and I've read through all my RSS feeds, I'll take the time to respond to your intentionally provactive, borderline trolling, post.

"That is not the central issue." You're right, the central issue is to help the OP by adding something constructive to the thread, not engage in a debate about pollution, social good, etc. There's actually a section in Club Lexus for that kind of thing, aptly named "The Debate Forum."

Your rant is full of hyperbole to the point of absurdity. It's clear that you enjoy pontificating, or simply stirring things up, but honestly, you're just making yourself sound stupid.

Exhibit A: "Do you want to return to using leaded gas? You could bring back big block V-8’s with four-barrel carburetors and no ECUs. Nine miles per gallon would be worth it." You're comparing these things to removing secondary cats on a relatively fuel efficient vehicle? If I step on an ant are you going to accuse me of clubbing baby seals too?

Exhibit B: "Require 60 mpg cars and 30 mpg trucks... Sharply limit immigration... Ban the use of private cars in urban areas or charge steep fees for permits." ... You are try to prove a point (small changes now instead of big changes later) that has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about removing secondary cats on a car, not burning crude oil in our backyards for recreational purposes.

Exhibit C: "A child or an adolescent (no matter the age), and a sociopath will all say, that what they want is all that matters. The adult thinker (no matter the age) will say that personal desires must be constrained by law and due consideration for others." Sociopath? I sense that Godwin's law will be affirmed by you if this discussion continues.

Your herd immunity analogy is deeply flawed. Herd immunity, in short, refers to the de facto eradication of something (a contagious disease in the strictest sense of the term) when a certain percentage immunity threshold is met. If 85% of humans reduced their pollution output, and the remaining 15% didn't change their behavior, is the net benefit greater than that notional 85%? No. The remaining 15% are still polluting. So herd immunity doesn't apply here. Positive externalities would have been a better term to rant about.

My point about buying a different, more environmetally-friendly car stands. If you're so concerned about minimizing your overall carbon footprint, then perhaps a base model Toyota Corolla would be a good fit for you. What made you buy a Lexus? Could it perhaps be that you made a choice based on personal preferences, even though it's not the most environmentally conscious decision?

fbarbarosa

I tip my hat to you for your thoughtful and carefully reasoned reply!

I agree with many of your comments. My post was provocative and I cheerfully admit to resorting to some weak arguments in the extreme.

Definitions in psychiatry are movable feasts, but I think it is still accepted, that a sociopath is one whose behavior is anti-social and who lacks a sense of moral/social conscience. That does not mean of course that anyone of us in particular is sociopathic, but if we were, then smog rules would be meaningless to us.

The herd analogy just as you say, does not directly apply. However, the idea of getting a benefit with out paying the price does. I think that some people are uncomfortable with, and shut out the idea, that some small acts are morally wrong, and if repeated can have wide impact. Unlicensed sharing music downloads for example.

You say this forum is to answer questions, seemingly with out any concern for the consequence. If someone asked a question with a safety implication, should we omit that in our answer because the OP only asked about the technical aspects? When an OP asks a question that involves breaking the law, why is it good to facilitate the crime and not good to say don’t do it?

I expect that you visit many forums on many areas of interest, as do I. Perhaps you have encountered those that prohibit topics and posts that support or condone unlawful activity including some that some here think of as trivial or silly. Three of the best technical forums I know absolutely prohibit postings on ways to evade copyrights on A/V material and on software, on theft of service and on the use of images (to illustrate technical answers) when the poster is not the copyright holder.

Anyway you get my drift and I get yours. Perhaps will pass and wave someday.

And so fare thee well:
Thou never shalt hear herald any more.

brociouz

iTrader: (65)

It's always nice to be able to have a civil discussion.

By the same token I could call your arguments socialist, communist, totalitarian, etc. By advocating for restrictive laws to guide the collective behavior of the citizenry, you are by definition limiting the freedom of people to make their own choices. However, it is an entirely unnecessary comparison that only serves to provoke. In this particular usage case, "selfish" would have been a better term to use, and you get to avoid the whole serial killer connotation that comes with the word "sociopath."

Without paying a price? Of course there is a price, there always is. If there was indeed no price, you think we would choose to freely pollute our world? First and foremost, there are economic costs. Certain people would also rather drive a fast car as opposed to a solar-powered scooter, which would be another cost (consumer utility).

No arguing with that. However, keep in mind you are on a Lexus automotive forum, which is generally not the place to find card-carrying Sierra Club members who cut the ends off their use used Q-tips to recycle the middle part. People will run midpipes, or headers, or nitrous, because they want to. This forum wouldn't be much fun if every time someone made a post about such things people chimed in to exclaim how environmentally unfriendly their actions were.

Can you please quote me where I said "this forum is to answer questions, seemingly with out any concern for the consequence?" I said the point is to be helpful, and in general to establish a sense of community. From that link, this line will be of particular interest to you: "If you want to post in order to simply flame other members or be an e-thug, it's time for you to find another forum." The fact that adding a midpipe is illegal and deletes secondary cats was established before you first posted in this thread. I also made sure to point out that midpipes can make the 2IS extremely loud. You took things too far by going into an 11 page rant.

Club Lexus is also fairly restrictive when it comes to things like software piracy (particularly when it comes to copying nav DVDs). But I'm not sure you have a point here.

And for the record, I take mass transit to work everyday and despite my midpipe, I still pass the California smog emissions test.

A_Grasso

iTrader: (13)

I agree with you 100% bro

josephx66

iTrader: (4)

i was just so surprised to see a person come onto an automotive forum and rant about how deleting cats was not environmentally friendly... There is a time and place for everything. I don't go onto an "anti-smog" forum and complain about emission standards cutting down on performance... Its just not the right place to be doing it.