SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (146371)4/25/2002 6:19:51 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1572207
 
Its like saying a 300 lb guy is entitled to eat three times the calories that I do because he makes twice as much money per year as I do. I guess he can.........but it's still gluttony.

If the 300lb guy is a football or Shaq, or other large athlete. player he might burn off three times as much as you do considering his size and likely greater level of activity.

If the 300lb guy is a tub of lard the reason why it is gluttony is because it harms him. Our use of oil helps us become rich, and helps us produce things that help not only us but the rest of the world. Its not the equivilent of gulttony. The US is the equivilent of that 300 lb athelete not a tub of lard.

And we also average nearly three cars per family, a couple of recreational vehicles...boat, snowmobile etc; at least one SUV plus maybe a dirt bike.........I mean we have more toys that consume more oil than is necessary period.

And if the people of the third world had the money they wouldn't want or get any of these things? As for multiple RV's, boats and snowmobiles that isn't a "per family" thing. A typical family may have the 3 cars but not all the other stuff. Is it unreasonable for a family with 5 drivers to have 3 to 5 cars? How is this excessive?

Really? What would you use? The number of guns vs the level of oil consumption?

That would be nonsensical. A better one would be the percentage of the worlds production vs the level of oil use, but a better way to determine excessive is is the current level of oil use bankrupting us, or causing us massive horrible damage. It isn't doing any of those things. We can afford it, we benefit from it, it isn't hurting the rest of the world, so it's not excessive.

Thanks for the update. That 2% difference really changes the argument for me.

Its means your figures were 66% off.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News