First name a single person here who suggested EVs would 100% replace gasoline other than the people repeatedly coming up with the strawman arguments.
Strawman!!!!!...........................I don't think you know what it means as you keep throwing it out there rather than answer the questions asked.
The typical strawman argument creates the illusion of having refuted a debate opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition.
As in, when pro-abortion debaters are faced with the prospect of defending the morality of killing unborn children, the first thing they say is "Are you going to take care of the baby after it's born?".
Different argument.
We aren't trying to replace your proposition that electric cars are on the cusp of general acceptance in the US by declaring that they will replace all gasoline powered cars.
The questions we've asked have been valid and directly related to how we could overcome the obstacles to general acceptance, even if it isn't 100% replacement.
So, the last question I asked "Where does the additional electricity come from?" is directly related to the acceptance proposition since without an increase in electrical generation you can't get to general acceptance.
And actually, if you think about it, your challenge to name a single person who claimed 100% replacement, is itself a strawman argument. It doesn't answer the question asked but rather attempts to force me into defending the 100% replacement statement.
But let's put that aside for the moment and answer the question asked. Where does ANY increase in electrical generation come from given the problems associated with building the generators, transmission lines and in the case of green energy, storing the power?
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
"A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, this argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counter argument."
"a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted"
So when you come up with an argument against replacing 100% of gas cars, you're proposing the argument which you are arguing against. It's not based on anything anyone has argued and, anyone who's looked into EV's knows it's a staw man. Maybe it's what you really believe, that that's what is being proposed but that's just your ignorance being projected on the argument.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 09-21-2017).]
So now you've latched on to the 100% replacement argument while not satisfactorily answering any of the other questions about infrastructure, power generation, taxes and societal changes.
Instead you keep throwing down the "Strawman" card against perfectly sound arguments and you have stooped to name calling. I don't know anything about your political beliefs but your behavior during this debate does follow certain Liberal guidelines. Don't try to win an argument with logic, instead paint doubters as technological laggards, just like the label applied to the far right side of the bell curve presented by the OP.
Listen, if electric car proponents want to make unprecedented changes to the way our country operates they will need to convince us with OUTSTANDING reasons and sound solutions.
The market will get what the market wants despite what ignorant people like yourself think.
That's been my constant argument instead of jumping around between non issues and just plain ignorant bias like yourself.
You tried to argue about tax's but only your nonsense narative, if anyone gave you a real answer, it didn't exist and now you're stuck on the electrical grid/energy production.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 09-21-2017).]
Mercedes announced a billion dollar investment to produce electric vehicles in the USA. Mercedes USA CEO on CNBC television this week said that he believes the automotive market will be up to 25% electric vehicles by 2022.
That fact you have there is only good if you don't consider the energy efficiency of the source of electricity and the losses inherent in distribution.
It is part of the out of sight part of the thinking.. Only the unit itself matters to the formula..
The market will get what the market wants despite what ignorant people like yourself think.
That's been my constant argument instead of jumping around between non issues and just plain ignorant bias like yourself.
You tried to argue about tax's but only your nonsense narative, if anyone gave you a real answer, it didn't exist and now you're stuck on the electrical grid/energy production.
Oh you want to go there, good.. So you are say'n facts don't matter only the marketing of the electric vehicle.. See, that shows me that even YOU think that only sheep will follow some marketing b/s .. Look around marketing can sell horse crap with the right markwting, chia pet, pet rock, sham wow.. to name a few..
But you are most likely right, fools will follow a slick marketing campaign, blindly to fit in, cause well ,you're not cool, hip, etc if you don't..
And you call others ignorant. pfft.
Your ad marketing groups wet dream..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 09-25-2017).]
Mercedes announced a billion dollar investment to produce electric vehicles in the USA. Mercedes USA CEO on CNBC television this week said that he believes the automotive market will be up to 25% electric vehicles by 2022.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: liberal playbook 101 got nothing go for a dig... ...Maybe you should go to a hypermiler forum, oh wait, your leaf can't hyper mile anywhere..
You're self-destructing which is why I suggested you might be drunk.
Also to calling me a "liberal" is just like the other SJWs insisting that everyone that doesn't agree with them is a "NAZI".
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 09-25-2017).]
You're self-destructing which is why I suggested you might be drunk.
Also to calling me a "liberal" is just like the other SJWs insisting that everyone that doesn't agree with them is a "NAZI".
Learn to read and context of words..
Where did I call YOU a liberal..?? oh that's right I didn't. I said and I quote. "liberal playbook 101 got nothing go for a dig.. " That was a comment on your no on topic reply, to only reply with a dig.. No one with the 5th grade reading ability would think That = calling you a liberal .
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 09-26-2017).]
