SJ: "I think you sum the whole debate best by posting Jason's Profile."
I soon realized that despite the fact that a few people here can dish out vitriolic diatribes, some can't take a comparably tame general criticism without taking personal offense and complaining. And since everyone is evidently comfortable standing shoulder to shoulder with the more virulent defenders of the SUV status quoa, I've chosen the high road by not responding with personal attacks, acknowledging peoples' complaints, and posting apologies to those who complained.
"Although I admit to agreeing with some of Jason's points, I think "antagonizing" members of this board is the wrong way to exercise one's democratic rights. I'd like to see improved MPG and lower emissions brought about by consumer advocate groups, rather than disrespecting a fellow American."
How would you have these consumer advocate groups pursue their goals? Maybe you think they should only seek out people who already agree with them so that there is no chance that someone will misconstrue their attempts to educate as antagonism?
SJ: "I don't like it when some one chooses a Toyota Tundra over a Chevrolet/GMC or Ford truck, but I respect that person's right to choose. Further, I don't approach the Toyota owner with my 20+ reasons why they should have purchased a very comparable American nameplate."
I would suggest that talking to someone inclined to buy a comparable foreign car is a perfectly reasonable approach to reconciling your differences. Base your arguments on fact and you should be able to make a strong case. If the other person has an open mind, you will at least be able to understand their point of view or cause them to re-examine their beliefs. The worst that can happen is you walk away agreeing to disagree. I take that back -- the worst that can happen is you're afraid to talk to them, and instead hold them in contempt because they have not given the issue the same consideration you have.
-Jason
|