The future of EVs? Maybe not so bad?

Golfman25 said:
You keep saying that in light of evidence to the contrary. More and more states appear to be following California's lead.
Click to expand...

Haven’t we established that States should be free to set their own rules?
 
Last edited:
Golfman25 said:
I know you're trying to be "smart" and philosophical here. But we already do protect the baby after birth -- we call it murder (or a variant thereof). And we protect it before birth, when we charge double murder when someone kills a pregnant woman. But you know all this, so you're just trying to troll.
Click to expand...
Protecting it isn’t just from murder. I’m not trying to be a dick. There are children who aren’t wanted that will go directly into our government systems, or they will go into a family that might not care for them properly. We do a dismal job of caring and providing for these children.

regardless. I don’t think this is a government decision.
 
jmauld said:
Protecting it isn’t just from murder. I’m not trying to be a dick. There are children who aren’t wanted that will go directly into our government systems, or they will go into a family that might not care for them properly. We do a dismal job of caring and providing for these children.

regardless. I don’t think this is a government decision.
Click to expand...
And there you go. You don't think society, as represented by its government, should protect the baby.
 
jmauld said:
That's an interesting question.

Where do you draw your line?

Do we protect the baby until it's born, until it's a toddler, until it's a teenager? Do we extend this protection to south american children, european children, african children, asian children?

Will we provide food, shelter and medical needs for the baby?

Do we not care about the mother? What if having the baby is choice of life or death for the mother? What if the baby has an issue that means it will never develop correctly? What if the baby is gay?
Click to expand...
There is a religious argument to be made there, but I'm not the one to make it.

So, thought experiment (so don't flame me). In most states if you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 homicides (as others have noted). What if you could prove the woman had the intention of getting an abortion, or was even thinking about it? A case could be made that the fetus would have been killed anyway. Should you not be charged with 2 homicides if the woman was less than 14 - 16 weeks pregnant? Should it be ok to murder an incorrectly developed baby right after birth? Not touching your gay comment.

I think Blue is right, 2 extremes and there is no middle ground. As I have said before, I don't believe abortion is moral. But my thinking always has been, as with other things I find immoral, you do you and in the end your maker will decide. If you don't believe in a higher power and turn out to be correct, no loss. That is the collective you, not jmauld.
 
Last edited:
highslice said:
I don't know the answer to this, but the answer could change my thoughts on this. So California is banning the sale of new ICE cars starting in 2035. Are they also banning the registration of new ICE cars as well?
Click to expand...
There are currently states that have banned the sales of EVs and they work around it.
 
highslice said:
There is a religious argument to be made there, but I'm not the one to make it.

.
Click to expand...
You’re exactly right that there is a religious argument to be made, which leads me back to why I feel strongly about this. Separation of church and state is the real issue here.

and I agree with the “you do you” part. Which is why I don’t think this is a question for the government to answer. If it answers it, it either approves or disapproves of the issue. Better to stay out of it. This also means that government shouldn’t fund it, at all.
 
Last edited:
jmauld said:
More reading:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/03/where-tesla-can-sell-cars-map/
Click to expand...
Typical Democrat. You said "states have banned sales of EVs." You can provide no such evidence. Instead, you misrepresent the truth which is that some states have rules and regs regarding ownership of car dealerships, and thus the Tesla sales model isn't approved. Has nothing to do with selling electric vehicles -- in fact such regs have existed before electric cars where even a thing. Chevy can sell as many Volts as it wants. Nissan can sell as many Leafs as it wants. Ford can sell as many Lightnings as it wants. Etc.
 
jmauld said:
You’re exactly right that there is a religious argument to be made, which leads me back to why I feel strongly about this. Separation of church and state is the real issue here.
Click to expand...
So does that mean we should get rid of murder laws? Thou shalt not kill, afterall.
 
Golfman25 said:
Typical Democrat. You said "states have banned sales of EVs." You can provide no such evidence. Instead, you misrepresent the truth which is that some States have rules and regs regarding ownership of car dealerships, and thus the Tesla sales model isn't approved. Has nothing to do with selling electric vehicles -- in fact such regs have existed before electric cars where even a thing. Chevy can sell as many Volts as it wants. Nissan can sell as many Leafs as it wants. Ford can sell as many Lightnings as it wants. Etc.
Click to expand...
This same issue came up in MN, which is far from a conservative state. (Which I believe is what @jmauld is trying to imply)
 
Just came back from a Cadillac Lyriq training meeting at the Atlanta Motorsports Park complex. It was an awesome experience and gave me a new outlook on the performance and capabilities of this technology. Here is a video of me as the passenger recording a trip around the track just after my drive around it.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0d7PAE_tP83D8QLTAApaAgpIg
This is a link to view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,218
Messages
1,428,824
Members
61,115
Latest member
Gardnersf
Back
Top