When did I say that a legal obligation can't also be a moral obligation? Most laws are based on a collective group of people thinking we have a moral obligation thus making a law so those without morals can be forced to make the correct decision.

Not all people have the same moral views, and just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am morally bankrupt.

I personally feel we as people have a moral obligation to not overpopulate the planet. My wife and I don't have kids, and we are not sure that we will. if we do I don't plan to have more than 2 so we don't increase the global population.

We can each do our part, but just bacause I don't want participate in your plan does not make me a bad person.

If we start doing what one person demands, that make this country a dictatorship, and I promise to get my weapons ready to prevent that.

 

"Here's your logic applied to another situation:

"Yes officer I beat my wife and kids, but I didn't kill them." "

No, that would be my logic MISAPPLIED to a completely different situation in order to make a strawman argument. And I REALLY resent your doing that. And yes, the rest of your reply really was a strawman argument, and not worth responding to.

Look, when it comes down to it, we are all here at this site, on these forums, because we care about this planet. We can disagree, but keep it respectful.

You've lost me on this thread. I have no desire to debate on these forums, with someone like you. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

PS - If there are any moderators looking at this thread, I hope you seriously consider giving zimbop a vacation.

 

I didn't mean to suggest any such thing. My argument is all about this car, not about anyone in general. So my point is YES you can buy this car and feel good about it yourself in whatever moral picture you see yourself fitting into. However, this car and the buyers thereof, shouldn't be winning any environmentalist medals. I believe in all the freedoms America represents, and I believe you can buy whatever car you want, but I do not believe the ones who buy gas hogs and other cars that hijack energy technology for power should be championed for environmental "progress". Heroism requires sacrifice, and the ones out there trying to get something for nothing are welcome to do so, but they're not heroes in my book.

It really gets down to whether you believe that using hybrid technology to boost power counts as environmental progress or not. My main criteria is whether, in the absolute bottom line, the car uses less petrol. If not then it's not progress toward global warming and energy independence. I don't care what other "benefits" come with it, whether it be more power or "better MPG than this car would get with the same power from a V-16" or whatever. If it truly is part of the solution and not the problem, then I would call it progress, but as long as it's not a significant reduction in oil consumption, I'm not going to hand out a Green trophy. I'm not saying it shouldn't be available, or people shouldn't be allowed to buy it or anything like that, I'm just saying that it doesn't deserve to be congratulated for environmental progress if it doesn't really make any.

 

Looking back, this comment was uncalled for and I apologize for it. I stand by the point I was making, but this approach was a cheap shot.

I see now that I have repeated myself profusely on this thread, so those who can appreciate my point should have already done so. I have stated my case in enough ways to have been clear, and I understand the points made by others, even if we disagree. Further discussion may or may not generate any progress on the issue, though I generally do learn from them all. Perhaps there's more to contribute to or learn from this particular discussion, but maybe another direction will result in renewed interest in this thread.

Either way, please accept my apology getting carried away. We're all passionate, and that's a good thing, though it seems the passion overpowered my manners on this one.

 

We all get passionate about our rights, our religion, and our personal views. If I came off too harsh, I too apologise.

At this point, I think it is best to agree that we disagree on 80% of the items we discussed. The one thing we do agree on, is that we should be using MUCH less carbon based energy.

 

I agree 100%

 

Rights are not inherently moral. In one's right to pursue happiness, it's not illegal to cut in line, sleep with your brother's wife, make fun of handicapped people, overpopulate the planet, or waste petrolium as if it will never run out. Yet these are all very real ethical issues, and the fact that they are legal lends no immunity to the morality component.

 

You say that like it is a bad thing. The Lexus GS hybrid is a 39% improvement over the Lexus GS 430 during city driving and a 12% improvement over the Lexus GS 430 during highway driving. Many Lexus GS 430 owners would do almost anything to improve their vehicles's fuel economy by that amount and new luxury vehicles with those efficiency improvements entering the United States' automobile fleet as replacements for less efficient vehicles will lower the United States' dependence on foreign oil, so instead of complaining about its fuel economy, perhaps you should be sending Toyota suggestions on how they could improve the efficiency of the powertrain to raise the fuel economy.

 

I'm on the fence with the performance hybrids.
On the one hand, people could (and probably should) make more fuel-efficient choices than this luxury hybrid. But some people are going to buy big, luxury vehicles 'til the day they die.
Buying this hybrid rather than the equivalent V-8, and getting better MPG *DOES* consume less oil and pollute less. Not having the choice, many of these luxury buyers would buy the V-8 Lexus, and just use more oil, pollute more - and not worry a hoot about it. After all, they can certainly afford gas if they're purchasing this Lexus! Getting them into the hybrid, any hybrid, is probably better than not. After all, 25 MPG is better than 18 MPG.
The danger here, is that some people may never take the next step to *really* reduce their fuel consumption, feeling this is a great "compromise", and feeling good about themselves for being "green." In fact, they have compromised little, if any, and are no greener than the average car that gets 25 MPG.

 

Another danger (and I think one of Zimbop's points), is that IF the performance hybrids really sell well, then the manufacturers will make more and more models of THEM and fewer and fewer models of the high-MPG hybrids. If that occurs, we'll miss out on making truly, astoundingly high MPG cars in the near future (and we're SO close)