Still want an EV? (NO POLITICS)

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by jmg

I didn't ask what the original allegory was, I made the original allegory here:



You don't have to answer, because while my ear will always be open for an answer, the hesitation to answer is also just as revealing.





A "mandate" refers to the granted authority of an government or elected official. It's democratic significance is that the mandates enacts the will of the people expressed through the democratic process of votes and elections. It's actually the opposite of what you said. Without the "mandate", the will of the people is rendered unenforceable, and Democracy would be ineffectual.

Examples:

• Desegregation - segregated schools were mandated to accept people of color as students
• Voting Rights - mandates that help eliminate Jim Crow laws at the polls, expanding democracy to people of color.
• Freedom of Speech - mandates that protect the expression of opinions, the 1A.
• The 2A - mandates that protect the right to bear arms

I could go on, but the entire US Constitution is upheld by government mandates to protect the rights of Americans.

If you want to argue that the EV doesn't reflect the will of the people, then by all means. (Your welcome)

However, you couldn't be more wrong about the word "mandate" itself... it is essential to Democracy.

If it was the "will of the People" wouldn't sales be better? Why not hold a referendum for something like this and see what the "will of the People" actually is?

[gonzo]

Climate protestor blocks road in Berlin. Fed up driver gets out and slaps tf out of Sitting Bullcrap.

Patience for these nutters is getting spicy.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

"A 'mandate' refers to the granted authority of an (a) government or (an) elected official." - Relative to the US Government, this statement is incorrect.

"However, you couldn't be more wrong about the word 'mandate' itself... it is essential to Democracy." - Again, no; diversity of thought is essential to Democracy.


Regarding climate change. You keep using the term "climate change skeptic". Any discussion on climate change must be segregated into natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change. Your discussion on climate lacks sophistication. Mandated adoption of EV does not address the impact of natural climate change. Natural climate change is far more impactful on the planet than anthropogenic climate change. Most of us here who understand climate science are of that position, that adoption of EV is not going to impact natural climate change. You mistakenly call it an echo chamber. You call it an echo chamber because you don't separate climate change into natural and anthropogenic causes. That's where the need for sophistication of the discussion comes into play.

This is akin to saying apples aren’t a fruit, because oranges are a fruit with no other explanation or reasoning. It’s a “this or that” fallacy.

In truth, diversity of thought and mandates are both essentials to Democracy among other things.

“This or that” fallacies seem thought provoking, but they oversimplify ideas into irrational binaries offering little substance to anyone except those confined in an echo chamber.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

If it was the "will of the People" wouldn't sales be better? Why not hold a referendum for something like this and see what the "will of the People" actually is?

Will of the people, in this case, is elected officials representing the interests of their constituents enabling these pro-EV policies and mandates. In the context of this conversation, the statement was that mandates are not in line with democracy.

Whether or not EV policies themselves reflect a will of the all people requires further discussion. A discussion I suggested in my post, I might add.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

You're bringing together the ev mandate with the civil rights movement. These two are probably as related as the effect that going EV will have on global CO2 levels.

Again, in the context of the discussion the issues was mandates as it relates to democracy. I gave several examples that relate to that discussion. The similarities of the civil rights movements is limited in this case to how mandates relate to the democratic process.

Any relation to the EV movement beyond that can be imagined as a target to discredit the idea, without actually challenging the specifics of this particular point.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

You're bringing together the ev mandate with the civil rights movement. These two are probably as related as the effect that going EV will have on global CO2 levels.

His understanding of the word "mandate" is completely opposite of the definition. WRT a representative government, a mandate is the wishes of constituents expressed to their Representative.

But hey, let's just make stuff up.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Back to basics and I'd like to concentrate more on the risk to Firemen tackling EV fires which are explained in this vid with cobalt poisoning added to the list which can be career ending, the huge amounts of water used to douse EV fires are then contaminated running into drains and how do you tackle such an emergency in a multi storey car park?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=la...vI1daNils,st:0

I agree, this is a big problem. Thermal runaway is no joke. A local resident here had his home burn down because of their Tesla experiencing thermal runaway. They plugged their car into a power strip of all things. While this was entirely avoidable, it’s still a danger and it’s one of the reasons I hesitate to park another EV in my garage.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

His understanding of the word "mandate" is completely opposite of the definition. WRT a representative government, a mandate is the wishes of constituents expressed to their Representative.

But hey, let's just make stuff up.

The answer is a simple google search away.

Again, your very constent.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by jmg

I agree, this is a big problem. Thermal runaway is no joke. A local resident here had his home burn down because of their Tesla experiencing thermal runaway. They plugged their car into a power strip of all things. While this was entirely avoidable, it’s still a danger and it’s one of the reasons I hesitate to park another EV in my garage.

Newer lithium iron phosphate chemistry is much safer with thermal runaway only occurring at much higher temps than older car battery chemistry.

Using a power strip on a car is beyond ridiculous.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

Again, in the context of the discussion the issues was mandates as it relates to democracy. I gave several examples that relate to that discussion. The similarities of the civil rights movements is limited in this case to how mandates relate to the democratic process.

Any relation to the EV movement beyond that can be imagined as a target to discredit the idea, without actually challenging the specifics of this particular point.

You're digging a word salad hole that is AI esque. Nothing that you've said has explained how you compared civil rights movement to EV mandates.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

You're digging a word salad hole that is AI esque. Nothing that you've said has explained how you compared civil rights movement to EV mandates.

They are similar in that they both require mandates to be effective. This was stated in my original reply.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by jmg

The answer is a simple google search away.

Again, your very constent.

From an actual dictionary (Websters) published in 1971 before the internet and social media:

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

From an actual dictionary (Websters) published in 1971 before the internet and social media:

I'll humbly admit I am wrong... when I'm actually wrong:

Originally Posted by jmg

A "mandate" refers to the granted authority of an government or elected official. It's democratic significance is that the mandates enacts the will of the people expressed through the democratic process of votes and elections.

The constituents are the ones participating in the democratic process, in case you missed it.

Again, your consistent attempts to derail the discussion with these veiled personal attacks is almost impressive, but it's counterproductive when taken to these obsessive extremes.

Originally Posted by jmg

Sidestepping the discussion by attacking the person seems to be your go-to strategy when you have no other meaningful input.

[kyriian]

Rotated and cropped it for you Efthreeoh

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

They are similar in that they both require mandates to be effective. This was stated in my original reply.

I still can't see the logic of uttering both in the same sentence.. other than to sidestep the argument and go straight into how a one for a hovt= vote for whatever they do.
Mandating in common speak = enforcement but you are free rto believe your version.

[KRS_SN]

On a funnier note we have trouble defining a man and a woman ... no chance we are going to sort the definition of 'mandate'

[gblansten]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate

Really like this one online.

Feel free to rotate the link if needed.

Here is an additional orientation:

ǝʇɐpuɐɯ/ʎɹɐuoᴉʇɔᴉp/ɯoɔ˙ɹǝʇsqǝʍ-ɯɐᴉɹɹǝɯ˙ʍʍʍ//:sdʇʇɥ

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

I still can't see the logic of uttering both in the same sentence.. other than to sidestep the argument and go straight into how a one for a hovt= vote for whatever they do.
Mandating in common speak = enforcement but you are free rto believe your version.

They were examples of enacting the will of the people that not all people agreed with. Not everyone wanted desegregation, yet court-ordered enforced integration was necessary.

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Mandating in common speak = enforcement but you are free rto believe your version.

I gave both definitions in my previous two posts. But they both work:

• The "mandate" was the authority given to the elected officials by the constituents to enforce the A14
• The "mandate" was the order given by the courts to enforce integration

They were both necessary tools to make this democratic policy effective. Hence, a "mandate" is in line with democratic values. This is in opposition of the last sentence you stated here in bold:

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Why do you ask what is the original allegory..
The EV mandate is not in line with democratic values and will of the people. The clue is in the name...mandate.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by jmg

Will of the people, in this case, is elected officials representing the interests of their constituents enabling these pro-EV policies and mandates. In the context of this conversation, the statement was that mandates are not in line with democracy.

Whether or not EV policies themselves reflect a will of the all people requires further discussion. A discussion I suggested in my post, I might add.

Time and again we see governments taking steps that clearly aren't within the mandates they were elected on. It's not just the USA.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by gblansten

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate

Really like this one online.

Feel free to rotate the link if needed.

Here is an additional orientation:

ǝʇɐpuɐɯ/ʎɹɐuoᴉʇɔᴉp/ɯoɔ˙ɹǝʇsqǝʍ-ɯɐᴉɹɹǝɯ˙ʍʍʍ//:sdʇʇɥ

Apparently, some people believe that language wasn't allowed to evolve after 1971, the invention of the internet, and existence of social media. Regardless, all of these definitions work, and the cherry picking by certain individuals is just an attempt to create distractions.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by jmg

Apparently, some people believe that language wasn't allowed to evolve after 1971, the invention of the internet, and existence of social media. Regardless, all of these definitions work, and the cherry picking by certain individuals is just an attempt to create distractions.

I find the tangential direction this thread has taken of late to be very amusing. I love you guys.

If we keep going down this rabbit hole we will be doing recursive ontological inspections of being and "is"ness.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

Time and again we see governments taking steps that clearly aren't within the mandates they were elected on. It's not just the USA.

The IRA of 2022, which extended EV incentives to 2032, was passed by the House with a 220-207 vote by publicly elected officials representing their constituents. Congress passed it with a 51-50 vote. Both were straight down party lines.

Whether or not an individual feels like this represents the will of the people might depend on what side of the fence they are on, and if they think their will supercedes everyone else's.