deathmetalbestmetal

I love car threads on the general UK subs. Always filled with people who like the idea they know something about cars, but are clueless.

> When the tyre pressure one goes on, the advice is to pull over ASAP and correct it, and to drive at 30mph or under until you can pull over. This is absolute horseshit and will depend from car to car.

Because it’s a waste of space and weight. I have never needed a spare wheel in the 15 years or so I’ve been driving and I suspect I’m not an anomaly.

I think it's important that people understand how our taxes and public funding work, so yes?

Landlord isn't expensive at all though?

> Paying a professional declutterer How do they know what tho throw away?

Well, taxes are not ring fenced into funds like that, and the NHS budget is higher than NI takings.

Maybe just don't give women protections. It's not that big a deal.

That literally all you can do is this kind of mundane personal attack is why you people are losing the argument. It’s so very funny.

> It's not conceptual, trans and intersection people and their issues are real, even if downplayed by people like yourself. I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about. That it is a conceptual debate has nothing to do with whether it’s about real people or is really important. Of course it’s important. You’re desperate to eliminate women as a class. The point is that it is for us to decide how these concepts are used - science does not tell us. > You use big words but youre saying nothing. That you think any of these are big words says quite a lot, doesn’t it? > Just because you disregard empirical data doesn't mean the argument is conceptual, it just shows more ignorance. The argument is conceptual in that it is about concepts and how we use them. Science gives us empirical data but it cannot tell us what these concepts ‘really’ mean. That would be totally confused.

> Intersex people are 1% of the population, which is actually quite alot, if you work somewhere with like 200 people, you have statically worked with a couple. No they aren’t. Not unless you stretch the definition beyond ordinary characteristics of what people consider male and female, which is all that matters to ordinary society. > and these people or no less important than you or me. Individually, of course. To the trans debate they are totally irrelevant.

Oh no, not my precious internet points! I’m smug because I know I’m correct, and I’m delighted that public opinion is moving back in the right direction. No idea what’s supposedly creepy. Just sounds like a placeholder for an argument you don’t possess.

> Once again you are simplifying and disregarding atleast 1% of the population Intersex people are not 1% of the population. Trans people might be, and I’m not disregarding them. I simply think they do not possess the characteristics of one of the categories they insist they belong to. > Your take is not based in facts or science, it also helps no one but the ignorant. Confused gibberish. This is a conceptual debate.

Intersex people are so rare as to be completely irrelevant to the debate. Blurred lines at the extremes of a concept are no threat to the existence of the concept. My opinion I'm please to say is not out of touch. The general public are continuing to realise what absolute gibberish most of your argument are.

> I don't see why this isn't just, an argument for abolishing basically all gender norms This is exactly what gender critics advocate for. >a thing that isn't as neat as one might think- intersex people that dismantle the binary exist) Intersex people are completely irrelevant. Just because there is a tiny, tiny fraction of people in which the dichotomy is hard to determine, doesn't mean there isn't a binary in every other case. >Plus it's not like our bits and bobs, let alone stuff like body shape, where we do/don't have hair, muscle mass, skin thickness, thermoregulation etc are fixed in stone either, HRT makes a really massive difference even without surgery There are still fundamental differences. HRT changes a few characteristics, but not the major ones. >It seems a rejection of traditionalism to me, is people born with male biology deciding to feminise themselves by taking estrogen. It isn't a rejection of traditionalism at all. It's just people wishing they were something else. If I wanted to become a black man (I am a white man), would you celebrate my blackface as a rejection of traditionalism? > Though I do think that whatever makes somebody a man/woman/boy/girl/non-binary person, is internal at the end of the day. The problem with this is that it is completely incoherent. It's Wittgenstein's beetle in a box. If it's magical and internal *then it has absolutely no meaning at all*. If everyone has their own personal internal and magical feeling of what something means, then *there is no meaning to that concept*. >We don't need to define it exactly, just like everyone knows what a fish is despite no objective biological classification of them existing, and such wouldn't reflect reality, just like we call things that are technically fruits vegetables and vice versa (bananas are technically berries if biology your reference point, but nobody in practice uses this definition, and to define gender by biology, makes it a straightjacket and a half). Everyone knows what a fish is because there is a number of nonessential and overlapping characteristics that we use in communication to determine what a fish is. Everyone does not have their own internal and private definition of what a fish is. You're usurping your own point here. For us to be able to talk about fish, we must all have an idea of when it is correct and understandable to talk about fish. To do that, we all recognise various characteristics that make something a fish. Things like scales, and fins, and body shape etc. The problem we have with the trans agenda is that you cannot and will not list any of the characteristics that women possess. When you do, you quickly fall into incoherence or bigotry. >The gender norms we have, arose from people trying to say that people of body type XX should do one thing, those of type XY should do another, it's IMO caring about sex that's the root issue that caused the consequneces we say we don't want. So we should abandon those gender norms. It's you lot that are obsessed with them. How can you not see that!? Caring about sex is unfortunately a requisite in certain situations. >All of which is a lot of words, to say that I support abolishing sex based roles, not gender, but that I do support getting rid of almost all gender roles (just not gender as a concept entirely). This is totally, totally incoherent. Sex based roles are constitutive of what gender is!

Because gender is nothing more than a bundle of stereotypes placed upon the two sexes. Proclaiming oneself a particular gender does not change the physical characteristics that determine your sex. So you have a choice; either you replace sex with gender which is obviously bigoted, or you blur the two together which rapidly becomes completely incoherent.

No, but the incoherent and bigoted movement surrounding those people *is*.

Now who is the creepy one? You're still demonstrating the point beautifully. You know you cannot put together a coherent argument and it's very funny.

As I thought. Deep down you *know* it’s all totally incoherent, but you hope that people won’t notice if you avoid debate and go for irrelevant ad hominem.

Deeply exciting transphobe actually. The sort that could give you a *really* good argument if you weren’t too chicken to stick around.

> Other people prefer cars for slighly shorter journey times. I would imagine for most people for most journeys, the travel time is *massively* shorter by car.

It’s the trans movement’s arguments that are nonsensical. Incoherent, circular gibberish.

No I'm not; the point is that part of the reason pop and bang maps are seen as desirable because they take inspiration from a functional motorsport purpose i.e. anti lag. The original commenter was saying that the 'louder = better' concept is partly because traditionally louder means more power. It's the same contributing factor to spoilers, wings, and multiple exhausts being aesthetically desirable. I'm not saying that pop and bang maps are to increase performance.

Well I suspect that they do given the ubiquity of turbos these days, but yes they're certainly not for a performance benefit!

Is worth noting however that the benefit is generally marginal or often essentially nonexistent. Pops and bangs are also slightly different, though again for a performance reason. The noise is the result of unburned fuel being pushed into the hot exhaust and igniting when lifting off the throttle. The idea is that this reduces lag when the throttle is applied because the turbo is kept spinning under pressure even without the throttle bing applied.

You can't really diagnose alcoholism from the information given.

In a world where cars can share any combination of badges, platforms, parts, designers and engineers, ranging from mere rebadging to sharing a couple of obscure parts, calling two set of cars that have absolutely nothing at all in common *cousins* seems extremely silly.

M&S. Convinced that there's loads of astroturfing for it here on the UK subs.

This is one of the ways they get people though. They're intentionally pushing the whole 'cut price Land/Range Rover' angle, but many people don't realise that their largest car - the J7 - is nowhere near the size of a Discovery, let alone a FFRR. Even their flagship J8 which launches next year is smaller. The value is undeniable, but corners are still cut.

I drove one of the XPOWER MG4s a few months back. Blisteringly fast. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. Properly flawed in many ways but you can't deny the value.

Chery own 50% of the business that is responsible for assembling Chinese market JLR products. Very, very different to Chery owning 50% of JLR (who are owned by Tata). Jaecoo and Land Rover are not cousins in the slightest.

You are some combination of confused and disingenuous here. Let's go through this step by step. You claimed that here in the UK we've been buying popular 'made in China' cars for many years before the arrival of the Chinese brands, with the suggestion that this is nothing particularly new. I pointed out that this is simply wrong. Vanishingly few UK market cars were made in China until recently. You used SAIC's purchase of MG 19 years ago as evidence that what you were saying is true. But this is very poor evidence for two reasons. The first is that MG didn't sell many cars at all until recently. Their share was a fraction of a percent of cars until a few years ago. This alone renders your point straightforwardly wrong. The second issue is that until 2016, the cars were made here in the UK. You argued that because they came in knock down kits of parts, they were still 'made in China', and that the location and method of assembly is irrelevant. This is flawed as a response for several reasons. Firstly they are regardless built here and the location of build *is* materially relevant (see endless discussions about which identical Teslas are better from which factory), and secondly while the parts were made in China, the cars were designed and engineered here. This is different to the modern wave of Chinese cars that are engineered, cast and assembled entirely in China. That Chinese manufacturers have hired some European designers to pen the aesthetics of their cars does not mean they are the same as the old SAIC MGs that were designed, engineered and entirely put together here in the UK. Because you are desperate not to admit that you were entirely wrong about the original premise (which is rendered false merely by MG's lack of popularity, let alone anything else), you are focusing on any other straws that you can grasp. It's very silly.

>Erm no - now you're digging in further to conflate "design" with "made in china" Absolute gibberish. How on earth am I conflating the two when my point is that they *weren't* designed in China? It's very simple. Early SAIC MG cars were designed in the UK, the parts all cast in China and then shipped over here where the cars were built. This is not 'made in China' in the same way that modern Chinese cars are made in China. So when you said there were plenty of 'popular' cars "Made in China" before the Chinese brands came along you were flat out wrong. Not only was MG not popular until recently, but the cars were not the same kind of product as the ones being pumped out by the Chinese brands now. >What spurious origins are you now implying with "made in China" brands? Do you know the origins of the designs? Sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

>You are conflating "assembled" vs made - there's a very clear tax-dodging difference between the two, which has no positive bearing on the quality or underlying engineering. The underlying engineering was the result of UK development, and assembly skill has a huge bearing on quality in fact. >I suspect you are claiming facts without actually doing any research Complete nonsense. And I suspect that you're upset that you've been called out for nonsense and you're now focusing on this in an attempt to avoid the fact that Chinese-made cars simply were very rare until the recent influx of Chinese brands in the last few years.

>You haven't kept up with who owns whom in the car world have you? I can't understand what point you think you're making here?

I mean MG just is a Chinese brand now, it wasn't popular until recently, and most UK market cars were made in the UK until 2016. As I said, until the recent influx of Chinese brands, cars made in China were really, really rare in the UK.

No it was really rare for UK cars to be made in China before the Chinese brands arrived a few years ago.

It has nothing to do with 'self satisfaction'. I'm slim and have a fairly small appetite; I am well aware I am lucky in that sense. I don't have a horse in this race. My issue is twofold. Firstly that your comments belittle the efforts of people who really do put a huge amount of mental effort in and are successful in maintaining a healthy weight. Secondly that they further this idea that things are beyond our control, which is dangerous and unhealthy.

Okay I'll do it. I'm going to bite and be the dickhead. >so many people in this thread already with no personal experience of obesity giving big bold claims without actually having lived it themselves. Nor have you lived the life of a person of a healthy weight who has done so thorough hard work and tough mental motivation. We do not all need personal experience of everything we pass comment on. >I’m a (to quote someone else in this thread) middle class national truster with an Oxford PhD and lifetime in medical research, access to psychologists, surgery, personal trainers. I should have all the tools to maintain a healthy body weight. None of these things are required to maintain a healthy body weight though. Vanishingly few people are overweight *because* they don't have access to these things. >I know it hurts a lot of you that it turns out that your ability to maintain a normal weight is not because of your superior motivation skills. It is in many cases though. People of a healthy weight without GLP-1s quite simply are better able to control their eating habits than you are. In some (probably most) cases this is because they don't have the same intense desire for food that you do. In other cases they simply are stronger willed and are better able to control their eating than you. >Obesity is fundamentally at a very basic level about calories in, calories out - but there are clearly so many other factors controlling the bigger picture and many of these are not within an individual’s control There are indeed many factors that affect *how difficult* it is for a person to maintain the correct balance, and they may well be out of an individual's control. But this does not change the fact that fundamentally whether to eat or not is within essentially everyone's control.

> You purposely put a very slow estimate on walking time to convey a 2mile walk as long journey. You said it was two miles to the shop. That's a four mile round trip. The average walking speed is 3mph. You spend ten minutes in the shop. Do you need me to spell out the maths or would you like to admit you were wrong? >If the alternatives are there people will move away from cars. The more you make the alternatives more like cars, i.e. faster, more convenient, more comfortable, more practical, more flexible etc., yes people will shift. The point I'm making is that the idea that people will look back negatively on what is patently the best overall solution for most people in this day and age, is silly. Nobody is unaware of the externalities as with things like smoking, but they're seen as a worthwhile tradeoff.

> Oh sorry didnt know youre the spokesman for "most people" The NTS data is freely available for all to see. About 70% of journeys between 1-5 miles are made by car. Most people are patently not prevented from making these journeys because they, like you, live on a rural road with no footpath. >How long do you estimate it would take to cycle? 5 hours? I have no idea what point you think you're making. Why would I be inaccurate about the cycle time?

That's great for you, but most people would generally much rather drive a four mile round trip anyway. People tend not to have an hour and a half spare to do a little shop.

Nah, everyone is aware of the externalities already, but still see it as being worth it.

I just don't find that even remotely surprising to be honest. So many people simply do not have an extra half an hour in the day.

You're not likely imagining it no - beef and chicken are quite different in this regard. There's a kind of race to the bottom with chicken that steak in particular avoids. People generally do not willingly pay much more for better chicken, so it's commoditised to the extreme with fast growing breeds, water baths and injections etc. While there's an extremely clear case for supermarkets to offer a range of steak right up to the highest level, there just isn't for chicken, so even the middling stuff tends to be kind of artificial.

> If you buy good quality meat from a butcher While it sounds nice, getting meat from a butcher has nothing to do with it being 'good quality'. There is no magical difference between supermarket and butcher steak in this country. Comes from exactly the same places, with the same range of breeds, cuts, qualities and aging processes. Perhaps controversially, if you want *really* good steak, then unless you're lucky enough to live near an exceptional butcher, the supermarkets are better. Way easier to get high end dry aged cuts from Sainos, M&S, Waitrose etc.

I don't think this one is entirely fair given they do need some way of describing a non-plug-in hybrid engine, and they are appreciably different to a standard ICE.

Not only has it been a thing for *years*, but terminally online Reddit bitches have been whining about it for years too.

Varies significantly depending on industry but I also work in trade, though as a director for a small business. We have lots of elderly people who like to pay in cash and it’s a pain. The cost of cash comes from longer transaction time for substantial amounts, dramatically higher chance of mistakes, time cost of reconciliation, extra cost of accounting, increased security requirements, shrinkage, time taken to pay in money, bank deposit fees of 0.5-1.5% etc. This isn’t about saying every transaction is better on card, but businesses that are trying as far as possible to save what is on average perhaps 2%, simply don’t see the full picture.

If this is their reasoning, then as I have explained so many times in this thread, they have poor commercial sense.