I wrote:
Quote:
|
I am posting to show your comparison is invalid and skewed. You are still trying to compare 'apples to oranges'. If all or even most of today's cars were hybrids (as with your defensive but flawed analogy to digital cameras), the comparison might be valid. But you know very well that most of today's cars are NOT hybrids, yet you insist on focusing only on the few that are, and purposefully ignoring the rest.
|
Quote:
|
You're creating an artificial division that doesn't exist.
|
"Artificial division"? You refuse to compare conventional gasoline powered cars of previous years to other conventional cars made today because you might have to face the facts. If that's not an "artificial division" (a contrived argument) I don't know what is! As long as you can insist upon only comparing 'apples to oranges' you think you have a convincing argument. But you don't.
Quote:
|
I can take my money and buy a hybrid or a conventional car, because the technological advances make them available in the real world. Why must we live within your artificial construct where hybrids are not allowed to exist?
|
When did I say we should live in an "artificial construct"? All I did was to insist on a valid comparison. When did I ever say hybrids should not be allowed to exist? You are engaging in the 'straw man' tactic of debate: misrepresent someone's position and then claim they are wrong. It is the equivalent of 'hitting below the belt' as it is disingenuous. If you misrepresent me I will point out your deceit. I also will insist that you not pull my quotes out of context in attempt to put your argument in a more favorable light.
Quote:
|
Failure to provide proof means your claim is worthless. So be it.
|
OK, to you it is "worthless". I'll not waste any time trying to convince you.