I am amazed at how your entire response is like one giant non sequitur.

“It's bizarre to think that a person would have to be an ascetic in order to voluntarily spend time outside. Millions of people all over the world genuinely enjoy outdoor activities, despite the lack of climate control. That you seem to doubt this is, frankly, weird.”

Stating that people avoid harsh weather conditions relative to transport choices is hardly suggesting that people (myself included) do not enjoy outdoor activities. How you leap to such wild mischaracterisation of what I actually wrote is beyond me.

“I don't think there's any reason to demonize people who use other forms of transportation from you.”

Again I didn’t ‘demonise’ you in anyway shape or form. Your entire response appears to be addressing some strawman in your mind rather than anything I actually wrote, so I will have to leave it there.

That strand of ‘liberalism’, which in the name of 'tolerance', 'respect', etc. automatically defers to religion and has had a chilling effect on debates about religion (see any article here at Salon on Islam for an example) is at issue here. From ‘hate speech’ laws in the EU to hand-wringing over unabashed atheist like Richard Dawkins the political goals of the left (i.e. winning the votes of believers) have come to overshadow liberalism’s core value of free conduct and free exchange of ideas. Some atheists/agnostics/non-believers actually become ashamed of their unbelief in my experience, even if they no any other position would be wishful thinking or outright untruth. This marriage is simply these effects on a personal level.

"The vast majority of people not driven by a self-denying ideology prefer transportation that protects them from the environment." -- me

"Ok, this just strikes me as bizarre." --cappyhamper

"Bizarre"? Because it is _so_ unusual for people to seek sheleter from precipitation, wind, general temperature and/or intense sunlight.

"Now I ride my bike because it's cheap and convenient, but also because it's fun. It's a way to get some exercise that doesn't feel like working out."

Your entire response is about what suit _you_, not how bikes fit the needs of others, how bikes mesh with society at large, reflect menaingful environmental solutions, etc.

"Most of the time I enjoy being outside, and when it's really ugly out I ditch the bike and take the bus instead."

See even you want a climate-controleld vehicle at times, I merely suggest that 'cyclist' types do have a more ascetic mindset driven by their specific evironmental views and that they have no right to expect such an attitude/enjoyment of cycling in others.

"Oy vey...I truly don't understand why that makes me the enemy." — cappyhamper

Talk about a persecution complex and you wonder why the right-wing commetator guy can get away with labeling cyclists as "antisocial". Few people, certainly not me, have called cyclists 'enemies' let alone anything bad, I merely argued that cycling is a minority, personally-motivated choice when alternatives are available and thus not a realistic environmental solution for society as a whole.

“a cyclist riding his bike is powered by food rather than the oil we buy from OUR ENEMIES, which gives them resources to continue gains in strength against us.” --beatlegeuse

Well, your grasp of modern agriculture, even organic, is wanting if you make such a false-on-premise contrast between fuel and food. From ammonia fertiliser to transport to lighting in stores, food involves a lot of fuel input.

“can't wait for gas to go to $6 a gallon....i bike because i am trying to leave the planet slightly better than i found it” --regularjoe1365

a) Bill Watterson wrote your first line coming from Calvin's uptight, self-righteous cyclist dad twenty years ago...didn't happen.

b) There is a tendency among ‘environmentalist’ to focus on joyless/primativist deprivation as a substitute for the real debate: human demands versus population levels. Your not driving a car means fuck all if you or your neighbour has two or more children.

Case in point:

“I had three young children at the time, they were 7, 8, and 12 when it happened. You have no idea what his recovery time was, how much care it took, how much time off work he had to have, more than 6 weeks.” -- teresa

Well, Teresa, while it is unfortunate that your husband was injured by a careless driver, the fact you have three children shows that any other claims/acts of environmental consciousness are just empty, self-righteous show. Any one of your kids, unless they run off to be subsistence farmers in Bangladesh, will consume orders of magnitude more resources than someone with one child, even in the most wasteful American lifestyle.

A third child in particular is metaphorically raping the planet for you own selfish needs. It is inexcusible for anyone who really cares about our future.