[chimpanzee]

Perhaps focus on arguing against gp’s conclusion rather than against the analogy.

Meaning, respond to this:

> Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This conclusion is applicable regardless of the analogy’s aptness. You obviously don’t like the conclusion. But can you argue against it?

Also, as you seem to be focused on the “buying” rather than the “driving” of a truck, would you be ok with a tax or some other disincentive aimed solely at truck drivers rather than truck buyers?