We can’t cherry-pick scenarios in which cars could be easily replaced by something else? Good lord, why not?! Nobody has a magic wand that we can wave to undo nearly a century of demolishing and building a landscape exclusively for cars. It’s going to take incremental change to undo that, and the wise way to do that is exactly to cherry-pick the easiest scenarios and start there. Best benefits for the effort, and all. Then, as alternatives expand, those alternatives become an option, or even a better way, for more and more people.
Speaking of too-lavish conditions, that exactly describes using a 4,000lb. luxury machine to cart a 185lb. body around from point A to point B, which is located much further away from A than it needs to be, in order to accommodate the operation and storage of those machines. It’s really the opposite of efficient—less than 1% of the energy in gasoline gets used to move the human.
In short, using cars stupidly describes the vast majority of how people use of cars. The reason that it seems reasonable is that everybody else is doing it. Monkey see, monkey do, eh?
Ah, so your issue is with the branding, not the substance of the argument. Fine, cars are not luxury goods, even though most car commercials sell them as such.
My issue is with the people being completely out of it and hating something that replaced horse. Animal labour hello, wanna it back? Fucking westernoids with brain rotten from laziness will find dumbest of things to have a problem with.
Another one is odd misguided yearning for imaginary communism that was long ago wholly deconstructed by scholars who every single one became liberal again
Please discuss points that you disagree with, ask questions, and listen to others. Criticism and disagreement is healthy and welcome in this community but ad hominem attacks on people and petty name-calling are not. It was clear that you were arguing in bad faith. I prefer not to do this, but I decided to ban you for 1 week.
We can’t cherry-pick scenarios in which cars could be easily replaced by something else? Good lord, why not?! Nobody has a magic wand that we can wave to undo nearly a century of demolishing and building a landscape exclusively for cars. It’s going to take incremental change to undo that, and the wise way to do that is exactly to cherry-pick the easiest scenarios and start there. Best benefits for the effort, and all. Then, as alternatives expand, those alternatives become an option, or even a better way, for more and more people.
Speaking of too-lavish conditions, that exactly describes using a 4,000lb. luxury machine to cart a 185lb. body around from point A to point B, which is located much further away from A than it needs to be, in order to accommodate the operation and storage of those machines. It’s really the opposite of efficient—less than 1% of the energy in gasoline gets used to move the human.
In short, using cars stupidly describes the vast majority of how people use of cars. The reason that it seems reasonable is that everybody else is doing it. Monkey see, monkey do, eh?
You can’t cherry pick because the name of the comm is FuckCars. Not FuckICECarsInCities
That’s the problem with sweeping generalisations. They are undefendable
Again cherry picking to paint convenient target for a broad statement.
Ah, so your issue is with the branding, not the substance of the argument. Fine, cars are not luxury goods, even though most car commercials sell them as such.
My issue is with the people being completely out of it and hating something that replaced horse. Animal labour hello, wanna it back? Fucking westernoids with brain rotten from laziness will find dumbest of things to have a problem with.
Another one is odd misguided yearning for imaginary communism that was long ago wholly deconstructed by scholars who every single one became liberal again
Please discuss points that you disagree with, ask questions, and listen to others. Criticism and disagreement is healthy and welcome in this community but ad hominem attacks on people and petty name-calling are not. It was clear that you were arguing in bad faith. I prefer not to do this, but I decided to ban you for 1 week.