This feels like coming from a very car centric mind set. The idea that a individual in their car should be able to get to point A to B without any change or obstruction. The idea that a person inconvenienced in their car is the worst sin comparable to the inconvenience to the walker or biker.
As opposed to the complete opposite? Should someone be able to obstruct another’s passage without bearing any responsibility for the consequences of that person not reaching their destination on time?
What about a middle ground where everyone gets where they’re going safely? No one should be obstructing anyone.
Between two cars (to keep the argument more equitable), if I’m pulling out into a lane and I see a car coming, far enough away that I can safely get out and up to speed without obstructing them… but I know I’m going to be stopping several times… why wouldn’t I just let them go? That way, we both get to do what we need to do. Why would I need to mess with them? In a situation where I didn’t know they were coming, like say they came around a bend behind me, why wouldn’t I just let them go around me after the first stop? Stop, pick the person up, and then wave them around me. If I don’t know this person or have any grudge against them, why wouldn’t I?
Basic decency is all I’m asking, from all sides. The world is bad enough as it is. Why make things worse for someone when it gains you nothing tangible to do so?
Because traffic isn’t going to get any better if we prioritize the needs of single person vehicles over public transit. There just isn’t a way to state it better then that.
Cars need to be inconvenienced. Someone needs to have a pretty good reason to pick it over a public transit option.
As it stands by putting cars first above people (which is where the sin of inconvenience puts us) it in the end makes everything worse for everyone. By not allowing any inconvenience for cars, it paradoxical makes everything inconvenient with laws and structure that focuses on the individual. I’d put my studies up but they are on my computer and not on my phone.
But in short, it is not a question of everyone getting what they want. Because if cars get what they want then by default everyone else can’t get what they want. Because the needs of individual flies in the face of the need for the rest of the people to get where they are going on time. This has proven to be fact time and time again.
If you can wait, I can post all my material when make it back to my computer on Tuesday.
Cars need to be inconvenienced. Someone needs to have a pretty good reason to pick it over a public transit option.
Public transportation doesn’t go where I need. It doesn’t go to my home or to my work. There may be one stop between my home and my job, so there’s no point in me walking to the bus stop because the bus, when it does arrive, will only carry me further from either point. So my pretty good reason is, I like to be able to pay my bills and put food on my table.
No, but nice strawman. Not every interaction with a bus while in a car means someone dies. It’s pretty rare. I just think buses could be ran better, more efficiently. Now, if you have the same position as the person with the longer comment, that people who drive cars need to be inconvenienced, that’s a whole other statement, and they made it better, despite making a shorter post than they intended (summarising their post).
A similar strawman would be to say that for buses to exist, people have to be late for work and lose their jobs and either turn to crime or go on the streets. But as you can see, this false equivalency doesn’t really make any sense. It’s a pretty extreme situation. You’d say “just leave earlier” and tear it to shreds. But “just leave earlier” doesn’t always work — sometimes the buses do, too. They are not very reliable or predictable. And educating bus drivers to not cut off traffic would protect the lives you’re arguing to save. And letting people pass after each stop is just common courtesy. What’s wrong with that? Unless, see above, you’re making another point entirely.
No, those are the actual stakes being discussed. Not every time? That’s not what I said, so who is building strawmen?
I’m not talking about buses, I’m talking about cars, which is where you started before you got called on it.
This feels like coming from a very car centric mind set. The idea that a individual in their car should be able to get to point A to B without any change or obstruction. The idea that a person inconvenienced in their car is the worst sin comparable to the inconvenience to the walker or biker.
As opposed to the complete opposite? Should someone be able to obstruct another’s passage without bearing any responsibility for the consequences of that person not reaching their destination on time?
Literal victim blaming.
What about a middle ground where everyone gets where they’re going safely? No one should be obstructing anyone.
Both sides: a middle ground fallacy.
Between two cars (to keep the argument more equitable), if I’m pulling out into a lane and I see a car coming, far enough away that I can safely get out and up to speed without obstructing them… but I know I’m going to be stopping several times… why wouldn’t I just let them go? That way, we both get to do what we need to do. Why would I need to mess with them? In a situation where I didn’t know they were coming, like say they came around a bend behind me, why wouldn’t I just let them go around me after the first stop? Stop, pick the person up, and then wave them around me. If I don’t know this person or have any grudge against them, why wouldn’t I?
To make a completely different argument (where both parties share equitable risk and responsibility), you mean. The defining characteristic of this discussion is the asymmetric risk and responsibility. That’s the whole point you’re ignoring.
Basic decency is all I’m asking, from all sides. The world is bad enough as it is. Why make things worse for someone when it gains you nothing tangible to do so?
All I’m getting here is more victim blaming: get out of your way, they’re making you late, they deserved it. If that’s not your intent, that’s still how it sounds.
This feels like coming from a very car centric mind set. The idea that a individual in their car should be able to get to point A to B without any change or obstruction. The idea that a person inconvenienced in their car is the worst sin comparable to the inconvenience to the walker or biker.
As opposed to the complete opposite? Should someone be able to obstruct another’s passage without bearing any responsibility for the consequences of that person not reaching their destination on time?
What about a middle ground where everyone gets where they’re going safely? No one should be obstructing anyone.
Between two cars (to keep the argument more equitable), if I’m pulling out into a lane and I see a car coming, far enough away that I can safely get out and up to speed without obstructing them… but I know I’m going to be stopping several times… why wouldn’t I just let them go? That way, we both get to do what we need to do. Why would I need to mess with them? In a situation where I didn’t know they were coming, like say they came around a bend behind me, why wouldn’t I just let them go around me after the first stop? Stop, pick the person up, and then wave them around me. If I don’t know this person or have any grudge against them, why wouldn’t I?
Basic decency is all I’m asking, from all sides. The world is bad enough as it is. Why make things worse for someone when it gains you nothing tangible to do so?
Because traffic isn’t going to get any better if we prioritize the needs of single person vehicles over public transit. There just isn’t a way to state it better then that.
Cars need to be inconvenienced. Someone needs to have a pretty good reason to pick it over a public transit option.
As it stands by putting cars first above people (which is where the sin of inconvenience puts us) it in the end makes everything worse for everyone. By not allowing any inconvenience for cars, it paradoxical makes everything inconvenient with laws and structure that focuses on the individual. I’d put my studies up but they are on my computer and not on my phone.
But in short, it is not a question of everyone getting what they want. Because if cars get what they want then by default everyone else can’t get what they want. Because the needs of individual flies in the face of the need for the rest of the people to get where they are going on time. This has proven to be fact time and time again.
If you can wait, I can post all my material when make it back to my computer on Tuesday.
Public transportation doesn’t go where I need. It doesn’t go to my home or to my work. There may be one stop between my home and my job, so there’s no point in me walking to the bus stop because the bus, when it does arrive, will only carry me further from either point. So my pretty good reason is, I like to be able to pay my bills and put food on my table.
100% agree that we need better public transit.
Being avoidably late is the same level of concern for you as being killed?
No, but nice strawman. Not every interaction with a bus while in a car means someone dies. It’s pretty rare. I just think buses could be ran better, more efficiently. Now, if you have the same position as the person with the longer comment, that people who drive cars need to be inconvenienced, that’s a whole other statement, and they made it better, despite making a shorter post than they intended (summarising their post).
A similar strawman would be to say that for buses to exist, people have to be late for work and lose their jobs and either turn to crime or go on the streets. But as you can see, this false equivalency doesn’t really make any sense. It’s a pretty extreme situation. You’d say “just leave earlier” and tear it to shreds. But “just leave earlier” doesn’t always work — sometimes the buses do, too. They are not very reliable or predictable. And educating bus drivers to not cut off traffic would protect the lives you’re arguing to save. And letting people pass after each stop is just common courtesy. What’s wrong with that? Unless, see above, you’re making another point entirely.
No, those are the actual stakes being discussed. Not every time? That’s not what I said, so who is building strawmen?
I’m not talking about buses, I’m talking about cars, which is where you started before you got called on it.
Literal victim blaming.
Both sides: a middle ground fallacy.
To make a completely different argument (where both parties share equitable risk and responsibility), you mean. The defining characteristic of this discussion is the asymmetric risk and responsibility. That’s the whole point you’re ignoring.
All I’m getting here is more victim blaming: get out of your way, they’re making you late, they deserved it. If that’s not your intent, that’s still how it sounds.
deleted by creator