one trys to criminalize my friends, the other provides a more reliable form of transportation to the big airport than the smaller airlines and results in fewer deaths than firearms in my country.
…criminalize your friends? That’s such a funny victim complex thing to say. Buddy I drive a fucking sportscar(when I drive at all) and I don’t ever feel “criminalized”, even when the local main street becomes pedestrian in the summer(it should be year-round). There are some places that have banned certain types of cars from their downtown cores but for the most part no one is criminalizing cars. What they are doing is pointing out how every single piece of evidence ever gathered reinforces that robust public transit is the best way in urban or semi-urban environments and that even rural communities could be tighter and more walkable.
Also if cars are resulting in fewer deaths than firearms I’m shocked about how bad the firearm problem must be where you’re from(or wondering how many people actually have access to cars).
'murican republican party is trying to criminalize immigrants, LGBT youth, and pro palatinian speech; I have yet to see a car discriminate who it maimes or kills. IIRC there are plans for California to make new ICE cars illegal in 2035. and yes the us does have a bit of a gun problem.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is community aimed at improving public transit infrastructure and getting cities, especially North American ones, off of car dependency. Your comments are written like you’re trying to fight against what this community(and all the science) says and are now going off about entirely unrelated things without really explaining, in any sort of detail, this tenuous link your mind has created. You even said that cars provide a better transportation service to airports than small airlines do(???) and that’s just completely off the rails to the point I can’t even guess at what you might mean with any level of confidence.
I’d love to figure out what the fuck is going on with you and this seemingly backwards, condtradictory opinion, so next time you reply can you just start over from the top and please take your time, there’s no rush.
people destroy the environment, cars need people to cause significant environmental harm. If you just reduce the commonality (people) there will be less environmental harm, fewer deaths, and fewer cities pushing their employment heavy ideals on the rest of the country.
sounds like large populations are the problem for cars, not cars being inherently a problem.
“It is impossible to fix that” ~citizens of the only country where it happens
Classic
Great take, we should take all the humans out of cities to make them even more car-friendly!
It worked for Radiator Springs!
I like to model my problem solving with human needs as the goals and machines as tools to achieve that. The inverse you propose sounds awful
I don’t know if you realize that you live in a society of humans, nor cars
😒
Do you love cars more than people or something?
one trys to criminalize my friends, the other provides a more reliable form of transportation to the big airport than the smaller airlines and results in fewer deaths than firearms in my country.
…criminalize your friends? That’s such a funny victim complex thing to say. Buddy I drive a fucking sportscar(when I drive at all) and I don’t ever feel “criminalized”, even when the local main street becomes pedestrian in the summer(it should be year-round). There are some places that have banned certain types of cars from their downtown cores but for the most part no one is criminalizing cars. What they are doing is pointing out how every single piece of evidence ever gathered reinforces that robust public transit is the best way in urban or semi-urban environments and that even rural communities could be tighter and more walkable.
Also if cars are resulting in fewer deaths than firearms I’m shocked about how bad the firearm problem must be where you’re from(or wondering how many people actually have access to cars).
'murican republican party is trying to criminalize immigrants, LGBT youth, and pro palatinian speech; I have yet to see a car discriminate who it maimes or kills. IIRC there are plans for California to make new ICE cars illegal in 2035. and yes the us does have a bit of a gun problem.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is community aimed at improving public transit infrastructure and getting cities, especially North American ones, off of car dependency. Your comments are written like you’re trying to fight against what this community(and all the science) says and are now going off about entirely unrelated things without really explaining, in any sort of detail, this tenuous link your mind has created. You even said that cars provide a better transportation service to airports than small airlines do(???) and that’s just completely off the rails to the point I can’t even guess at what you might mean with any level of confidence.
I’d love to figure out what the fuck is going on with you and this seemingly backwards, condtradictory opinion, so next time you reply can you just start over from the top and please take your time, there’s no rush.
False comparison, terrible argument. People also legalise cars and build roads. Try again: why would you prefer fewer people to fewer cars?
people destroy the environment, cars need people to cause significant environmental harm. If you just reduce the commonality (people) there will be less environmental harm, fewer deaths, and fewer cities pushing their employment heavy ideals on the rest of the country.
Reducing the population won’t lead to fewer deaths. The very act of doing so would itself be death on an untold scale.
That’s an interesting way to phrase that. But indeed, cars and high population densities do not combine well.