3 ms·

Some elderly people are content with a bicycle. Does that make a bicycle a car? The fact that some elderly people might be content with facebook access does no

Some elderly people are content with a bicycle. Does that make a bicycle a car? The fact that some elderly people might be content with facebook access does not make facebook access any sort of internet access.

return0 9y ago
> Does that make a bicycle a car? Uhm, it does because it is literally a car? Maybe your ass is unable to accept anything less than the softness of a leather seat, but for millions of people a bicycle or a cheap motorbike is a savior. (dont get me started on the unbelievable arrogance that because you can afford it, everyone should)
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Seriously? Because I don't think that a bicycle is a car (I just checked a dictionary, I am pretty sure it's not), I am arrogant because I supposedly can afford it and supposedly think everyone should? If that is what counts as logic to you, I don't think there is much of a point to discussing with you any further.
  - return0 9y ago
    no you re arrogant because u can't fathom that some people cannot afford it.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      What makes you think that I can not fathom that some people can not afford it?
      - return0 9y ago
        this: > Some elderly people are content with a bicycle. Does that make a bicycle a car?
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So you think that I cannot fathom that some people can not afford a car because I noticed that a bicycle is not a car?
- gwatch 9y ago
  Just noticing that logical replies by return0 has been downvoted, and straw man replies by leftists have been upvoted. Haha what else is new?!
- drdeca 9y ago
  > because it is literally a car? Huh? It is a vehicle, yes, but how is it a car?
  - return0 9y ago
    yeah alright its a vehicle, not an automobile (because only motor-cars are real cars), how does that change the meaning of what i said, that for a lot of people who can't afford the car it's the affordable substitute?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      That's just not what you said. You said a bicycle was a car and therefore should be called a car.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - drdeca 9y ago
      I might also consider a carriage to be a car? As well as a train car. Certainly I agree that it should be legal to sell bicycles. But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Now, I suppose I get the general idea of "why forbid the lower quality good, if doing so only prevents some people from being able to afford the good in any form, when before they would have bought the lower quality version?". But, does that argument apply to the artificially restricted vehicle example I gave? I find it hard to believe that the company in that hypothetical wouldn't be doing something wrong, and which should be dealt with. However, I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be. Would the internet case be more like the weird case I described, or more like insurance which doesn't cover as many things?
      - return0 9y ago
- dmd 9y ago
  "Not everyone can afford steak. Therefore, rice and beans is steak."
  - return0 9y ago
    "Not everyone can afford steak. Therefore they should starve"

return0 9y ago

> Does that make a bicycle a car? Uhm, it does because it is literally a car? Maybe your ass is unable to accept anything less than the softness of a leather seat, but for millions of people a bicycle or a cheap motorbike is a savior. (dont get me started on the unbelievable arrogance that because you can afford it, everyone should)

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Seriously? Because I don't think that a bicycle is a car (I just checked a dictionary, I am pretty sure it's not), I am arrogant because I supposedly can afford it and supposedly think everyone should? If that is what counts as logic to you, I don't think there is much of a point to discussing with you any further.
- return0 9y ago
  no you re arrogant because u can't fathom that some people cannot afford it.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    What makes you think that I can not fathom that some people can not afford it?
    - return0 9y ago
      this: > Some elderly people are content with a bicycle. Does that make a bicycle a car?
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So you think that I cannot fathom that some people can not afford a car because I noticed that a bicycle is not a car?
gwatch 9y ago
Just noticing that logical replies by return0 has been downvoted, and straw man replies by leftists have been upvoted. Haha what else is new?!
drdeca 9y ago
> because it is literally a car? Huh? It is a vehicle, yes, but how is it a car?
- return0 9y ago
  yeah alright its a vehicle, not an automobile (because only motor-cars are real cars), how does that change the meaning of what i said, that for a lot of people who can't afford the car it's the affordable substitute?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    That's just not what you said. You said a bicycle was a car and therefore should be called a car.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - drdeca 9y ago
    I might also consider a carriage to be a car? As well as a train car. Certainly I agree that it should be legal to sell bicycles. But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Now, I suppose I get the general idea of "why forbid the lower quality good, if doing so only prevents some people from being able to afford the good in any form, when before they would have bought the lower quality version?". But, does that argument apply to the artificially restricted vehicle example I gave? I find it hard to believe that the company in that hypothetical wouldn't be doing something wrong, and which should be dealt with. However, I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be. Would the internet case be more like the weird case I described, or more like insurance which doesn't cover as many things?
    - return0 9y ago
dmd 9y ago
"Not everyone can afford steak. Therefore, rice and beans is steak."
- return0 9y ago
  "Not everyone can afford steak. Therefore they should starve"