4 ms·

>We probably shouldn't have abolished slavery either Extraordinary. Slavery no less. You should have gone with Hitler. >In other words: immediate negative con

by ergo98 16y ago

>We probably shouldn't have abolished slavery either Extraordinary. Slavery no less. You should have gone with Hitler. >In other words: immediate negative consequences are not a good argument, because most change causes some immediate unhappiness for greater good later. Positive actions yield positive outcomes. A positive action is, for instance, creating robust, usable mass transit systems. Building bike paths and car sharing lanes and other actions that encourage and assist people in moving to the behavior that is desired. Negative actions, on the other hand, are the domain of the dim witted, and countless stunning failures go ignored: If teens are causing trouble at night, don't think of positive ways of engaging their interest and attention, instead announce restrictive laws and punishments. >The fact that you have to stoop to arguments founded on paranoid delusions of propaganda Slavery, paranoid delusion...your spittle will probably get upvoted, as such nonsense generally does in generalist discussions on HN (courtesy of the Reddit refugees). I think you overstate what propaganda is.

philwelch 16y ago
What about curtailing the "positive actions" that encourage and enable driving? Cowen isn't talking about outlawing free parking or anything, just removing all the subsidies and mandates that prop it up. That's more of a non-action than an action. Some of the other things you suggest (mass transit, bike paths) by necessity have to take either space or money away from roads for cars. I think those ideas are essential, but you can't accomplish them very well without impeding cars. (The naive solution of putting a bike lane right between on-street parking and moving traffic only works as a cruel joke on cyclists. Cities that take bike paths seriously physically separate them from motorways, but that often involves reducing the space of the motorway.)
Confusion 16y ago
You should have gone with Hitler. You fail to distinguish between a forceful, but proper, analogy and the fact that people tend to use examples appealing to emotion when they aren't really appropriate. We are talking about negative consequences as a result of changing a law and the abolishment of slavery is as good an example as any. Positive actions yield positive outcomes. That's hopelessly naive. I have provided an example of why initial negative consequences may be unavoidable to change things. You are just contradicting me, without addressing the point.

by ergo98 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago

What about curtailing the "positive actions" that encourage and enable driving? Cowen isn't talking about outlawing free parking or anything, just removing all the subsidies and mandates that prop it up. That's more of a non-action than an action. Some of the other things you suggest (mass transit, bike paths) by necessity have to take either space or money away from roads for cars. I think those ideas are essential, but you can't accomplish them very well without impeding cars. (The naive solution of putting a bike lane right between on-street parking and moving traffic only works as a cruel joke on cyclists. Cities that take bike paths seriously physically separate them from motorways, but that often involves reducing the space of the motorway.)

Confusion 16y ago

You should have gone with Hitler. You fail to distinguish between a forceful, but proper, analogy and the fact that people tend to use examples appealing to emotion when they aren't really appropriate. We are talking about negative consequences as a result of changing a law and the abolishment of slavery is as good an example as any. Positive actions yield positive outcomes. That's hopelessly naive. I have provided an example of why initial negative consequences may be unavoidable to change things. You are just contradicting me, without addressing the point.