4 ms·
This is a silly thing to jump towards in the discussion, since it's not like we are anywhere close to the situation in which we have next to no private transpor
by cyborgx7 7y ago
This is a silly thing to jump towards in the discussion, since it's not like we are anywhere close to the situation in which we have next to no private transport. In fact, we are almost at the other extreme.
But if I was to indulge you, I would say that public transport doesn't mean rails. In the case of buses it also uses roads. And of course, if we were to abolish all motorized private person transport (again, no where even close to that) of course there would need to be a system to allow for the transport of items that are too big to be transported by individuals in public transport. I assumed that goes without saying.
- bluGill 7y agoI didn't jump there. The parent statement is "More public transport and less cars is always an improvement" jumped there.
- cyborgx7 7y agoPretty sure that was you.
- CDSlice 7y ago> I disagree. There is no need for a "balancing act" between cars and public transport. More public transport and less cars is always an improvement. Sound familiar?
- cyborgx7 7y agoI'm not denying that this was a quote from me. I'm denying that this is what brought it into this weird theoretical extreme area. You also haven't responded to my response yet. You just ignored it and are trying to derail the discussion with a meta argument. Unless you are going to address the actual content of the arguments, I'm done with this conversation.