3 ms·

Rofl wow man you can trash anything must be nice to just shit on geniune development and call it crap. The issue is the article actually had a tired argument,

Rofl wow man you can trash anything must be nice to just shit on geniune development and call it crap. The issue is the article actually had a tired argument, your broken attempt to reframe electric cars as useless is really bizarre and not fitting at all to the sentiment it just points out how shallow and negative you are being

qayxc 6y ago
> shit on geniune development and call it crap. That "genuine development" you talk about is over 140 years old. In fact the very first cars in mass use were electric and it was only later ICE cars became more popular due their advantages (back then). It's not a new or even great development at all if nothing changes in the end - you still need to build these cars, old ICE cars won't just disappear either - they'll be shipped to poorer countries in turn increasing their air pollution and need for infrastructure. So instead of viewing my point as "shitting on things", how about refuting it with counter facts instead? Like, how is it better to still rely on individual transport, huge wasted areas due to sealed natural ground for roads and parking spaces, the inefficiency of urban sprawl and ridiculous zoning laws which necessitates cars in the first place, deaths and injuries from car accidents, etc. etc.? Electric cars are like treating symptoms instead of the cause and the treatment basically just trades one symptom (air- and noise pollution) for another (need for more infrastructure) while leaving others untouched (roads, parking spaces, cities built for cars not humans, etc.) and celebrating them as a solution to environmental problems is... very irritating, to say the least.
- johnjj257 6y ago
  ROFL NO. The entire sentiment is a kids argument and you sound like a crying kid and a hater. No one's gonna refute the ""arguments"" because it's a fucking long dipshit statement of epic proportions. Who wants to argue with a 5 year old?

qayxc 6y ago

> shit on geniune development and call it crap. That "genuine development" you talk about is over 140 years old. In fact the very first cars in mass use were electric and it was only later ICE cars became more popular due their advantages (back then). It's not a new or even great development at all if nothing changes in the end - you still need to build these cars, old ICE cars won't just disappear either - they'll be shipped to poorer countries in turn increasing their air pollution and need for infrastructure. So instead of viewing my point as "shitting on things", how about refuting it with counter facts instead? Like, how is it better to still rely on individual transport, huge wasted areas due to sealed natural ground for roads and parking spaces, the inefficiency of urban sprawl and ridiculous zoning laws which necessitates cars in the first place, deaths and injuries from car accidents, etc. etc.? Electric cars are like treating symptoms instead of the cause and the treatment basically just trades one symptom (air- and noise pollution) for another (need for more infrastructure) while leaving others untouched (roads, parking spaces, cities built for cars not humans, etc.) and celebrating them as a solution to environmental problems is... very irritating, to say the least.

johnjj257 6y ago
ROFL NO. The entire sentiment is a kids argument and you sound like a crying kid and a hater. No one's gonna refute the ""arguments"" because it's a fucking long dipshit statement of epic proportions. Who wants to argue with a 5 year old?