3 ms·

>>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is r

>>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things You think the stupidest thing, I am not anti-touch screen like most here are. In-fact I replaced alot of the factory buttons in my older car with a Aftermarket Large display that is basically a huge android tablet that controls alot of the car functions (including HVAC) I prefer touch controls. Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best, and then you can feel free to not buy a car that does not have physical controls. That is the market. that is how it should be.

messe 4y ago
> Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best For the same reason you can't drive while on the phone or drunk. If it's less safe than buttons, it's putting others in unnecessary danger.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I am sure you are not going to agree or like my response to this argument then. It should be incumbent upon the driver to learn how to operate their car safely. If our ultimate goals are to maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or Touch Screens. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. //Some statements herein are rephrased / updated statements from "Abolish Drunk Driving Laws" https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/ https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
  - messe 4y ago
    You're right. I'm not. I'm not even convinced you're arguing in good faith any more, because frankly I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic individual could have reasoned themselves into these opinions. I'm not going to argue with you any more, because you're either a troll, or someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves into them.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic Empathy and rationality are often in conflict, you seem to side more on the empathetic side where I do not. I am purely on the logical / rational side and freely admit to having very low Empathy. >>someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves I literally linked to a site called Reason.com.... It provides a very reasoned case for the abolishment of Drunk driving laws, and the unintended consequences to civil liberties those laws have created. (similar to the consequence to civil liberties the war on drugs has caused) I think I have very reasoned and logical positions that are not based at all in empathy or emotion, which IMO is where all government regulation and law should be, devoid of emotion. Laws created because of emotional response are almost universally bad laws.
      - Animatronio 4y ago
        For a site called reason the article surely is dumb AF. First the author argues back and forth about BAC levels. Maybe it should be .05? Or .08? Or something else? Well how about 0.00 as is in many other countries?? Then he somehow misses the fact that BAC levels can be deduced from blood samples taken hours after the actual police stop. No wonder they let him go in 2011.
      - watwut 4y ago
        Logic and rationality are not inherently opposed to empathy. That being said, one does not need to be empath to value not causing accidents to other people. "This will lead to more accidents" is both logical and rational claim. The ideological investment into idea that one must be selfish to max to look "logical" is irrational.

messe 4y ago

> Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best For the same reason you can't drive while on the phone or drunk. If it's less safe than buttons, it's putting others in unnecessary danger.

phpisthebest 4y ago
I am sure you are not going to agree or like my response to this argument then. It should be incumbent upon the driver to learn how to operate their car safely. If our ultimate goals are to maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or Touch Screens. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. //Some statements herein are rephrased / updated statements from "Abolish Drunk Driving Laws" https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/ https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
- messe 4y ago
  You're right. I'm not. I'm not even convinced you're arguing in good faith any more, because frankly I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic individual could have reasoned themselves into these opinions. I'm not going to argue with you any more, because you're either a troll, or someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves into them.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic Empathy and rationality are often in conflict, you seem to side more on the empathetic side where I do not. I am purely on the logical / rational side and freely admit to having very low Empathy. >>someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves I literally linked to a site called Reason.com.... It provides a very reasoned case for the abolishment of Drunk driving laws, and the unintended consequences to civil liberties those laws have created. (similar to the consequence to civil liberties the war on drugs has caused) I think I have very reasoned and logical positions that are not based at all in empathy or emotion, which IMO is where all government regulation and law should be, devoid of emotion. Laws created because of emotional response are almost universally bad laws.
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      For a site called reason the article surely is dumb AF. First the author argues back and forth about BAC levels. Maybe it should be .05? Or .08? Or something else? Well how about 0.00 as is in many other countries?? Then he somehow misses the fact that BAC levels can be deduced from blood samples taken hours after the actual police stop. No wonder they let him go in 2011.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Logic and rationality are not inherently opposed to empathy. That being said, one does not need to be empath to value not causing accidents to other people. "This will lead to more accidents" is both logical and rational claim. The ideological investment into idea that one must be selfish to max to look "logical" is irrational.