4 ms·
You completely totally and absolutely missed the point. It is about moderation, and rules there are usually MORE vague than "no vehicles," they are usually thin
by dmitrygr 3y ago
You completely totally and absolutely missed the point. It is about moderation, and rules there are usually MORE vague than "no vehicles," they are usually things like "no hateful language," which is so vague, that "no vehicles" is beginning to look pretty cut-and-dry by comparison
- Macha 3y agoIs it? It seems there's a clear majority that vehicle = operational motor vehicle. The only two that are even close to 50/50nare the non functioning memorial tank, and the bicycle. I guess that shows a disagreement between those assuming functioning is a requirement, and those reading into the intent (which is devices operating at human scale in pedestrian spaces capable of achieving a speed that would cause injury). But neither of those interpretations are surprising
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoEven 20/80 is already a failure, we have wagon, rowboat, quadcopter, bike. If 5 different sets of people argue about 5 different issues, each at 20%, then 100% of people are in disagreement. Total failure;
- pessimizer 3y ago> "no hateful language," which is so vague, You don't have to have silly rules like that, though.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoBut also, you could have rules like that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- parl_match 3y ago> You completely totally and absolutely missed the point. It is about moderation, and rules there are usually MORE vague than "no vehicles," my complaint - that "no vehicles" isn't a great analogy - is because it's not vague enough. I didn't state that outright, you just assumed something different.