4 ms·
There should be a good reason to add any legal restrictions. We should not regulate everything unless there is a good reason not too... As such, if the autobah
by mytailorisrich 3y ago
There should be a good reason to add any legal restrictions. We should not regulate everything unless there is a good reason not too...
As such, if the autobahn isn't a death trap, is there a good reason to impose a speed limit where there isn't one?
"There's no reason not to" is a rhetorical trick but not an argument.
- Aachen 3y agoCheck the article on which you're commenting to find, in fact, more than "one" reason :) Not saying the pros weigh against the cons, for anyone or for everyone, just that claiming there is not one reason is patently false in light of the submitted article which this thread is about. One could say, in response to your edited-in last sentence, that pretending there's no reason for it is a rhetorical trick!
- mytailorisrich 3y ago> just that claiming there is not one reason is patently false I don't know who that is directed to but that does not correspond to my comment. > that pretending there's no reason for it is a rhetorical trick! Well, good thing that I neither claimed nor 'pretended' that there is no reason, then... Now, "emissions" is a weak reason that is used to justify about anything and everything these days, and as already mentioned in another comment, in this case that argument disappears with EVs... so I would not count that as a persuasive reason.
- jansan 3y agoIt is really saddening that your comment gets downvoted. People really seem to enjoy limiting the freedom of others.
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago> There should be a good reason to add any legal restrictions The title of the article states the reason for restrictions the study is making: "Autobahn speed limit would cut carbon and bring €1bn in benefits, study says"