4 ms·

"Even if this study is a lie, and storms are not getting more intense, we will still need to take your right to drive a car"

by vdaea 3y ago

deprecative 3y ago
There's no need to strawman. Even if storms weren't getting stronger we'd still have to contend with rising sea levels and the loss of arable land just for starters. While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle there is no credible threat at this point toward not being able to own and operate a vehicle.
- vdaea 3y ago
  >While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle No it wouldn't. It is ideal to live in a state of progress where most "folks" can afford to own and operate a vehicle that allows them to go wherever they want whenever they want and take people with them.
  - macNchz 3y ago
    The US has followed this as a guiding principle over the last hundred years and largely succeeded, however the end-state seems to be a built environment where car ownership is not simply a widely enjoyed privilege so much as a de facto requirement to go about the activities of daily living, which feels, at least to me, somehow less free.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    If they can accomplish the same things with more efficient public transportation, then that seems like it would be progress.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Why is that “progress?” Why is “progress” a good thing in its own and who decides what “progress” even is?
      - harimau777 3y ago
        I addressed that in my post. In this case I'm using progress to mean accomplishing the same thing with less resources. It's not a good thing on its own, it's a good thing because resources are limited and expending those resources tends to produce pollution.
        vdaea 3y ago
        Only that you are not accomplishing the same thing. You are accomplishing something inferior. And please don't make me explain to you how you don't get, by far, the same level of service, the same amount of destinations, 24/7 availability, etc with public transportation than with your car.
        harimau777 3y ago
        When I lived in NYC, the experience of using public transportation was far superior to the experience of driving. I didn't have to purchase and maintain a car, I could read or use my phone during the trip, when I went out with friends I didn't have to worry about a designated driver, I could travel late at night when I would be too tired to drive safely, in the winter I didn't have to spend half the trip in a cold car, my risk of injury during my commute was much lower, etc.
        edgyquant 3y ago
        1. Most people do not live in New York. I live in Seattle and driving is not a problem except for an hour at the end of the day. 2. Public transportation comes with its own set of risks. It is up to the individual to determine what they wish. Neither option is “progress” it is a trade off.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  How is no independent mobility progress?
  - harimau777 3y ago
    People don't have independent mobility now. The majority of cars are not designed for off road and therefore can only go where there are streets. If public transportation provides the same access, then there is no loss of mobility.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      Well yes, but in 99.9% of cases, there are roads to where you want to go. Public transport is not independent. Live in a rural area? Fsck you, no bus/train for you. Have a large dog? Nope, no transport for your dog. Want to travel at 3 in the morning? Nope. Need to carry stuff with you, more than you can carry? Nope. Want to go to a protest? Nope, no buses/trains driving there today.
      - harimau777 3y ago
        That's why the post that started all this expressed a desire to live in a future where people could replace their cars with public transportation as opposed to advocating that we get rid of all cars now. Currently public transportation isn't viable for many people, but it would be nice if in the future it was. That being said, I think that you are overstating some of the limitations of public transportation. The NYC subway runs 24 hours, allows dogs, I have taken it while transporting 200 lbs of steel before, and it did not stop running during the George Floyd protests (including after curfew).
- gonational 3y ago
  I live ON the beach, and the beach hasn't changed one iota in the past 40 years, other than a loss of the scarp during / after large hurricanes. The TV "science" is becoming so ridiculous that it's hard to fathom that there are people who actually believe it. Am I to believe that there is one large, interconnected ocean, and that fluid naturally levels itself out, but that also, somehow, certain places experience sea level rise while others don't? Is it some huge coincidence that the places experiencing extreme sea level rise (e.g., Solomon Islands) are ephemeral and ever-changing volcanic islands and other volcanically active regions that sit upon a soft foundation of molten mantle? Use your brain, my friend.
  - zaccusl 3y ago
    There is absolutely no possible way that you (or any other person) would notice a 4 inch GLOBAL AVERAGE rise in sea level over the last few decades. I don't care if you literally spent 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year on your belly at the high tide mark. The data is the data and you need a lot more than "living on the beach" to refute it. And yes, the sea level is different in different parts of the Earth. Why? Because forces are different in different parts of the Earth. Current (which impart forces) alone is enough to make a difference in sea level in two different parts of the Earth. And yes, land changing elevation is colloquially part of sea level rise. The problem with using your brain is it doesn't make you an expert in things, or able to refute expertise without actual knowledge. And simple observations do not amount to much knowledge on anything but the most simple subject.
    - gonational 3y ago
      Absolutely no way huh? There are literally corals (East Florida rock reef) that are barely covered in water at high tide, and these same corals were the same amount covered in 1988. I would notice. I would also notice my best friend's seawall become inundated every high tide now. I know these things are uncomfortable to hear, because a panel of dubiously grant-funded "scientists, who otherwise do nothing but produce irreproducible white papers, said differently. 4 inches is no joke for a small Florida beach town. It's not like California, where you have 80 foot cliffs and wide beaches. My favorite childhood beach spots would have been halved. Instead, they're exactly the same. 4 inches would have ruined much of our town's waterfront property. Go look up pictures from Liberty Island, 1918. The water level is at the same brick as it is at high tide today. Global warming is a false religion.
esalman 3y ago
Bruh.

"Even if this study is a lie, and storms are not getting more intense, we will still need to take your right to drive a car"

by vdaea 3y ago

"Even if this study is a lie, and storms are not getting more intense, we will still need to take your right to drive a car"

deprecative 3y ago

There's no need to strawman. Even if storms weren't getting stronger we'd still have to contend with rising sea levels and the loss of arable land just for starters. While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle there is no credible threat at this point toward not being able to own and operate a vehicle.

vdaea 3y ago
>While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle No it wouldn't. It is ideal to live in a state of progress where most "folks" can afford to own and operate a vehicle that allows them to go wherever they want whenever they want and take people with them.
- macNchz 3y ago
  The US has followed this as a guiding principle over the last hundred years and largely succeeded, however the end-state seems to be a built environment where car ownership is not simply a widely enjoyed privilege so much as a de facto requirement to go about the activities of daily living, which feels, at least to me, somehow less free.
- harimau777 3y ago
  If they can accomplish the same things with more efficient public transportation, then that seems like it would be progress.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Why is that “progress?” Why is “progress” a good thing in its own and who decides what “progress” even is?
    - harimau777 3y ago
      I addressed that in my post. In this case I'm using progress to mean accomplishing the same thing with less resources. It's not a good thing on its own, it's a good thing because resources are limited and expending those resources tends to produce pollution.
      - vdaea 3y ago
        Only that you are not accomplishing the same thing. You are accomplishing something inferior. And please don't make me explain to you how you don't get, by far, the same level of service, the same amount of destinations, 24/7 availability, etc with public transportation than with your car.
        harimau777 3y ago
        When I lived in NYC, the experience of using public transportation was far superior to the experience of driving. I didn't have to purchase and maintain a car, I could read or use my phone during the trip, when I went out with friends I didn't have to worry about a designated driver, I could travel late at night when I would be too tired to drive safely, in the winter I didn't have to spend half the trip in a cold car, my risk of injury during my commute was much lower, etc.
        edgyquant 3y ago
        1. Most people do not live in New York. I live in Seattle and driving is not a problem except for an hour at the end of the day. 2. Public transportation comes with its own set of risks. It is up to the individual to determine what they wish. Neither option is “progress” it is a trade off.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
How is no independent mobility progress?
- harimau777 3y ago
  People don't have independent mobility now. The majority of cars are not designed for off road and therefore can only go where there are streets. If public transportation provides the same access, then there is no loss of mobility.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    Well yes, but in 99.9% of cases, there are roads to where you want to go. Public transport is not independent. Live in a rural area? Fsck you, no bus/train for you. Have a large dog? Nope, no transport for your dog. Want to travel at 3 in the morning? Nope. Need to carry stuff with you, more than you can carry? Nope. Want to go to a protest? Nope, no buses/trains driving there today.
    - harimau777 3y ago
      That's why the post that started all this expressed a desire to live in a future where people could replace their cars with public transportation as opposed to advocating that we get rid of all cars now. Currently public transportation isn't viable for many people, but it would be nice if in the future it was. That being said, I think that you are overstating some of the limitations of public transportation. The NYC subway runs 24 hours, allows dogs, I have taken it while transporting 200 lbs of steel before, and it did not stop running during the George Floyd protests (including after curfew).
gonational 3y ago
I live ON the beach, and the beach hasn't changed one iota in the past 40 years, other than a loss of the scarp during / after large hurricanes. The TV "science" is becoming so ridiculous that it's hard to fathom that there are people who actually believe it. Am I to believe that there is one large, interconnected ocean, and that fluid naturally levels itself out, but that also, somehow, certain places experience sea level rise while others don't? Is it some huge coincidence that the places experiencing extreme sea level rise (e.g., Solomon Islands) are ephemeral and ever-changing volcanic islands and other volcanically active regions that sit upon a soft foundation of molten mantle? Use your brain, my friend.
- zaccusl 3y ago
  There is absolutely no possible way that you (or any other person) would notice a 4 inch GLOBAL AVERAGE rise in sea level over the last few decades. I don't care if you literally spent 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year on your belly at the high tide mark. The data is the data and you need a lot more than "living on the beach" to refute it. And yes, the sea level is different in different parts of the Earth. Why? Because forces are different in different parts of the Earth. Current (which impart forces) alone is enough to make a difference in sea level in two different parts of the Earth. And yes, land changing elevation is colloquially part of sea level rise. The problem with using your brain is it doesn't make you an expert in things, or able to refute expertise without actual knowledge. And simple observations do not amount to much knowledge on anything but the most simple subject.
  - gonational 3y ago
    Absolutely no way huh? There are literally corals (East Florida rock reef) that are barely covered in water at high tide, and these same corals were the same amount covered in 1988. I would notice. I would also notice my best friend's seawall become inundated every high tide now. I know these things are uncomfortable to hear, because a panel of dubiously grant-funded "scientists, who otherwise do nothing but produce irreproducible white papers, said differently. 4 inches is no joke for a small Florida beach town. It's not like California, where you have 80 foot cliffs and wide beaches. My favorite childhood beach spots would have been halved. Instead, they're exactly the same. 4 inches would have ruined much of our town's waterfront property. Go look up pictures from Liberty Island, 1918. The water level is at the same brick as it is at high tide today. Global warming is a false religion.

esalman 3y ago

Bruh.