4 ms·

> A car doesn't stop being a vehicle while it's in the shop. To me a car doesn't stop being a car, but it stops being a vehicle when it is not capable of a veh

> A car doesn't stop being a vehicle while it's in the shop. To me a car doesn't stop being a car, but it stops being a vehicle when it is not capable of a vehicular function. > But even then, I want to define it as a broken vehicle, a sub-type of a vehicle. We disagree. Would you consider the exterior armor frame of a tank resting on treads to be a vehicle, even if lacking all of the internal parts? Would you consider the internal parts to be a vehicle even if lacking all of the external framing? If it can't move (or carry people/objects) without mechanical repairs is where I draw the line. If adding fuel, oil, or any other consumable allows it to move then I'm fine calling a non-functional vehicle a vehicle. The real question is how many people did it take to carry that non-functional tank into the park? If they moved it in with another vehicle then it's obviously a violation of the vehicle ordinance. But carrying it in (as long as they didn't use something like logs to roll it on) is fine.

pdonis 3y ago
> as long as they didn't use something like logs to roll it on Why would that be an issue? Logs aren't vehicles.
- sundvor 3y ago
  B.C.'s Quest For Tires would beg to differ.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  When they're specifically selected and arranged for a vehicular purpose I see them as such. Just as I saw both the sled and wagon as vehicles
throwawayqqq11 3y ago
Imagine being asked to count all vehicles in a picture. Would you count your dysfunctional tank frame too? I would because i would certainly lack the context knowledge of its interior. Others might not. Imagine being asked to remove all road blocking vehicles from a park. Would you consider the sales trailer someone got somehow in there, even though it basicaly just a frame without engine too? The point here is context and changing it does not effect your definition but your interpretation.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > Imagine being asked to count all vehicles in a picture. Would you count your dysfunctional tank frame too? I would because i would certainly lack the context knowledge of its interior. Others might not. Here we were specifically told it was non-functional. Just as I wouldn't label an AI generated image of a person a picture of a person if there was a sign in the picture saying that it was AI generated. People make assumptions. But when told that a possible assumption is wrong from the beginning I assume I'm being told correctly. > Imagine being asked to remove all road blocking vehicles from a park. Would you consider the sales trailer someone got somehow in there, even though it basicaly just a frame without engine too? I'd ask the person asking me to do this for clarification. For your specific example a trailer, regardless, falls under "vehicle" for me. Unless it's on blocks or something that would prevent it from operating. > The point here is context and changing it does not effect your definition but your interpretation. What's contextually salient to me given the simple rule of "no vehicles in the park" is what is a vehicle and what is "in the park". Not the presumed purpose of the rule, because I'm not going to assume I know what that is. This is why I have long, long favored (for most of my life going back to K-12 schooling) people telling "why" as opposed to just "what" when it comes to rules. No, I'm not autistic or on that spectrum. My assumptions just don't always line up with those of other people, and a general desire to be a rule follower conflicts with another desire to not screw things up because of rules or their lack.

pdonis 3y ago

> as long as they didn't use something like logs to roll it on Why would that be an issue? Logs aren't vehicles.

sundvor 3y ago
B.C.'s Quest For Tires would beg to differ.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
When they're specifically selected and arranged for a vehicular purpose I see them as such. Just as I saw both the sled and wagon as vehicles

throwawayqqq11 3y ago

Imagine being asked to count all vehicles in a picture. Would you count your dysfunctional tank frame too? I would because i would certainly lack the context knowledge of its interior. Others might not. Imagine being asked to remove all road blocking vehicles from a park. Would you consider the sales trailer someone got somehow in there, even though it basicaly just a frame without engine too? The point here is context and changing it does not effect your definition but your interpretation.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> Imagine being asked to count all vehicles in a picture. Would you count your dysfunctional tank frame too? I would because i would certainly lack the context knowledge of its interior. Others might not. Here we were specifically told it was non-functional. Just as I wouldn't label an AI generated image of a person a picture of a person if there was a sign in the picture saying that it was AI generated. People make assumptions. But when told that a possible assumption is wrong from the beginning I assume I'm being told correctly. > Imagine being asked to remove all road blocking vehicles from a park. Would you consider the sales trailer someone got somehow in there, even though it basicaly just a frame without engine too? I'd ask the person asking me to do this for clarification. For your specific example a trailer, regardless, falls under "vehicle" for me. Unless it's on blocks or something that would prevent it from operating. > The point here is context and changing it does not effect your definition but your interpretation. What's contextually salient to me given the simple rule of "no vehicles in the park" is what is a vehicle and what is "in the park". Not the presumed purpose of the rule, because I'm not going to assume I know what that is. This is why I have long, long favored (for most of my life going back to K-12 schooling) people telling "why" as opposed to just "what" when it comes to rules. No, I'm not autistic or on that spectrum. My assumptions just don't always line up with those of other people, and a general desire to be a rule follower conflicts with another desire to not screw things up because of rules or their lack.