4 ms·

yeah never mind that they (permanently, not just temporarily for the olympics) outright repurposed what used to be urban highways through the center of the city

by bedobi 2y ago

yeah never mind that they (permanently, not just temporarily for the olympics) outright repurposed what used to be urban highways through the center of the city (including along the seine!) and implemented any number of huge environmental improvements

userbinator 2y ago
Neither me, nor a significant number of the population, would call those "environmental improvements".
- bedobi 2y ago
  right, replacing millions of trips by car through the center of the city with on foot or bike or transit instead is not an environmental improvement thanks for being transparent about not being serious
  - userbinator 2y ago
    It's not an improvement to those who don't want to be treated like cattle.
    - bedobi 2y ago
      Traveling through a city on foot, bike and transit is “being treated like cattle”? You prefer sitting in gridlocked traffic in a personal automobile instead, because that’s less like “cattle”? Ok. But decent people have the right to their freedom of transporting themselves on foot and by bike and transit, and to be free from the danger and pollution caused by entitled people making unnecessary trips in personal automobiles. Facts, and the rights of everyone else, do not end where your feelings and opinions begin.
      - userbinator 2y ago
        Go ahead and let the MSM brainwash you into thinking "decent people" should behave like cattle, to be herded into factory-farm cities and given no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state. As much as 1984 is often brought up here, Animal Farm should also be mentioned as a cautionary tale.
        bedobi 2y ago
        Paris is one of the most desirable places to live in the world. I assure you the people who fight tooth and nail to live there don't need to be "herded" there by the government. > no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state wow, so much edge, what a juicy take! let's analyze it what exactly is wrong by making short trips that can readily be made on foot or bike on foot or bike? why would it instead be desirable to walk to a parked car, drive through one of the densest, most congested urban spaces on the planet (probably taking longer than just walking or riding a bike), polluting and endangering yourself and others, and then have to look and pay for a park at your destination? (parking has never been easy to find in central Paris) like, I'm just at loss, is it the fact that it's healthier and you hate being healthy? that it keeps the air clean and doesn't endanger people, and you prefer everyone pollute and endanger each other instead? have you never taken a walk or breathed fresh air? most people like doing that. is it that it's free and you hate poor people and want to contain them to specific areas they can't exist outside of if they can't afford to drive? enlighten us? but ok, let's say you travel by car. you then have to be in state databases, subject yourself and your vehicle to fitness requirements, and you will be subject to far more laws and regulations while transporting yourself, including but not limited to speed cameras, breath tests, having appropriate insurance, police stops etc etc. you will also be traveling on state owned roads. is it that you like this degree of state interference in your life, you think it's desirable for the state to invade every aspect of something as simple as how you get around every day?

by bedobi 2y ago

userbinator 2y ago

Neither me, nor a significant number of the population, would call those "environmental improvements".

bedobi 2y ago
right, replacing millions of trips by car through the center of the city with on foot or bike or transit instead is not an environmental improvement thanks for being transparent about not being serious
- userbinator 2y ago
  It's not an improvement to those who don't want to be treated like cattle.
  - bedobi 2y ago
    Traveling through a city on foot, bike and transit is “being treated like cattle”? You prefer sitting in gridlocked traffic in a personal automobile instead, because that’s less like “cattle”? Ok. But decent people have the right to their freedom of transporting themselves on foot and by bike and transit, and to be free from the danger and pollution caused by entitled people making unnecessary trips in personal automobiles. Facts, and the rights of everyone else, do not end where your feelings and opinions begin.
    - userbinator 2y ago
      Go ahead and let the MSM brainwash you into thinking "decent people" should behave like cattle, to be herded into factory-farm cities and given no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state. As much as 1984 is often brought up here, Animal Farm should also be mentioned as a cautionary tale.
      - bedobi 2y ago
        Paris is one of the most desirable places to live in the world. I assure you the people who fight tooth and nail to live there don't need to be "herded" there by the government. > no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state wow, so much edge, what a juicy take! let's analyze it what exactly is wrong by making short trips that can readily be made on foot or bike on foot or bike? why would it instead be desirable to walk to a parked car, drive through one of the densest, most congested urban spaces on the planet (probably taking longer than just walking or riding a bike), polluting and endangering yourself and others, and then have to look and pay for a park at your destination? (parking has never been easy to find in central Paris) like, I'm just at loss, is it the fact that it's healthier and you hate being healthy? that it keeps the air clean and doesn't endanger people, and you prefer everyone pollute and endanger each other instead? have you never taken a walk or breathed fresh air? most people like doing that. is it that it's free and you hate poor people and want to contain them to specific areas they can't exist outside of if they can't afford to drive? enlighten us? but ok, let's say you travel by car. you then have to be in state databases, subject yourself and your vehicle to fitness requirements, and you will be subject to far more laws and regulations while transporting yourself, including but not limited to speed cameras, breath tests, having appropriate insurance, police stops etc etc. you will also be traveling on state owned roads. is it that you like this degree of state interference in your life, you think it's desirable for the state to invade every aspect of something as simple as how you get around every day?