5 ms·

None of these are a correct usage of frivolous. You are describing imperious, self-defeating, and short-sighted behaviors respectively, none of which are really

None of these are a correct usage of frivolous. You are describing imperious, self-defeating, and short-sighted behaviors respectively, none of which are really the same.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dalke 13y ago
frivolous - "1a : of little weight or importance; 1b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>" from Merriam-Webster. #1: an argument based on the overall goal - reduced car traffic and enhanced used of commute time - is of little weight or importance for those who are locally disadvantaged and when there is an equitable alternative which better balances the different factors. These people who were left out of the decision making process might also regard the companies as being imperious. #2: an argument based on the overall goal is of little weight or importance if the premise - that it reduces care traffic and makes more effective use of commute time - is incorrect. (BTW, the NYT reports that one survey of tech workers says that 50% would not move to SF if there wasn't a private bus system, so the benefit of a bus is not simply determined as to count how many cars would be needed instead.) These people who regard the argument in favor of the buses as being frivolous might also regard the the private bus services as being self-defeating. #3: the argument is also of little weight or importance to those who see believe the larger underlying problem is that subsidized free parking and other zoning restrictions prevent the free market from operating efficiently. Put medium density housing in Mt. View and there will be no effectively no commute time nor need for cars nor buses. These people who regard the argument as being frivolous might also believe that it's a short-sighted behavior. In conclusion, I certainly did use the term "frivolous" correctly.
- raldi 13y ago
  If I drove a car to and from work, and kept it parked in the street at night, would you consider that frivolous?
  - dalke 13y ago
    Now you've switched topics. I said there are reasonable arguments for saying that the thesis - that private buses reduce the number of cars and make more effective use of commuting time - is frivolous. Now you want me to make a specific judgment about a generic use of your car? Why the topic switch? My view is that my taxes should not help fund a personal garage for you to store your car. If it's kept on the street then you should pay market rate for it, and the city shouldn't subsidize the cost for everyone with a car. So, are you paying the real costs for the parking? Then no, it's not frivolous no matter how you want to use it. Are you driving because you don't feel like walking two blocks every day and would rather drive that distance instead, and you want the city to guarantee that you have free parking on both ends of the trip? Then yes, it's a frivolous reason.
    - raldi 13y ago
      I was using that as an illustrative example, and indeed, it has revealed the crux of our disagreement: You think "frivolous" means one thing, and the dictionary and I think it means another.
      - dalke 13y ago
        How am I using it incorrectly? I even quoted the dictionary meaning I was using. There are other definitions as well. Do you mean one of them? If you want everyone to have a 99% chance of finding free parking, because you like driving better than walking, then why can't I say that you're making a frivolous argument?

None of these are a correct usage of frivolous. You are describing imperious, self-defeating, and short-sighted behaviors respectively, none of which are really the same.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dalke 13y ago

frivolous - "1a : of little weight or importance; 1b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>" from Merriam-Webster. #1: an argument based on the overall goal - reduced car traffic and enhanced used of commute time - is of little weight or importance for those who are locally disadvantaged and when there is an equitable alternative which better balances the different factors. These people who were left out of the decision making process might also regard the companies as being imperious. #2: an argument based on the overall goal is of little weight or importance if the premise - that it reduces care traffic and makes more effective use of commute time - is incorrect. (BTW, the NYT reports that one survey of tech workers says that 50% would not move to SF if there wasn't a private bus system, so the benefit of a bus is not simply determined as to count how many cars would be needed instead.) These people who regard the argument in favor of the buses as being frivolous might also regard the the private bus services as being self-defeating. #3: the argument is also of little weight or importance to those who see believe the larger underlying problem is that subsidized free parking and other zoning restrictions prevent the free market from operating efficiently. Put medium density housing in Mt. View and there will be no effectively no commute time nor need for cars nor buses. These people who regard the argument as being frivolous might also believe that it's a short-sighted behavior. In conclusion, I certainly did use the term "frivolous" correctly.

raldi 13y ago
If I drove a car to and from work, and kept it parked in the street at night, would you consider that frivolous?
- dalke 13y ago
  Now you've switched topics. I said there are reasonable arguments for saying that the thesis - that private buses reduce the number of cars and make more effective use of commuting time - is frivolous. Now you want me to make a specific judgment about a generic use of your car? Why the topic switch? My view is that my taxes should not help fund a personal garage for you to store your car. If it's kept on the street then you should pay market rate for it, and the city shouldn't subsidize the cost for everyone with a car. So, are you paying the real costs for the parking? Then no, it's not frivolous no matter how you want to use it. Are you driving because you don't feel like walking two blocks every day and would rather drive that distance instead, and you want the city to guarantee that you have free parking on both ends of the trip? Then yes, it's a frivolous reason.
  - raldi 13y ago
    I was using that as an illustrative example, and indeed, it has revealed the crux of our disagreement: You think "frivolous" means one thing, and the dictionary and I think it means another.
    - dalke 13y ago
      How am I using it incorrectly? I even quoted the dictionary meaning I was using. There are other definitions as well. Do you mean one of them? If you want everyone to have a 99% chance of finding free parking, because you like driving better than walking, then why can't I say that you're making a frivolous argument?