3 ms·

“slave”?

• jimmaswell 12y ago
  Yes, as in I don't get to choose when I go or exactly where to, can't just drive around, and I don't control the radio, among a multitude of other reasons that using your own car gives you more freedom. I'd rather not revolve my transportation around someone else's timetables.
  • iamwithnail 12y ago
    Yeah, that's not being a slave. In fact, the argument can be made that by insisting on driving to avoid any real - or perceived - inconvenience, you're making everyone else's journey that little bit less slick (I.e. Asserting your "freedom" impinges negatively on everyone else's ability to effectively do the same). Also,cars are an important part of most economies, but less so in bigger cities - and it points to the fact that a)they weren't always so and b) might not always need to be, maybe there's a better way, which is what some posters are suggesting. If you Remove the necessity of a car for some people, and make alternatives better, then there are probably a lot of benefits (pollution, construction costs, congestion, safety) to it. But no one (or very few, I guess, since this is HN and lots of opinions) is suggesting arbitrarily and unilaterally getting rid of cars.
  • alexqgb 12y ago
    Um, that's not the definition of "slave". It's not even in the same ballpark as the definition of "slave". This is free advice, so you can take it for what it's worth, but if you've ever found yourself suffering from a limited amount of trust or respect from others, consider that it may be due to your apparently limited respect for the truth. Or basic English.
    • jimmaswell 12y ago
      I think you are the one with deficiency in the language. "Slave" is used in that kind of nonliteral sense all the time. Slave to gas prices, slave to the weather, slave to fashion.