But this argument basically implies that we should gut the majority of people’s benefit because of a minority’s inconvenience. Certainly we should accommodate the minority who can’t, especially if it means living a fulfilling life, but not at the expense of everyone else.
Making life easier for those who can’t or doesn’t want to drive detracts nothing from those who can. In fact it is beneficial for those who want to drive to have denser cities, and better public transport. It means safer streets, less traffic and lower insurance premiums. Yours is a false dichotomy.
You lack reading comprehension. I did not give you a false dichotomy, because a false dichotomy requires that I present to you two options, with the stipulation that you can only choose one or the other. Nowhere in my previous post did I do any such thing.
I merely reiterated what I understood your stance to be, and offered an alternative; which would be not unduly hampering other people’s experience because of a minority.
You’re so focused on being “right”, that you’ve lost sight of the actual discussion.
You’re not arguing with the original poster. Someone definitely lacks reading comprehension skills and is irrationally fixated on proving themselves right at all times, but it ain’t me. You created a straw men and presented it at “either this or that”, false dichotomy. Again, supporting those who don’t want or can’t drive doesn’t infringe upon the rights of car owners and those who do want to drive. This is not an oppressor-oprressed dynamic. That’s classic victimization. We can help and accommodate to the needs of minorities without having to disregard the needs of the majority. At least learn your moral arguments right.
I find the language you use interesting. Those who take their living room with them to save a few minutes “benefit”, whereas those who have to breathe in the fumes and be victims of traffic violence are “inconvenienced”.
But this argument basically implies that we should gut the majority of people’s benefit because of a minority’s inconvenience. Certainly we should accommodate the minority who can’t, especially if it means living a fulfilling life, but not at the expense of everyone else.
Making life easier for those who can’t or doesn’t want to drive detracts nothing from those who can. In fact it is beneficial for those who want to drive to have denser cities, and better public transport. It means safer streets, less traffic and lower insurance premiums. Yours is a false dichotomy.
You lack reading comprehension. I did not give you a false dichotomy, because a false dichotomy requires that I present to you two options, with the stipulation that you can only choose one or the other. Nowhere in my previous post did I do any such thing.
I merely reiterated what I understood your stance to be, and offered an alternative; which would be not unduly hampering other people’s experience because of a minority.
You’re so focused on being “right”, that you’ve lost sight of the actual discussion.
You’re not arguing with the original poster. Someone definitely lacks reading comprehension skills and is irrationally fixated on proving themselves right at all times, but it ain’t me. You created a straw men and presented it at “either this or that”, false dichotomy. Again, supporting those who don’t want or can’t drive doesn’t infringe upon the rights of car owners and those who do want to drive. This is not an oppressor-oprressed dynamic. That’s classic victimization. We can help and accommodate to the needs of minorities without having to disregard the needs of the majority. At least learn your moral arguments right.
I find the language you use interesting. Those who take their living room with them to save a few minutes “benefit”, whereas those who have to breathe in the fumes and be victims of traffic violence are “inconvenienced”.