View Single Post
Old 03-25-2012, 07:36 PM   #43 (permalink)
Ladogaboy
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
You should really look up ad hominem; I'm sorry the concept is so difficult to understand. Let me see if I can help you construct a cogent argument that doesn't rely on "labeling" the person who disagrees.

I left the second paragraph (in bold). It should be removed and is pointless because it is what is referred to as a straw man argument, but I left it because it is a good example of how not to make a point. Essentially, you are associating me with an argument I did not make but which is easy to disprove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock View Post
We understand all that and it is not in dispute. But there is no compelling circumstance that calls for drastic measures. According to your personal opinion, there is too much traffic on the road and, therefore you seek to restrict the movement of others. I do not see a "greater good of society" achieved by your proposed prohibition.


As your first proposal weren't bad enough, now you want to ban single occupant vehicles. Why not ban vehicle travel altogether? That's the road you are going down with such absurd proposals. It sounds to me like you are literally anti-car, which is apart from the focus of this list (as well as very off-topic).

Yes I do, and it was because there was not ample gasoline available and it was something of a national crisis. Your disapproval of encountering heavier traffic in your vicinity is nowhere near that situation.

Those are nanny state mandates devised to alleviate society from personal responsibility. Hey, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt or helmet that should be your choice - and if you are injured or die you shouldn't get to collect on your claim, as you have no one to blame but yourself. But that's soooo CRUEL! say the nanny statists. We only want to protect people and save their lives. So they want to pretend to cure all the ills of society by making more and more things restricted or illegal - but at a very high price: the abrogation of liberty.

You are correct in one aspect. If your proposal were ever implemented there would be a great amount of resentment at the loss of freedom and mobility. If you want to carpool or ride a bus instead of drive, that's fine. But that's based upon your personal opinion and your voluntary choice - and it should not be imposed upon anyone other than yourself.

"If you want to change the world, begin with yourself."
__________________
  Reply With Quote