People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.
The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)
What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?
It’s unrelated because you’ve constructed a strawman who doesn’t want expansion of public transit who you’re thrashing when literally nobody has said that and literally everyone here has explicitly said they want expansion of public transit.
One needs to construct a strawman when the person you’re arguing with has made no attempt to make any kind of actual argument, and just thrust a single word into a discussion.
Maybe construct an argument of your own to get defensive about before reacting so harshly.
I could and did forgive the original response for exactly the reason you said.
But in my follow up, I clarified my position and point, and that being ignored is why I’m stating it as being a strawman. I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it again: I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it a FIFTH TIME NOW: I SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
How many times need it be said before buddy stops characterizing my position as being against public transportation?
People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.
The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)
Are you even reading the messages you reply to? Can I get an unrelated rant too?
What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?
It’s unrelated because you’ve constructed a strawman who doesn’t want expansion of public transit who you’re thrashing when literally nobody has said that and literally everyone here has explicitly said they want expansion of public transit.
One needs to construct a strawman when the person you’re arguing with has made no attempt to make any kind of actual argument, and just thrust a single word into a discussion.
Maybe construct an argument of your own to get defensive about before reacting so harshly.
I could and did forgive the original response for exactly the reason you said.
But in my follow up, I clarified my position and point, and that being ignored is why I’m stating it as being a strawman. I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it again: I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it a FIFTH TIME NOW: I SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
How many times need it be said before buddy stops characterizing my position as being against public transportation?
Sincerely, how many times?