This. Some people really don’t have much of an imagination.
QED.Of course people can imagine a world in which they don’t need a car - one where they live in a flat in London and all their friends and family do likewise, or else live near a station.
QED.
Well glad that we’ve agreed a ban on cars in London. It’s a start!
YesDid we?
I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in London.If you're trying to hint that with a bit more "imagination" then a world where no one needed a car would be readily achievable, or indeed desirable, than I'm guessing you've not left London much
If you're trying to hint that with a bit more "imagination" then a world where no one needed a car would be readily achievable, or indeed desirable, than I'm guessing you've not left London much
I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in London.
ah, you’re a Brexiteer! Makes sense now.In spirit perhaps, like those FBPE twitter folks who live in the EU but don't.
We’ve agreed on cities so far.There doesn’t need to be a “pro-car defence” because there’s zero chance that they’ll ever be banned.
I’ve been trying to coax some sort of implementable banning plan out of the abolitionists but they’ve got nothing.
We’ve agreed on cities so far.
When is a car necessary? Or is it actually just a choice?
We all know that it's not an outright ban everywhere that you're scared of in the foreseeable future. Yet all you can muster an argument against is the notion of an outright ban. Meanwhile T & P's killer argument is the same as it always has been: people who argue against car dependency might sometimes have to use a car themselves.There doesn’t need to be a “pro-car defence” because there’s zero chance that they’ll ever be banned.
It’s all rather confusing.
Yes - and we ban or at least severally restrict choices that affect others. Welcome to the war on cars!No, we haven't
How is this relevant? Lots of things are choices and not necessary - internet use, living in a building, using gas and electricity, attending hospitals and schools.
Yes - and we ban or at least severally restrict choices that affect others. Welcome to the war on cars!
We all know that it's not an outright ban everywhere that you're scared of in the foreseeable future. Yet all you can muster an argument against is the notion of an outright ban. Meanwhile T & P's killer argument is the same as it always has been: people who argue against car dependency might sometimes have to use a car themselves.
It's quite a pantomime act really. Keep it up.
We should certain do the ones that seriously affect others as cars do! Just because you’ve built your live around having a car it doesn’t mean we should humour you.You might want to ban or at least severely restrict all "choices that affect others" but thankfully no one else does.
We should certain do the ones that seriously affect others as cars do! Just because you’ve built your live around having a car it doesn’t mean we should humour you.
You’re on a roll with your gotchas! I agree we should look to reduce this harm.The internet accounts for nearly 4% of global CO2 emissions, therefore "seriously affects others" and should be banned. Cherio then.
You’re on a roll with your gotchas! I agree we should look to reduce this harm.
We’ve tried that for cars & it hasn’t worked. Ban"ban or severely restrict" I think you said.
Unless you didn't actually mean that but rather "mitigate the adverse affects as far as is reasonable".
To be fair after thousands of posts in here we’re yet to see a single one that remotely qualifies as a valid and thought-out argument against cars, so I guess we’re quits.The days where the pro-car defence is mounted by T & P and platinumsage are the best ones. You can just put your feet up and leave them to it.