I’ve always argued this wasn’t the case and that motoring is a worse transport mode because of the associated externalities, not because of anything inherent to the users.

But you can’t argue with the scienceTM!

  • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They go exactly in the middle, of course. Straight to Purgatory.

    It explains in the article what the criteria used were. You’re welcome to critique that, of course, and I have done elsewhere, but you should read the article, if only so you can critique it properly!

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve no interest in reading or driving clicks to an article with such an absurd title. My question was obviously rhetorical.

      • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well then why bother asking? If you’re not going to read it, and you don’t care about what it’s saying, then you’ve just come here to get pissy

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well then why bother asking?

          Do you really not understand the concept of a rhetorical question?

          • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You asked 2 questions that are actually highly relevant to a discussion about this article, and they weren’t attached to any argument. Do YOU know what a rhetorical question is?

          • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m well aware of the concept - but the whole point of them is to suggest other perspectives to view a concept from to gain a different understanding of the issue at hand

            What you did is just asking questions that were answered in the article, thinking “haha, I’ve got them!” Then you got defensive and pretended they were all rhetorical when everyone pointed out you’d know the answer if you just read the damn article.

            For example, let’s imagine we’re discussing an article about a court fining someone for violating a gag order.

            A good format for a rhetorical question might be “would the judge have given this sentence to him if he was …?”

            Note how this isn’t something that would be covered in article, because it covers a theoretical scenario.

            A bad rhetorical question might be “how much was the fine?” This is because you could just read the damn story.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              but the whole point of them is to suggest other perspectives

              The point is simply to make the reader think critically. Especially when such critical thinking is fairly obvious.

              What you did is just asking questions that were answered in the article, thinking “haha, I’ve got them!”

              No, what I did was to point out how stupid is the entire idea of the article itself.

              Then you got defensive and pretended they were all rhetorical

              LOL I don’t need to pretend anything. You don’t even know who I am, I have nothing to defend here except logic and reason.

              • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the critical thinking is obvious, and explicitly answered in the content being discussed, then you have added nothing to the conversation