Imagine wandering down your local high street on a Summer's evening and being able to find diverse market stalls, alfresco eats, as well as live music.
There is no discussion that can be had here, at all, anyone capable of any form of rational thought can see this is either comical or insanely dangerous .
They are born in echo chambers where there is no diversity just reinforcement which frankly I should thank you for reinforcement the echo chamber. Could never have been proven more.
I haven’t read the article and it doesn’t look like you have either. But what I gather is they’re not trying to shut down the M1 in Brisbane every Saturday. They’re just suggesting closing some busy roads for markets and festivals to encourage people to use public transport. I don’t drive in the CBD and my experience is only really with Brisbane so I’m not really against the idea. But of course public transport needs to catch up, the trains in SEQ are ridiculously slow but the buses are actually quite good, of course we need more of them and bigger ones. Personally, I don’t see how this has anything to do with being in an echo chamber. Failing to provide a good argument against one supported by an alleged “echo chamber” only serves to embolden the “echo chamber”. So really you should be thanking yourself for reinforcing the echo chamber.
The podcast premise is born in false equivalence of Australian cities to the NY and other utter massive cities. That’s straight out of the gate. I stopped there.
“Failing to provide a good argument “
There is NO argument to be had here, but hey I will keep it simple, people die when roads are closed. It is blatantly obvious why it’s bad for Australia and this ideology perpetuates a very dangerous delusion. But hey rule ban dissent away.
It is, for obvious username colour. You can see where this group devolves this discussion into, outside this thread from “ban cars in cities” to: “ban cars outright”. It perpetuates an ideology born for very high density and very high populations with functional, accessible, affordable, public transport. A fictional triad in Australia & really fictional to cities “in whole”. As a result it spreads the ideology that removing transportation isn’t dangerous which it very much is why city planners have heart attacks closing roads. The net effect of removing “cars”: people die.
The reason I called you out was because you didn’t give an argument, not because I disagree, or it goes against the “popular view”. Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?
“Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?” No, it was a borderline response. However very intentional as the alternative is proven where any “discussion” degrades to in the other thread with OP as I noted above would happen. OP has no interest having any discussions on the merits of closing one street for a market as does this podcast. It’s disingenuous to achieve one outcome: ban all cars.
Love it when someone knows they can’t come up with a sensible rebuttal so just attacks the person instead. It really only serves to show how weak they are as a person.
Even funnier given that urban planners in charge of our cities have stated time and time again that the future of our cities is car-free.
The people whose job it is to plan our cities, are saying that we are transitioning to pedeatrian-friendly cities. This is a shift that occurred in education and best-practice some time ago. But age 60+ project managers are finally fucking retiring.
But you are apparently in an “echo chamber,” lol. Peak projection from Wooki.
Any rational individual can see podcast and post is so far from “sensible” it’s comical. I hope it’s comical because otherwise it’s dangerously delusional
Hahahahahaha
Keep living the high life in that echo chamber OP.
I think @[email protected] said it best. This is a violation of Rule 2.
There is no discussion that can be had here, at all, anyone capable of any form of rational thought can see this is either comical or insanely dangerous .
They are born in echo chambers where there is no diversity just reinforcement which frankly I should thank you for reinforcement the echo chamber. Could never have been proven more.
I haven’t read the article and it doesn’t look like you have either. But what I gather is they’re not trying to shut down the M1 in Brisbane every Saturday. They’re just suggesting closing some busy roads for markets and festivals to encourage people to use public transport. I don’t drive in the CBD and my experience is only really with Brisbane so I’m not really against the idea. But of course public transport needs to catch up, the trains in SEQ are ridiculously slow but the buses are actually quite good, of course we need more of them and bigger ones. Personally, I don’t see how this has anything to do with being in an echo chamber. Failing to provide a good argument against one supported by an alleged “echo chamber” only serves to embolden the “echo chamber”. So really you should be thanking yourself for reinforcing the echo chamber.
The podcast premise is born in false equivalence of Australian cities to the NY and other utter massive cities. That’s straight out of the gate. I stopped there.
“Failing to provide a good argument “
There is NO argument to be had here, but hey I will keep it simple, people die when roads are closed. It is blatantly obvious why it’s bad for Australia and this ideology perpetuates a very dangerous delusion. But hey rule ban dissent away.
Is that not an argument?
It is, for obvious username colour. You can see where this group devolves this discussion into, outside this thread from “ban cars in cities” to: “ban cars outright”. It perpetuates an ideology born for very high density and very high populations with functional, accessible, affordable, public transport. A fictional triad in Australia & really fictional to cities “in whole”. As a result it spreads the ideology that removing transportation isn’t dangerous which it very much is why city planners have heart attacks closing roads. The net effect of removing “cars”: people die.
The reason I called you out was because you didn’t give an argument, not because I disagree, or it goes against the “popular view”. Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?
“Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?” No, it was a borderline response. However very intentional as the alternative is proven where any “discussion” degrades to in the other thread with OP as I noted above would happen. OP has no interest having any discussions on the merits of closing one street for a market as does this podcast. It’s disingenuous to achieve one outcome: ban all cars.
lol what a lazy troll. No they don’t. Fewer people die when you take away one of the biggest killers.
And please don’t come back at me with the obvious troll response here. You and I already both know how much of a blatant straw man it is.
Thanks for proving my point, dangerously delusional
Cars kill hundreds of people every year.
Pedestrians and cyclists kill zero.
Pretty simple maths, for anyone who graduated from primary school.
nice straw man, even more dangerous ideology
Love it when someone knows they can’t come up with a sensible rebuttal so just attacks the person instead. It really only serves to show how weak they are as a person.
Even funnier given that urban planners in charge of our cities have stated time and time again that the future of our cities is car-free.
The people whose job it is to plan our cities, are saying that we are transitioning to pedeatrian-friendly cities. This is a shift that occurred in education and best-practice some time ago. But age 60+ project managers are finally fucking retiring.
But you are apparently in an “echo chamber,” lol. Peak projection from Wooki.
Any rational individual can see podcast and post is so far from “sensible” it’s comical. I hope it’s comical because otherwise it’s dangerously delusional
C’mon try harder.