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!

  • 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