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!
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!
Circlejerk much? Jesus…
What about people that are both?
Who decides what a “better person” is?
They used:
To define “better”.
As an individual who walks to most of my destinations, I am a shutin, and by these metrics, a literal monster.
I think you, and the users of public transport, are not at all represented in the study
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!
I’ve no interest in reading or driving clicks to an article with such an absurd title. My question was obviously rhetorical.
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
As drivers are wont to do…
Do you really not understand the concept of a rhetorical question?
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?
Yes, but why male models?
Rhetorical questions usually are relevant. Give it a Google if you need some help.
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.
The point is simply to make the reader think critically. Especially when such critical thinking is fairly obvious.
No, what I did was to point out how stupid is the entire idea of the article itself.
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.
If the critical thinking is obvious, and explicitly answered in the content being discussed, then you have added nothing to the conversation
Okay, pal. Stay angry and ignorant.
LOL one could only become more ignorant by reading an article like that