I'm anti-automobile as a means of daily transport/commute, so there's at least a few of us.

 

That's exactly the reason I capitalized the word MAY in that post.

 

I agree with that last sentence especially, with reservations on 'the world at large'. I believe in as much government being done locally and that it be as limited as possible. The greater (outside of local) good should not be ignored, of course, but local is priority. National government should be far more limited than it currently is.

I agree that there are fools and selfish people everywhere. That is not limited to any political affiliation or geographic location. It's also something impossible to cure completely. So, yes there are some appropriate regulations.

An intellectual discussion doesn't always end with minds being changed. I would in fact argue that it's a rare result. The important part is being open to the possibility of having your mind changed. Something that User1 has explicitly said he is not interested in, hence epitomizing the anti-intellectual disease growing in society.

Debate can be heated, can have ups and downs, can be protracted and still end up with the participants holding fast to the same opinions they held when they entered the debate. The point is that they DID enter into debate and hopefully with openness. I love a good debate and having my ideas challenged. It fits with what I said earlier about one's own beliefs.

Yeah, sorry. That was perhaps more in response to User1's 'Righties are flat earthers' claptrap.

I've attacked the opinions that directly attack my way of life and have said that planners who have an agenda other than serving the needs of the people can stuff it. Those planners that would follow such awful ideas espoused by User1 would fall into such a category. Those planners that would socially engineer rather than meet need can rot as far as I'm concerned. That's not what they are hired to do, nor is it an appropriate function of government.

I've also been clear to say that credentials are not important. In a previous thread, you and I even discussed the very fact that both of us have known many educated beyond their potential or intelligence, so citing advanced education here is pretty meaningless.

See, this is, I believe, quality and reasoned discussion/debate and I thank you for it. Do you agree?

 

As far as global stuff, I mean like limiting emissions within your own borders to protect the environment both within your state & globally and not starting unnecessary wars.

I don't take user1's statement as an anti-intellectual perspective, just one of "I've done my research & this is where I'm at" sort of thing. I can't begrudge it, he is posting stuff that does have supporters that are experts in the field. Not like flat-earther type stuff lol.

Word. No worries.

The issue with 'meeting need' is that let's say we expand all the highways to meet present need at massive cost. That's now more infrastructure to maintain at more massive cost & as more people move into cities (which is the trend right now), less folks drive on the highways because of changes in work requirements, less personal vehicles, etc., we've got a massive network of roads going under used.

With something like the roads, it is my belief it is better to have the roads as small as possible while meeting basic needs & prioritizing that the road network is well-maintained & safe. Unfortunately, I'm not sure your desire for expanded roads or my desire for (at largest) current road widths with great maintenance are ever plausible.

I may have biases in this argument

I think planning is a field where credentials CAN be very helpful, but yeah, as always there'll be absolutely incompetent folks with the fancy degree, the powerful position & all of the certifications that the best in the field would have.

 

Yeah, I agree with that. Aggregate doing the right thing rather than mandated centrally. And I'm all for not starting unnecessary wars. I'm mostly a non-interventionist, but acknowledge that it is sometimes appropriate.

But he's explicitly stated he's not posting for the purpose of discussion and he's said he's not interested in it. That's the problem. Knowing your position is fine, but he's been pretty hostile to being challenged. That shows cowardice. How is he supposed to know he has the right position if he's not open to challenge? Beliefs need to be examined and challenged by external sources else we get too comfortable in our own walled garden of the mind. Echo chambers are unhealthy and detrimental to...well...everything.

This sounds reasonable, but the central problems are that current need is not being met and people's habits are unpredictable. Do we plan for what we think people are going to do? Unless we engineer them, that's all we are capable of doing, but that doesn't mean that we should build for future need in lieu of present need. When roads are not adequate for capacity, time is wasted, fuel is wasted, safety is compromised. Yes, maintenance cost will increase. Yes, that's a big downside. I agree there should not be excess capacity as that's wasteful and I'm not disagreeing that proper sizing is difficult. But when I see incredible amounts of dollars being spent (wasted?) on (going back to a previous thread) light rail (like the Northstar/Blue/Green lines here in the TC) that has middling ridership and massive costs, I think reallocating dollars to where they will be most efficiently used, on a per-capita basis (dollars per person per mile) makes some sense. I think road capacity at least to meeting current capacity needs is justified and reasonable. As transportation needs change, up or down, the infrastructure should follow, but it hasn't. It sounds like we agree that an ideal is nigh impossible and that the government has done a poor job from either of our perspectives.

I'm glad you're self-aware, lol. Too many are blind to their own biases. I guess we all are to a certain extent. It takes work to discover them for ourselves, and humility to admit we have then, lol. However, healthy debate can help us to uncover them!

 

I could have deviled deeper into my response regarding my posts. I guess I'll do it now. My main motivation in posting is to inform. Yes it can be argued and agreed to mostly that I'm not an impartial viewer of the subject in question. I usually do have some interested agreement of whatever is posted by me. No argument there. My main desire is not to solicit reactions. If there is reactions, either + or - is fine by me. I am happy that there is a reaction, but it's not a desire. One thing is that I pretty much limit my stuff to transportation related.

 

I would have agreed with - Reading comprehension = Wat?!? far more!

your definition of the flat earthers can be improved on far greater. Flat earthers are the ones that don't believe anything coming from the left, or anything science related. They don't believe we went to the moon, and they believe that everything is conspiracy. They do ardently follow Fox News. So Flat earthers = everything a conspiracy

Promise me you'll attempt answer the question regarding on what floats your boat? You kinda attempted to answer at #27. Wasn't very impressed to see you follow https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ , but it's better than finding it being worst than this. I assume this is where your politics lye.

 

You miss the mark again. I replied in my post at #46 and I don't think I need to here again. I don't mind opposing views. You are trying to make this as some kind of authoritarian demand or something. That's far from the truth. Yes my views have a change who is and isn't taxed. So? The ones that get taxed are the ones damaging the environment. And that gets done by scale of the damage done. Not sure if know this or not, but there's many many climate scientists that found that we're changing the environment. Now that should have a cost involved and should be addressed. Currently that fine is far lower than it should be. I'm voicing my opinion what should be done and the path taken. You have a problem with that? I guess you can make an appeal to have me ban. Seems rather bizarre but I can see you trying to do that. Your post don't sound that friending. I'm cool with that. Just am not going to keep up as it's going no where.

 

Next time, you might want to sober up before posting. Just a suggestion.

 

Hey guess what?!? I'm sober this morning and everything I wrote makes sense and not something I'd take back. I guess there's parts I could have elaborated more on. Not only that, I have no hangover from that 1/2 L beer I had with my pizza last night. Thanks for the concern though.

 

I guess I just don't connect with the idea of using an automotive forum structured for conversation, for a "desired" static advancement of agenda.
To me, if you just want to singularly trumpet your own viewpoint, your own opinion, without debate or response, create your own blog.

PERSONALLY, and this isn't to change you, but I think if someone posts to "inform" with an admitted stance of not being impartial, professing to NOT really be looking for responses, that is indicative of someone so stubborn and sure of their viewpoint, that they are immovable in their opinion. And again Personally? I don't care what the topic is, I think anyone should be willing to accept that they might be wrong, and might benefit from looking at and discussing alternate ideas and viewpoints.

This is "Off Topic" discussion. And you're free to present your opinion, I suppose in any manner you want.
I have participated in other threads you've created.
But you don't have to look too hard to see that IMO you do have an agenda. A quick check of your public profile reveals 158 threads created a vast majority made up of anti-car, pro-pedestrian, pro alternate transportation articles and concepts. WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY FINE. But....
I think I'd have more respect for the presentation, if it was being presented with the desire for real debate and real response. Otherwise it just seems like an often repeated, here's another dead horse I'm going to throw out, and watch as you once again beat it.
Which again IMO devalues your threads as being less than real discussion, real debate and much more akin to simply trolling for reaction.
In this day and age? If you only want to preach to the choir?...that can be arranged. But "Fit Freak" IMO really isn't the appropriate church.

 

Of course it does, pal. Of course it does.

 

Thanks for the response fitchet. Can I take a portion of your post here, maybe twist it and reword it? I like how sneefy does it and I have some ideas. I frankly have shared my opinion like this with others and have never had any neg reactions. There's 100s of people that have seen my posts and like what I have to say. (That's inspired from Trump) If there's something I'm doing wrong here at the Off Topic Discussion section of the forum. I hope the owner(s) will let me know. I kinda limit it to transportation, but they want to open up this Off Topic Section, I hope they let us know.

I firmly believe the stuff I post, so having a neutral position is practically impossible. I am open to reading other stuff, so if you got something that shows we should be building lanes and kicking people out their houses, I like to read up on it. So far I haven't really seen anything. sneefy shared some site that was open for about ~20 minutes, but it doesn't seem like they are open to new comers that like to protect themselves. I guess they really want to monitor the users. To each their own, you're into that and I'm cool. I'm just not going to participate and shut down my defense.

 

Like I said, I've participated in some of your other threads.
I don't think you are doing anything "wrong" here. That's really not for me to say, but you've created 150+ threads so if anybody that does run this place thought is was wrong, you'd be gone by now. So no I don't think you're doing anything wrong.
To me however as a "Fit Freak" participant, it's nearly insulting to have a genesis post of a thread, that is asking a question, then have you profess you're really not interested in response. I've already explained why I feel this isn't a strong position.
And even though I don't think you are doing anything wrong, I would ask why you choose to bring these usually and often anti-automobile usage, topics to a forum in which the common factor among probably all users is they obviously have and enjoy automobiles?

The exclamation I'm looking at right now as I type this is a site banner that say's " Off Topic DiscussionDiscuss anything that pleases you here." ,

My criticism isn't of your topics,directly whether I agree or not. My criticism is in presentation, and maybe questioning only why you would repeatedly bringi anti-automobile usage topics into an automobile forum.
But in any forum, with a large enough audience you should expect blow back, different opinions, and criticism.

 

Thanks for the input, but I didn't really think Frontier Group is biased source. Do you guys have some info you aren't sharing? They are billing themselves as a non-profit think tank. I wonder if that set sneefy off? He was the one with the second post. Never gave any study or research people getting kicked out of their houses and neighborhoods being virtually destroyed with some freeway expansion. I got one on a neighborhood fighting and finally winning freeway expansion. The attempted expansion of the 710 freeway heading north. OK it's really called an extension, but it's the same concept. This would have ruined Pasadena for ever! Seems rather disturbing that someone comes to the thread, insults the poster, never leaving and not a thing to add to the thread. I'd kick him out of the thread if possible. He was nothing but an A-hole.

I don't really think I need to be a positive in regards to 4 wheel steel boxes. I have a Honda Fit and I'm pretty sure you don't even need that to be a member. So I think I've met requirements. I am welcome to discussions to posts made. Even welcomed to legit studies that counter what the views are of the post. I've yet to see anything, but it's not because I'm not interested. If it's something legit to realm of thread, then sure. But my position is pretty much the same as stated.

Oh one more thing. The bicycle angle is from when I was living in Long Beach. There was a time that I went car-less for over 9 yrs. I relied on nothing but my bicycle and the subway system. Got around pretty much everywhere and the schedule of the subway wasn't that bad. On the weekends it would run till 2am. So got around with those two combined. Hardly ever a bus trip.

 

Unbiased and owned by an activist billionaire as another pet project: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1626712D:US

That took me 1 minute of a google search to put together...

I don't really comment on the poster's threads as it's pretty relevant what the agenda is. It is amusing to read the comments on the threads, but I don't click on the links as that drives traffic to them that I don't want to waste the kilobytes or my time. I can surmise the content pretty easily just from people's reactions lol.

 

I saw that page. This one seems better with more info; https://www.linkedin.com/company/fro...it-think-tank-

So this is considered a biased organization? I guess anyone from CA is considered an environmentalist and therefore biased?

 

Every organization is biased.

But I'd rather an organization be biased in favor of the environment & pedestrian safety over most other things.

 

Here's the thing- an organization that's pro-environment is trying to help everyone. Same with pedestrian or driver or bicycle safety.

Companies that are concerned with profits are concerned with only their own shareholders and employees.

It's a shame that Exxon will always have more money than the Sierra Club (and for the record I own Exxon stock and am not a member of the Sierra Club).

 

It's easy to be a non profit when you're bankrolled by a billionaire. They're try to come off as grass roots when it's more like AstroTurf.