Embed Notice

@lethargilisticI

Please don't attribute points to me that I never made. I'm not saying that because cars can sometimes be useful for anyone, even in a perfect world with perfect infrastructure, and also be necessary for some few people in such a perfect world, that all cars are necessary or we should stick with car centric infrastructure, which is what it seems like you're attributing to me — but to be honest I'm finding it very difficult to even parse the argument you're making, it's incoherent and all over the place and simply dripping with near illegible levels of condescension.

What I'm saying is that if cars serve as a necessary mobility aid for some people, no matter how few, not as a result of contingent systemic forces, but in a way that would hold true even under perfect city planning, then they are a mobility aid, and completely abolishing them in some absolutist sense is not only authoritarian and absurd — even on abstract grounds I would utterly oppose any attempt to ban cars or try to force people to not have them instead of Simply providing better options and letting people choose what's more practical and efficient — but also ableist. How is that wrong?

You're saying that cars may be justified for individuals, but somehow you still get to declare that "cars aren't mobility aids" and no one should have them, so it seems like you are the one that's universalizing something that doesn't make sense to universalize.