Embed Notice

@anarchopunk_girl What I am saying is that the argument "I need a car to address my mobility disability" is a PERSONAL argument for ONE individual to own car under their current circumstances. It is inappropriate to go from that to, "therefore, cars must continue to exist because they are necessary as mobility aids in general." The reason that I compare that to "I need my car to get to work" (or, for that matter, to commute rurally) is that those are problems in need of collective solutions for which people substitute individual cars because that is easy under current conditions, and so those arguments are rested upon to say that we must not discourage and (ideally, if unattainably) abolish cars generally.

These mobility issues should be solved with other solutions. The fact that someone under current conditions feels that they cannot get rid of their car for mobility disability reasons does not imply that cars are a solution for mobility disabilities. And, again, that is clear to the many people with mobility disabilities who do not have the option to use cars and are routinely ignored as people rush to defend cars supposedly on their behalf. Meanwhile, the continued existence of cars falls hardest on people with mobility disabilities generally because alternatives aren't invested in.

I am not trying to be condescending. I am very serious that it is a mistake to argue in favor of cars on the behalf of people who, as a group, are disadvantaged by their existence.