[QatzelOk]

A group of theater-goers huddled in front of a movie screen. A group of people huddled in church pews. A group of indigenous huddled around a fire spinning tall tales of animal spirits and long dead warriors. I see no real difference...

You don't see it, and yet it's staring you right in the face.

A group of indigenous huddled around a fire spinning tall tales of animal spirits and long dead warriors is not like the others because everyone participates. There are no gate keepers, and there is no "behind the scenes conspiring."

But I agree that organized religion is like mass media... without the technology, but with all the psychological manipulation of the upper classes and their sidekicks - the priest-class and the media-producer-class.

Mass media has many of the same psychological manipulations of organized religion. And look... the same people wrote the lies of both.

[Unthinking Majority]

We can make the same claim even more strongly about emergency response vehicles. An ambulance is out there directly saving lives as we speak. My family members have (unfortunately) directly benefited from this and would also be receiving one of those condolence letters. Fire trucks, the same thing. Search and rescue helicopters. The list can definitely include food delivery, as you say. Delivery of medical supplies, especially anything that needs to stay frozen or refrigerated. I would even accept arguments for construction vehicles.

But commuters?

Some executive at Dollarama?

As someone who wears a white hard hat at a construction site, I can tell you that architects do not need cars.

So if you want to argue that cars can be justified on a cost/benefit ratio, then I will gladly concede that for motor vehicles that actually provide a social value. For a middle aged fellow to own a ridiculously powerful Mustang that they cruise around in, this same argument provides a justification for banning such use.

What if there's no bus route to the construction site yet?

Sure some cars are overkill, like a Mustang. They could consider banning them, or taxing them out the wazoo. Most vehicles provide social value. Most people don't drive around simply for the mere pleasure of driving. It's a matter of if they outweigh the risks of pollution and climate change and hazards. Any reasonable person would think reducing GHG is a good thing and they should expand public transportation until individual EVs can run off a much less carbon energy grid.

[Unthinking Majority]

You don't see it, and yet it's staring you right in the face.

A group of indigenous huddled around a fire spinning tall tales of animal spirits and long dead warriors is not like the others because everyone participates. There are no gate keepers, and there is no "behind the scenes conspiring."

No, some people will always be better at creating and/or telling tales than others, and many others will mostly just enjoy it, just like today. A movie is similar to a play, but recorded. Anyone can go on Youtube right now and tell whatever tales they want, or record music etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

What if there's no bus route to the construction site yet?

Take a taxi. bill it to the office.

Sure some cars are overkill, like a Mustang. They could consider banning them, or taxing them out the wazoo. Most vehicles provide social value. Most people don't drive around simply for the mere pleasure of driving. It's a matter of if they outweigh the risks of pollution and climate change and hazards. Any reasonable person would think reducing GHG is a good thing and they should expand public transportation until individual EVs can run off a much less carbon energy grid.

The average commuter does not provide social value by commuting. People delivering sofa pop do not provide social benefit. As much as I love good beer and good whisky, it is hard to argue that the social benefits of fine drinking outweigh the costs.

Outside of emergency services, food delivery, medicine delivery, delivery of frozen goods, construction vehicles, public transportation, and taxis, it is hard to argue anyone else needs a car.

[Unthinking Majority]

The average commuter does not provide social value by commuting. People delivering sofa pop do not provide social benefit. As much as I love good beer and good whisky, it is hard to argue that the social benefits of fine drinking outweigh the costs.

Most commuters are not delivering unhealthy drinks. People use cars because they're often faster and much more convenient than public transportation, and that has all sorts of value. People typically use subways because they're faster than driving in a busy urban center.

I don't see the difference between someone driving their own car and taking a taxi. A taxi ride is actually longer, and therefore worse for pollution and risks because the taxi driver has to drive first to the person's starting point before their trip even starts.

There are many benefits to vehicles, the benefits which have likely saved billions of lives over the decades. The costs so far haven't been nearly as high, but the future wildcard is GHG-induced climate change, the future costs which we obviously don't know yet, but could be vast, nor do we know exactly when/if continually improving technology will be able to significantly slow/halt/reverse the damage.

[Godstud]

I used to drive to work because there was no alternative transportation available, to the location I worked at. I did get the most fuel efficient car, however(it was comparable to hybrids in fuel economy). Car pooling wasn't done because of differing shift lengths. Public transportation wasn't available to industrial areas. Riding a bicycle 40km to a job isn't feasible when working 12 hour shifts, and weather's always a factor.

This is often the case, particularly when your job location changes with the job, and maybe you are carrying things that can't be carried on public transportation, eg. tools, building materials, etc. People generally use public transportation when it's affordable and available. People tend to use the cost effective and convenient options.

@Pants-of-dog How is taking a taxi better than just driving your car there? Do you honestly think employers are going to pay your taxi fare? What fantasyland are you living in?

[QatzelOk]

....some people will always be better at creating and/or telling tales than others...

That's what the modern gate-keepers have told us. That they alone have the brains and culture to tell us all our stories for us.

This is to culture what representational democracy is to real democracy. It is a fake version of culture (culture that you pay for) that is supported by the 1%.

Car horns fill our ears with noise pollution because the 1% told us (through the media they own) that car horns are a nothingburger. On the past, they told us that air and water pollution were nothingburgers... to the point where we are now at risk of losing our air and water quality. After which, we might all die.

So get out there and start honking (right after you make your car payment to the people who tell you car horns are a nothingburger that you can eat in your car).

[Pants-of-dog]

Most commuters are not delivering unhealthy drinks. People use cars because they're often faster and much more convenient than public transportation, and that has all sorts of value. People typically use subways because they're faster than driving in a busy urban center.

Yes, these are the personal benefits for the commuters. Society does not benefit from commuters using their cars to commute.

I don't see the difference between someone driving their own car and taking a taxi. A taxi ride is actually longer, and therefore worse for pollution and risks because the taxi driver has to drive first to the person's starting point before their trip even starts.

…..and they are usually dropping someone off close by as they do that. And many taxis are electric. In fact, taxi owners love electric and hybrid. Most importantly for our discussion, they provide a social benefit of public transportation that has modifiable routes.

There are many benefits to vehicles, the benefits which have likely saved billions of lives over the decades. The costs so far haven't been nearly as high, but the future wildcard is GHG-induced climate change, the future costs which we obviously don't know yet, but could be vast, nor do we know exactly when/if continually improving technology will be able to significantly slow/halt/reverse the damage.

Climate change is not in the future , nor is it unknown. People in Canada are dying from climate change causes as we write this back and forth.

Even before the wildfires, air pollution was killing thousands of Canadians each year.

The benefits, then would have to save millions per year, worldwide.

And this only makes sense for emergency services, food delivery, medicine delivery, delivery of frozen goods, construction vehicles, public transportation, and taxis. Everything else is more dangerous than it is worth.

And for the record, my bosses always paid my cab fare when I was going somewhere for work.

[Robert Urbanek]

Returning to the subject of vehicle-related noise . . .

Lowering your blood pressure (BP) may be as easy as shutting the window or turning down your MP3 player. Too much noise exposure correlates with a steady rise in blood pressure. Loud sounds are known to stimulate the pituitary-adrenal cortical system. Heart rate basically soars in response to sudden loud sounds, like slamming doors or honking horns. But a gradual rise in noise hurts, too. In a study of assembly plant workers, the higher the volume got, the higher their blood pressure rose. Simple earplug use was enough to drop systolic blood pressure as much as 5.5 mm Hg. So just imagine what turning down your car stereo could do.

From an older ShareCare article. Alas, the link is no longer active.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes, these are the personal benefits for the commuters. Society does not benefit from commuters using their cars to commute.

Untrue.

…..and they are usually dropping someone off close by as they do that. And many taxis are electric. In fact, taxi owners love electric and hybrid. Most importantly for our discussion, they provide a social benefit of public transportation that has modifiable routes.

Taxis still have to cover the entire route of someone plus driving to their destination. Most people take Uber now and i've never used an uber with another passenger being taken on another route. Unless they're using a vehicle that pollutes less like EV or hybrids they are more polluting. So the better argument is for EVs and hybrids, not taxis.

Climate change is not in the future , nor is it unknown. People in Canada are dying from climate change causes as we write this back and forth.

The vast majority of the effects of climate change will occur in the future, and those effects are unknown.

In 2023, the positive effects of vehicles for Canadians still outweigh the negative effects on the environment that vehicles have contributed. I'm sure people have died in Canada, but many more were saved. In the future this may not be the case, and the negatives may outweigh the positives, but the future is unknowable.

Your argument is also assuming that vehicle emissions are the sole cause of climate change, which isn't the case.

The benefits, then would have to save millions per year, worldwide.

There's a lot of economic activity that saves lives or lowers suffering that hasn't been mentioned. For instance, anyone with a job earns money so they can eat and have shelter and clothing etc., pays for healthcare and education etc.

And for the record, my bosses always paid my cab fare when I was going somewhere for work.

And?

[Puffer Fish]

Amplified noise that disturbs people is usually not necessarily considered to be protected under free speech.

If you want to send a message, just stand around or walk through a city carrying a large sign with your message and offer to hand out pamphlets with your message to anyone who is willing to take them.

[Puffer Fish]

When a driver honks his horn, it always makes the same sound. And this sound is intentionally irritating, causing pain in some people, shock in others.

I really hope this is not an attempt to compare honking a horn to hate speech, attempting to argue for curtailment of free speech people may find offensive.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish Give me a fucking break! Noise is not SPEECH.

Noise isn't hate speech, either, you morons! Get an education!

[QatzelOk]

@Puffer Fish Give me a fucking break! Noise is not SPEECH.

Noise isn't hate speech, either, you morons! Get an education!

About half of the words in the above post would qualify as hate speech in the sense that these words are intended to intimidate, injure, or reduce the self confidence of the person you are discussing with.

1. What percentage of the words you use every day have this kind of hateful intent, Godstud?

2. And is your fondness for empty aggression what inspires you to defend the honking of horns?

3. Would you also defend people's right to spray sewage on other people when they are feeling particularly hateful?

[Unthinking Majority]

About half of the words in the above post would qualify as hate speech in the sense that these words are intended to intimidate, injure, or reduce the self confidence of the person you are discussing with.

1. What percentage of the words you use every day have this kind of hateful intent, Godstud?

2. And is your fondness for empty aggression what inspires you to defend the honking of horns?

3. Would you also defend people's right to spray sewage on other people when they are feeling particularly hateful?

Is this kind of speech akin to a PoFo member honking their horn on here?

@Godstud how often do you honk your horn when you drive?

[Godstud]

@Unthinking Majority I honk it very infrequently. Normally it's only a sharp rap to let someone know I am there(when they have no mirrors on their bike). I'll honk it to alert dogs that are on the road, as to my presence. I'll honk it when it's because someone just did something terribly dangerous and to let them know it, and how we almost collided.

No one just honks their horn for no reason, but that's what the bicycle twins want you to think.

[Pants-of-dog]

Untrue.

How so?

Taxis still have to cover the entire route of someone plus driving to their destination. Most people take Uber now and i've never used an uber with another passenger being taken on another route. Unless they're using a vehicle that pollutes less like EV or hybrids they are more polluting. So the better argument is for EVs and hybrids, not taxis.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point was that taxis rarely drive from some place far away from where you are to get you and start taking you on your route. Instead, they come get you when they are already close.

So,, for each kilometre driven, they tend to be more efficient.

They are also the only way for some people to get around. I am thinking people too old to drive, those with some sort of disability that prevents them from easily driving, Those who simply can not afford cars but still need a car home to get the family groceries for the five kids.

Until the bus goes from the supermarket to the old lady’s front door and the driver helps her with her new dishwasher, taxis still provide a lot.

The vast majority of the effects of climate change will occur in the future, and those effects are unknown.

This may be true. Almost certainly, the future environmental impact of fossil fuel motor vehicles will be much worse than now. And now, it is bad enough already that we can safely say that most car use is more dangerous than it is worth.

And unless there is some significant and radical change in the near future, the negative impact of these cars will get worse and worse.

In 2023, the positive effects of vehicles for Canadians still outweigh the negative effects on the environment that vehicles have contributed. I'm sure people have died in Canada, but many more were saved. In the future this may not be the case, and the negatives may outweigh the positives, but the future is unknowable.

Your argument is also assuming that vehicle emissions are the sole cause of climate change, which isn't the case.

About 1760 people die each year from motor vehicle accidents each year in Canada.

About 21 000 people die each year from motor vehicle air pollution each year in Canada.

619 people died in the 2021 heat wave in BC.

It is difficult to imagine how that many lives were saved by commuters stuck in traffic.

There's a lot of economic activity that saves lives or lowers suffering that hasn't been mentioned. For instance, anyone with a job earns money so they can eat and have shelter and clothing etc., pays for healthcare and education etc.]

Earlier the argument was that cars provide so many benefits that this outweighs the cost.

Now the argument seems to be that the indirect benefits of global capitalism provide the benefits that outweigh the costs of cars.

And?

@Godstud said that would not happen. My experience proves otherwise.

[Godstud]

My experience proves otherwise.

Your experience is worthless as an argument. My experience contradicts yours, so I guess you're just making it up as you go along.

[Pants-of-dog]

My boss would hand out taxi vouchers when we knew we needed them.

But if you ended up somewhere and had to take an unplanned taxi back to the office, you had to pay and then get reimbursed,

[QatzelOk]

No one just honks their horn for no reason...

Wow. It sounds like Thailand has good laws to ensure that noise pollution is kept to a minimum.

In North America, car horns beep when you lock the doors, lock the trunk, open the hood, someone touches your car, fireworks set off the car alarms, etc. And this is all automatic. You have to add all the intentional horns as well when people are trying to say "hi" or "bye" or "come out, I'm waiting."

And all of these "no reason" emergency panic noises are done without remorse or thought.

Evil is about causing harm and not caring about it.