- 21 Oct 2020 05:36
#15129074
'Stop' isn't the opposite of 'go'. 'Reverse' is the opposite of 'go'.
Haven't you gone in a horseshoe right there, because both 'go' and 'reverse' are forms of movement?
No. Anything can be reframed like that if you put emphasis on an irrelevant similarity, which is, in reality, universal, but for the single position which doesn't share it.
But isn't reversing still 'going'?
Yes, reversing is technically going. When a sign says 'go', however, it's assumed that the person in the vehicle will not be stupid enough to start driving backwards. Why is there no 'reverse' sign?
Because you're not trying to drive backwards, or you'd be on a different road.
Exactly; and on that road, you'd still be driving forwards, you'd just be driving forwards in a different direction. Why is that?
I think it's pretty obvious that a car was made to drive forwards. You can't really drive effectively when you're in reverse.
That doesn't answer the fundamental question though. People could make cars that drive backwards better than they drive forwards, but then backwards would become forwards, and I'd ask the same question about forwards as backwards. You don't drive backwards because you've already been down the road behind you. It literally doesn't make sense to drive down the road you've already been down.
What if you've gone in the wrong direction?
Then you make a u-turn, and the direction that was backwards becomes forwards. You aren't reversing, though, you're still going forwards. Reversing is useful in specific, isolated cases, while going [forwards] is, as a general rule, the only way you can get closer to where you want to go.
What if the journey really is more important than the destination, though? What is the destination, anyway? Your apartment? I've seen it, and it's not like that place is perfect, by any means. Why are you in such a rush to get there?
What sort of insane argument is that? I can hardly work towards getting a better place if I don't even have access to my current one.
Haven't you gone in a horseshoe right there, because both 'go' and 'reverse' are forms of movement?
No. Anything can be reframed like that if you put emphasis on an irrelevant similarity, which is, in reality, universal, but for the single position which doesn't share it.
But isn't reversing still 'going'?
Yes, reversing is technically going. When a sign says 'go', however, it's assumed that the person in the vehicle will not be stupid enough to start driving backwards. Why is there no 'reverse' sign?
Because you're not trying to drive backwards, or you'd be on a different road.
Exactly; and on that road, you'd still be driving forwards, you'd just be driving forwards in a different direction. Why is that?
I think it's pretty obvious that a car was made to drive forwards. You can't really drive effectively when you're in reverse.
That doesn't answer the fundamental question though. People could make cars that drive backwards better than they drive forwards, but then backwards would become forwards, and I'd ask the same question about forwards as backwards. You don't drive backwards because you've already been down the road behind you. It literally doesn't make sense to drive down the road you've already been down.
What if you've gone in the wrong direction?
Then you make a u-turn, and the direction that was backwards becomes forwards. You aren't reversing, though, you're still going forwards. Reversing is useful in specific, isolated cases, while going [forwards] is, as a general rule, the only way you can get closer to where you want to go.
What if the journey really is more important than the destination, though? What is the destination, anyway? Your apartment? I've seen it, and it's not like that place is perfect, by any means. Why are you in such a rush to get there?
What sort of insane argument is that? I can hardly work towards getting a better place if I don't even have access to my current one.
Make gentrify total destroy!
- By JohnRawls
- By Godstud
- By Fasces