Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
Maybe I misunderstood your post. Your rant about the "mushy middle ground" sounded like you were against compromise. i.e. mushy middle ground = compromise
So is your point that I should be saying "damn all the cyclists and pedestrians because I want to drive my car everywhere" - if I actually want there to be a more balanced environment - in order to counter the "ban all cars" side of things? I guess I'm confused.  |
Your post made it seem like i and others should alter our opinions to better conform to the mainstream/status quo since the mainstream doesn't like any idea of curtailing car usage and tends to react negatively toward it. It suggested that the fact that people do things in a particular way (either by preference or custom) means they're unable to change and that arguing for change is somehow disrespectful or inconsiderate to them. This of course would be ridiculous.
I actually think I misunderstood your stance and had the impression that you understand and accept that such change is desirable but were simply too afraid of conflict and backlash to say so, and that you felt others should be as well. Looking back, I should have realized it was more a case of you being aligned with the mainstream/status quo and not actually believing that change is desirable since you used several common pro status-quo arguments.
For example, suggesting that I obviously must accept the necessity of cars since I have one myself. This is a tautological argument which basically justifies things being how they are because they are how they are, while arguing that it's impractical to change things because of this. In reality, when an individual argues for change in a larger system such as our societal transportation system, it may not be practical for that individual to change on their own as long as they exist within the context of that system, but that says nothing about the feasibility of system-wide change. Most of the impracticality citied by those using this common argument relate to the impracticality of change for an individual acting at odds with the larger system.
Numerous other pro status-quo argument tactics exist such as suggesting that change is "too extreme" or "too disruptive" or "impractical" or "too difficult" or "not a priority" and the list goes on and on. Most of these tend to be either irrelevant since they don't actually address the merits of the proposed change or they focus disproportionately on the drawbacks or costs of change while ignoring or downplaying those of the current situation. But it can be easy to miss some of these if they're slipped into larger, more complex arguments.
Prev
Linear Mode
