Reading past your sarcasm, you’re suggesting that it’s better to have reduced public transit options than investing into them. I’m curious to hear your reasoning to argue that.
No im not. You’re just seeing the issue-as-it-is as binary. I’m saying it’s bad to ignore all context to make a cheap point, even if your point is good. There are a billion ways to make a good point. Why choose a bad one.
It’s odd to me to take objection to a post making a bad point by making a sarcastic statement that was open to misinterpretation. The thread invites a discourse about building better cities and yet, in classic Lemmy fashion, it’s just about semantics.
Reading past your sarcasm, you’re suggesting that it’s better to have reduced public transit options than investing into them. I’m curious to hear your reasoning to argue that.
No im not. You’re just seeing the issue-as-it-is as binary. I’m saying it’s bad to ignore all context to make a cheap point, even if your point is good. There are a billion ways to make a good point. Why choose a bad one.
It’s odd to me to take objection to a post making a bad point by making a sarcastic statement that was open to misinterpretation. The thread invites a discourse about building better cities and yet, in classic Lemmy fashion, it’s just about semantics.