I’ve always argued this wasn’t the case and that motoring is a worse transport mode because of the associated externalities, not because of anything inherent to the users.

But you can’t argue with the scienceTM!

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well then why bother asking?

    Do you really not understand the concept of a rhetorical question?

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You asked 2 questions that are actually highly relevant to a discussion about this article, and they weren’t attached to any argument. Do YOU know what a rhetorical question is?

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m well aware of the concept - but the whole point of them is to suggest other perspectives to view a concept from to gain a different understanding of the issue at hand

      What you did is just asking questions that were answered in the article, thinking “haha, I’ve got them!” Then you got defensive and pretended they were all rhetorical when everyone pointed out you’d know the answer if you just read the damn article.

      For example, let’s imagine we’re discussing an article about a court fining someone for violating a gag order.

      A good format for a rhetorical question might be “would the judge have given this sentence to him if he was …?”

      Note how this isn’t something that would be covered in article, because it covers a theoretical scenario.

      A bad rhetorical question might be “how much was the fine?” This is because you could just read the damn story.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        but the whole point of them is to suggest other perspectives

        The point is simply to make the reader think critically. Especially when such critical thinking is fairly obvious.

        What you did is just asking questions that were answered in the article, thinking “haha, I’ve got them!”

        No, what I did was to point out how stupid is the entire idea of the article itself.

        Then you got defensive and pretended they were all rhetorical

        LOL I don’t need to pretend anything. You don’t even know who I am, I have nothing to defend here except logic and reason.

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the critical thinking is obvious, and explicitly answered in the content being discussed, then you have added nothing to the conversation