Cars need to be banned

[Rothbardian Paradise]

Exactly.

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Cars aren't supposed to fly. If you judge a car by its ability to fly, it will spend its whole life thinking its stupid.

[The Brine]

It's a good idea but a total ban would be bad.

What should happen ideally is that inner city areas with a lot of traffic should ban cars. A car has other uses compared to public transportation, so getting rid of all cars would be bad for the economy. We should incentivize people to use public transportation instead. Some places (e.g In the UK) apply congestion charges to minimize traffic but that's essentially a car bad for the poor(er) only and not a real solution.

Banning cars could have some really good effects on the environment. 70% of extracted oil goes to car/plane/ship fuel. Not only we can stop wasting oil on car fuel, we'll also reduce emissions and keep the air clean in big cities. Everybody wins, except big corporations that benefit from excessive car use.

You may think public transportation sucks but that's only because societies have been choosing to pour more resources on cars. In a car-less world, public transportation would be extremely efficient, would cover more people, and would offer more solutions to the average person. While keeping emissions and energy waste to a minimum. It's really a resource allocation thing.

See, this guy gets me!

[Ayissor]

Exactly.

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Easy, because people are reluctant to change cars, cars are not toasters and can last for decades, why switch from one thing to another if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

[The Brine]

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Cars aren't supposed to fly. If you judge a car by its ability to fly, it will spend its whole life thinking its stupid.

Not funny, asshole.

[Bluelight-R006]

Exactly.

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Because many prefer to stick to their old cars. And they’re still bigger in the market.

Actually, I’ve recently seen electric cars on the road as taxis, here in Singapore. Not sure if they are driverless either.

[Australian rePublic]

if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

Electric cars even more so. DO you think that everyone can afford the expense?

[The Brine]

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Easy, because people are reluctant to change cars, cars are not toasters and can last for decades, why switch from one thing to another if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

No, people are just ignorant, they just don't want to accept the fact that trains might just become their new favorite toy.

[Australian rePublic]

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Because many prefer to stick to their old cars. Don't have money to waste on new cars

Makes sense to me

[Bluelight-R006]

Because many prefer to stick to their old cars. Don't have money to waste on new cars

Makes sense to me

Hah, yeah you’re right.

Easy, because people are reluctant to change cars, cars are not toasters and can last for decades, why switch from one thing to another if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

No, people are just ignorant, they just don't want to accept the fact that trains might just become their new favorite toy.

No, they don’t want to accept biased opinions and they prefer the luxury of their car.

[Ayissor]

Easy, because people are reluctant to change cars, cars are not toasters and can last for decades, why switch from one thing to another if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

No, people are just ignorant, they just don't want to accept the fact that trains might just become their new favorite toy.

YOUR new favorite toy, and while yes, people are ignorant, they are at the very least not as stupid to assume trains can be a good method of transportation for an entire metropolitan area.
Do you think New York City can rely solely on trains with a capacity of say, 1000 people? REALLY?

[Alien Overlord]

You think you're SO smart, huh? Well, tell me something mister "know it all" if electric cars are so fucking perfect why haven't they taken off yet???

Cars aren't supposed to fly. If you judge a car by its ability to fly, it will spend its whole life thinking its stupid.

If it's any consolation, i thought it was funny.

[The Brine]

Because many prefer to stick to their old cars. Don't have money to waste on new cars

Makes sense to me

Which is exactly the reason we need to go back to the Stone Age. Just think about it, we won't have to pay taxes/or pay corporate assholes anymore who only care about greed and power.

[The New California Republic]

Easy, because people are reluctant to change cars, cars are not toasters and can last for decades, why switch from one thing to another if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

No, people are just ignorant, they just don't want to accept the fact that trains might just become their new favorite toy.

People are ignorant that trains are a thing? Please, show me these people. And don't go to the depths of the Amazon or the Congo to find them, as that's cheating.

[Walkerfort]

Easy, because people are reluctant to change cars, cars are not toasters and can last for decades, why switch from one thing to another if you already have something that does good enough? You do realize cars are fairly expensive?

No, people are just ignorant, they just don't want to accept the fact that trains might just become their new favorite toy.

brine.... Please... trains are nice but... cars are here to stay... but since you tried to push your point hard, I'll ship a thomas the tank engine model to you next week okay?

[Rothbardian Paradise]

Cars aren't supposed to fly. If you judge a car by its ability to fly, it will spend its whole life thinking its stupid.

Not funny, asshole.

I prefer the term "hemorrhoid."

[Ayissor]

Makes sense to me

Which is exactly the reason we need to go back to the Stone Age. Just think about it, we won't have to pay taxes/or pay corporate assholes anymore who only care about greed and power.

So are we using trains or going back to the stone age? Make up your bloody mind, again.

[The Brine]

No, people are just ignorant, they just don't want to accept the fact that trains might just become their new favorite toy.

YOUR new favorite toy, and while yes, people are ignorant, they are at the very least not as stupid to assume trains can be a good method of transportation for an entire metropolitan area.
Do you think New York City can rely solely on trains with a capacity of say, 1000 people? REALLY?

I think New York City has more than 1000 people, dumbass.

[Australian rePublic]

YOUR new favorite toy, and while yes, people are ignorant, they are at the very least not as stupid to assume trains can be a good method of transportation for an entire metropolitan area.
Do you think New York City can rely solely on trains with a capacity of say, 1000 people? REALLY?

I think New York City has more than 1000 people, dumbass.

He/she meant 1000 per train. That's literally the definition of "capacity"

[Ayissor]

YOUR new favorite toy, and while yes, people are ignorant, they are at the very least not as stupid to assume trains can be a good method of transportation for an entire metropolitan area.
Do you think New York City can rely solely on trains with a capacity of say, 1000 people? REALLY?

I think New York City has more than 1000 people, dumbass.

Not what I said, I meant trains with the capacity of a thousand people is enough to transport 9 million people around the city?

[Rothbardian Paradise]

YOUR new favorite toy, and while yes, people are ignorant, they are at the very least not as stupid to assume trains can be a good method of transportation for an entire metropolitan area.
Do you think New York City can rely solely on trains with a capacity of say, 1000 people? REALLY?

I think New York City has more than 1000 people, dumbass.

Prove it.

[Bluelight-R006]

Makes sense to me

Which is exactly the reason we need to go back to the Stone Age. Just think about it, we won't have to pay taxes/or pay corporate assholes anymore who only care about greed and power.

Ah shit here we go again.

So you realise that everything you just said isn’t adding up and is crushed by facts, realises you brought it up before and decided that it would be a great idea to scrap everything and say it’ll be easier back in the Stone Age where all this shit wouldn’t even be debated because there’s no cars.

[Australian rePublic]

I think New York City has more than 1000 people, dumbass.

Not what I said, I meant trains with the capacity of a thousand people is enough to transport 9 million people around the city?

No. More than 9 million people. That number excludes tourists, and those who live out of town but commute into NYC for work/shopping/etc.

[The Brine]

I think New York City has more than 1000 people, dumbass.

Not what I said, I meant trains with the capacity of a thousand people is enough to transport 9 million people around the city?

Actually, the population of New York City is 8.623 million. You were wrong again, CLEARLY proving my point that you are in fact 100% genuine dumbass.

[Ayissor]

Not what I said, I meant trains with the capacity of a thousand people is enough to transport 9 million people around the city?

Actually, the population of New York City is 8.623 million. You were wrong again, CLEARLY proving my point that you are in fact 100% genuine dumbass.

If that's your argument, then I have already won it.

[Rothbardian Paradise]

Not what I said, I meant trains with the capacity of a thousand people is enough to transport 9 million people around the city?

Actually, the population of New York City is 8.623 million. You were wrong again, CLEARLY proving my point that you are in fact 100% genuine dumbass.

It's good to know that despite your belief that Ayissor is a dumbass, you still affirm the sincerity of her beliefs.