AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
31,813
You don't make something better by being more exclusive.
It depends on what it is. In this case, the enjoyability and safety of driving is inversely proportional to the amount of people on the road, and even moreso to the amount of people that aren't good at driving on the road.

Also, I wouldn't consider it exclusive by removing people that do dumb shit, such as attempting to race each other on a packed city highway in some loud bullshit muscle car while swerving through traffic.
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,962
How did it flip that easily?

Also, this is why you don't hold onto cars that are being driven by crazy people. It's 2023. I can't believe I still have to tell people this.
I assume that guy was the arab who owns the gas station... Imagine owning a small bisiness in a neighborhood like that
 
OP
ßöмßäяðîëя
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #371,994
    It depends on what it is. In this case, the enjoyability and safety of driving is inversely proportional to the amount of people on the road, and even moreso to the amount of people that aren't good at driving on the road.

    Also, I wouldn't consider it exclusive by removing people that do dumb shit, such as attempting to race each other on a packed city highway in some loud bullshit muscle car while swerving through traffic.
    By definition, that's exclusive.

    I'm super down with upping the Standards, either at the State or Federal level, but the more you keep from driving, the less tax revenue you'll have and the more people you will have to account for public transportation. People aren't going to just stop driving/commuting because you asked them not to.
     

    AFL_ITALIA

    MAGISTERIAL
    Jun 17, 2011
    31,813
    By definition, that's exclusive.

    I'm super down with upping the Standards, either at the State or Federal level, but the more you keep from driving, the less tax revenue you'll have and the more people you will have to account for public transportation. People aren't going to just stop driving/commuting because you asked them not to.
    I don't see it as any more exclusive than I do arresting someone for theft or assault. The other week I saw some guy stop at a red light, then just blow through it out of nowhere because he wanted to save 0.5 seconds by stopping at the next light maybe 100 feet away. If that quickly oncoming car wasn't turning at the intersection, he would've caused an accident. That man shouldn't be driving, he can't handle it.

    Of course. Here specifically there are plenty of 24/7 transportation options. They should absolutely be better, but this country's attitude towards public transportation needs to be changed to begin with.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,665
    By definition, that's exclusive.

    I'm super down with upping the Standards, either at the State or Federal level, but the more you keep from driving, the less tax revenue you'll have and the more people you will have to account for public transportation. People aren't going to just stop driving/commuting because you asked them not to.
    Investing in public transportation would be a good thing.
     
    OP
    ßöмßäяðîëя
    Apr 12, 2004
    77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #371,998
    Investing in public transportation would be a good thing.
    No, it wouldn't.

    In Chicago, and NYC, and ATL, and Oklahoma City, where there are larger tax bases to support that, sure. To say blankly "it's a good thing" is true on its face, but there is no way there is enough financial support for that to be true across the United States as a whole. Especially when a large percentage of them already operate at a deficit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't see it as any more exclusive than I do arresting someone for theft or assault. The other week I saw some guy stop at a red light, then just blow through it out of nowhere because he wanted to save 0.5 seconds by stopping at the next light maybe 100 feet away. If that quickly oncoming car wasn't turning at the intersection, he would've caused an accident. That man shouldn't be driving, he can't handle it.

    Of course. Here specifically there are plenty of 24/7 transportation options. They should absolutely be better, but this country's attitude towards public transportation needs to be changed to begin with.
    Well, you said earlier "remove people who do dumb shit." So, are you talking about crimes, driving violations, or just plain idiocy? If it's crimes or driving violations, you're talking about having them excluded from society, so, exclusive there. If you mean, "some people" shouldn't HAVE Driver's Licenses, then you are talking about either raising the standards, or being exclusionary by restriction of rights/privileges by some other metric.

    My point is, if you have X population doing something, and you enact rules, laws, or standards to make that population X-1, then it's exclusive by definition.
     
    Last edited:

    AFL_ITALIA

    MAGISTERIAL
    Jun 17, 2011
    31,813
    No, it wouldn't.

    In Chicago, and NYC, and ATL, and Oklahoma City, where there are larger tax bases to support that, sure. To say blankly "it's a good thing" is true on its face, but there is no way there is enough financial support for that to be true across the United States as a whole. Especially when a large percentage of them already operate at a deficit.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Well, you said earlier "remove people who do dumb shit." So, are you talking about crimes, driving violations, or just plain idiocy? If it's crimes or driving violations, you're talking about having them excluded from society, so, exclusive there. If you mean, "some people" shouldn't HAVE Driver's Licenses, then you are talking about either raising the standards, or being exclusionary by restriction of rights/privileges by some other metric.

    My point is, if you have X population doing something, and you enact rules, laws, or standards to make that population X-1, then it's exclusive by definition.
    Fine then, it is exclusionary. It still would be beneficial.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 232)