227
submitted 8 months ago by mondoman712@lemmy.ml to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Except that wasn't the question asked:

"People shouldn’t smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes.” Then they were asked to respond to a parallel statement about driving: “People shouldn’t drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes.”

All it asks is whether people "shouldn't" do x. If I understand people must do x, I'm not gonna say they "shouldn't" just because I'm aware it has side-effects.

Furthermore, I went through the actual study and honestly the other questions are not any better. I'd say this study proves precisely nothing about car brain.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't recall reading comments on any article that mentions study results where there isn't someone doing exactly this. If I'm to believe comments like yours, no legitimate study has ever been reported on

When any study is reported on, suddenly every Internet user is an excellent judge of what constitutes a good study.

Curious, are you a scientist or some other authority on such matters? Seriously want to know.

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

If you follow your logic to its full conclusion, you're essentially saying

  1. You believe all dissenting opinions and thus all studies are invalid
  2. You believe no dissenting opinions and thus all studies are valid

This is not a very useful line of thinking. The existence of dissent over most studies does not mean all the dissent is invalid.

As for your other question, no I'm not a scientist, just a student

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I don't follow this. I supposed to pick one or are both opposing views true at once?

What I'm actually saying is that it would be nice, if literally once in life, a study offered a conclusion and that was that. Sometimes it weighs on the soul to think that all information is potentially false and that no source can be trusted.

I am all for questioning data and finding the truth. But as I said, the fact that it's never a thing that everyone can agree on literally anything, is exhausting.

[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

The idea that they must do x is the normativity they're testing. You must drive a car isn't an absolutely true statement, it's an assumption you make based off your experiences, but many people do fine without a car.

Just like the statement a man must date a woman isn't true. It may be true for you who are heterosexual and for everyone you know who is dating but it's not absolutely true. So questions like should a man be able to marry another man may seem wrong to someone who "understands" men can only be romantic with women but that's a false assumption. That normativity and those assumptions then hurt people who live outside those norms.

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

Sure but that proves nothing beyond that people think it's more necessary to drive through certain areas rather than smoke there. It's not indicative of any special car brain.

this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
227 points (94.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9804 readers
13 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS