General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

Dan, “violence has historically been effective repeatedly in achieving ends” is an inane nonsense statement. It doesn’t even make sense because the scope of the violence, purpose, and results is so fucking broad. But, please, show me sources that back up the idea that violence is effective at changing policy in a democracy. And note, effective doesn’t mean has worked before. It means that it works well and for a reasonable cost/benefit versus other avenues.

And if you think you understand climate change policy and have come to the conclusion that you need to convince SUV drivers to not drive SUVs you absolutely don’t understand the problem.  Both the human/policy problem and the climate change problem.

Alright, here, I'll post this video...for the third time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4G1Gjv7bA&ab_channel=PhilosophyTube

By the way, calling a statement "inane nonsense" doesn't help. You can make legitimate complaints "it's broad and lacks context" which is true, but that doesn't make a statement "inane" or "nonsense".

And I think if you understand climate policy (and road safety policy for that matter) and you have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't bother convincing SUV drivers to drive smaller vehicles, you absolutely do not understand the problem. The climate emergency (and road safety) will not be solved by one solution, we need EVERY solution.

(For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).