576
City roads should be ‘ripped out completely’ to fight pollution, says government adviser
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
576 points (93.6% liked)
Fuck Cars
9625 readers
644 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's literally the title.
I can't even understand down voting this, unless you're delusional.
Oh, you're basing your opinions on fact-twisting headlines of right-wing "newspapers", instead of, you know, reading the actual article where even they have to paint the picture just a liiittle bit differently.
You do understand the difference between "removing roads completely" and "removing all roads", right?
What do you think the distinction is, in this context?
Yeah, I can help you with that: "removing roads completely" does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially.
"Removing all roads" on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many.
There, that was easy, wasn't it?
This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That's what this article is about.
So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense.
Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋
PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit.
Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about.
Are you lost? Did you read the article?
https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196
Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people?
Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did.
Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article?
Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e
"completely" is a quantifier.
You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension.
🥱
https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm
https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196
What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier.
And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source.
A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard.
See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story.
I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article.
No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point.
One of the roads near my house was removed completely.
All roads near my house were removed completely.
Two different implications, no?
Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that's why I read articles (usually) before commenting.
There is a difference between roads and streets.
And which one is it that you think is being proposed to be "ripped out completely" in this article?
Based on your link, I believe in this context it is 'streets'.
Well, just go back and read my arguments, and then recognize that all of them apply to 'streets', and that making the distinction between 'streets' and 'roads' does not weaken my arguments in any way.
Try a different approach, something besides pedantry.
Well, the expert is proposing to rip out roads - so my first guess would be they mean roads, not streets.
By the definition in your link, a 'road' would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are 'streets'.
The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about 'streets', by your definition.
Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours.
Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively".