• themusicman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, “all roads” is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      sure it could technically be interpreted that way

      How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?

      More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity

      Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?

      the outrage you exhibit.

      projection, or else hyperbolae

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ripped out completely as in actually remove them

          Yes, that’s how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.