• Ilovethebomb
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Uhh, what? The fact that the other option doesn’t exist is no excuse?

    • DaveMA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to summarise this comment chain so far:

      Article: 93% of freight is moved by road, we should try to diversify

      You: All this article does it highlight problems, what’s the point in that?

      Other commenter: Highlighting problems is a point in and of itself, but they actually suggested many ways to improve the situation

      You: Taking some freight on rail is “moronic” when we can build temporary road bridges when they get washed away

      Other commenter: Rail is an option to add to the mix, the article is suggesting we do a mix of options

      You: There’s no point in putting any freight on rail, since there are some places rail doesn’t go to

      Other commenter: Just because rail doesn’t go everywhere doesn’t mean we can’t diversify some freight onto rail

      You: The railway lines don’t exist so we can’t put freight on them

      You are using strawman arguments and seem to be deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting the responses you get. This is a place for good faith discussion, if you’re not going to actually read the responses you’re replying to it would be better if you didn’t reply at all.

      • Ilovethebomb
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And you say I’m using strawman arguments? Grow up dave, and stop defending half arsed journalism.