Home · Maps · About
Home > BusChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:48:01 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 13:42:21 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Me: If that is the case, there was no point in your statement since you are only referring to a minority of the cases unless you believe the majority of traffic is on streets with synchronized signals which is not the case either.

You: Good for you! You realized one of the many fallacies of your statement on your own! And where did I say that it was a majority anyway?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth once again to give the misleading impression you are correct when it is plain obvious that you are incorrect.

I made the point that the lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed if people abide by the new lower limit. You countered that saying it wasn't the case. When I asked you to explain, you gave the example of synchronized signals. The assumption I made which you later stated was incorrect was that most signals are synchronized.

So I responded that if synchronization is the exception rather than the rule, it really does not matter if signals are synchronized or not when concluding that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed or not.

So therefore you bringing up synchronized signals was just a diversion as are most of the points you bring up so as to avoid discussing the topic at hand. So in conclusion you have offered zero proof to counter my argument that lowering the speed limit lowers average speed.

Instead you make up a lie and state that I realized a major fallacy in my thinking so as to end the discussion proving you are correct.

The only thing you have proved is that you are not willing or capable of having a fair discussion without diverting the subject, bringing up irrelevant points so as to confuse the reader what the subject was. You claim the other person said things he never did and draw erroneous conclusions from that. And if all else fails, you then resort to insults and buzzwords like "conspiracy" in order to discredit the other party.





Responses

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]