Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "The War On Cars | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. "[Cars] allow us to go whereever we want, whenever we want, with whomever we want. Think about it. With trains, planes, and buses the routes are planned, and the schedule is timed. Only cars allow you to be spontaneous." True. Up to a point. As long as you are talking about someone who is not too young or too old, too disabled, or otherwise not able to have a driver's licence, or too poor to own a car. Public transport allows almost all of those people to get around. A blind person cannot drive a car, but they can use public transport. The video looks at the advantages of cars and the disadvantages of public transport, but not the other way around. Both have their limitations and their benefits. Further, too much emphasis on cars means that public transport is poor, which limits opportunities for those who can't drive. The video also talks about the money that governments spend on public transport to get people out of their cars, but igores the money that governments spend on roads for those cars. Think of it this way: You have trains built and maintained by private companies running on tracks built and maintained by those same (or other) private companies, and you have cars running on roads, including expensive freeways, paid for by the government/taxpayers. So despite calling for the free market to operate, the video is actually calling for government support for the motorist, often at the expense of the private (railway) companies. "Personal car ownership is part of America's fabric. It brings people together and makes this big country seem a little smaller, and more free." Actually, the railways did that first. And people travelling together on public transport seems to do a better job of "bringing people together" than having them all isolated in their own separate vehicles. Having said all that, I'm not defending the push for electric cars, attempts to ban cars, etc. Both cars and public transport have their place, and yes, ideally the market should operate freely, but government support for cars by building roads undermines that. (This comment written in Australian English.)
    88
  2.  @user-ov9m54hj1b  "...all I was saying is that restricting people’s access to cars is not giving them more transport options." True. But restricting people's access to public transport is also not giving them more transport options either. And with limited government funds to go around, a choice has to be made on where to spend those funds. This video argues that these things should be decided by the free market, a principle I completely support. But although it says that should be the case, what it's actually arguing is that government funds should be spent on supporting motorists, by providing roads. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't provide roads, but you can't argue that is should be the free market deciding and want government support at the same time. If you want government support (roads), you have to accept that the government might choose to spend some of its limited funds on alternatives, i.e. public transport, which, after all, does a better job of providing options in some circumstances. As such, your first claim that "it's not about cars vs public transport" is wrong. You can't have both to an unlimited extent. There needs to be a balance, and if you're wanting government funds, well, you need to accept that there is only so much pie to go around.
    6
  3. If we all use cars (which we can't do, by the way), we are dependent on government-provided roads. So your point is...?
    4
  4. "...go look up our population density. It’s ranked among the lowest in the world..." Good suggestion. So I did. The U.S.' population density is 35.71 persons per square kilometre. Australia's is 3 persons per square kilometre. And yet I would think that Australia has better public transport than most of the U.S. That kind of blows your argument.
    2
  5.  @Styxswimmer  I'm not sure what the Roman roads (in Europe only) have to do with this. It's not strictly true that public transport only makes predestined stops. Taxis don't, and some bus services don't. The same with timetables. Further, some services are frequent enough that the timetable is not a limitation. "If you have a vehicle you go where you want, when you want." Not if you are too young too old, or otherwise able to drive a car (e.g. blind people). Public transport is available to all those people, unlike cars. See my main comment in this thread (should be near the top if you sort by Top Comments. It goes into more detail. "Stop being a mindless, govt stooge" How about you stop with the false presumptions and insults? We might have a better conversation. And given that the government provides roads which you are supporting (my point that you avoided answering), why aren't you the government stooge?
    2
  6.  @ATLMike94  I, for one, like PragerU videos, and would reject that I'm not too smart. However, I am objective enough to criticise this particular video despite agreeing with most of the rest of their videos. Liking PragerU videos does not mean that one is not too smart.
    2
  7.  @ATLMike94  Oh I see the conservative bias. But what's wrong with that? It's not a matter of whether you're biased or not, but which bias makes the more sense. Conservatives views generally do. People who think that they are neutral are the ones who don't see the bias. They tend to be those who live in a bubble, which is particularly the case with many on the left.
    2
  8.  @ATLMike94  "this video is literally considered propaganda, by definition." Simply false. What definition are you using: "PragerU: noun: propaganda". Sorry, but that's not a real definition. "If you don't see anything wrong with a biased channel making biased educational videos ...." As I said, what's wrong with a correct bias? You haven't said. You seem to be assuming that anything conservative is automatically wrong. Sorry, but you'll have to demonstrate that, not merely assert it. And recognise your own bias. "I don't have anything to say about it" They why are you saying things about it? A person with nothing to say but saying it anyway is not very helpful.
    1
  9.  @ATLMike94  "Propaganda - information, especially of a biased [snipped]" Yes. I didn't see "this video" or "PragerU" in that definition. Sure, information of a biased or misleading nature can be called propaganda, but it doesn't follow that this video is propaganda "by definition". "Being blatantly biased and having bias are two different concepts you can't seem to understand." And yet you don't explain that distinction. Are you basing that on the word "blatantly" or something else. Because I don't see the distinction between "being biased" and "having bias". They seem to me to be the same thing. "Thanks for proving my point about PragerU subscribers not being too smart." Except that I've done no such thing. "f course everything has bias but a real journalist or educator doesn't purposely present things in an opinionated, biased manner." Not strictly correct (unless a "real journalist or educator" is, by definition, one that is not biased), but ignoring that, you haven't shown that this video "purposely" presents itself that way. What's your evidence? "If you're going to watch PragerU at least watch left leaning channels as well to balance it out." Funny man! Most of the mainstream media and government education systems are left-leaning. It's difficult to avoid left-leaning sources. It's people on the left who should seek out conservative sources to get balance! "Too much of a conservative bias isn't good whether you think it's the "correct bias" or not." Given that conservative views are not infallible, I'll agree. But as I've pointed out already, it's mainly the left that lives in a bubble. See for example the video "bindi changes mind, bindi gets banned".
    1