@NoMoreNicksLeft, the other responses cvan be ignored for now.. Consolidating things into one message, I say this: I find your answers very interesting, if anything because to me they seem completely irrational. That is just to say I do not understand why you are saying what you are, nor am I even really aware of _any_ examples that would adequately back it up. That is my perspective so far (not up for debate, it is a statement of my perception).
> "We're not coming for your X!" is the lead-in
What exactly are you afraid would be that X? We are talking about restricting a quarter mile, a single downtown square block from vehicle traffic and letting people walk in the streets. Is that X possible "your car", and do you plausibly think that allowing a few sections of downtown road become pedestrian zones would then lead to your car being seized from you somehow? Serious question. Can you walk through how that would happen step by step?
> I did speak for myself. I explained why this doesn't work for me, why I have no interest in it, and how there are millions of other people who will agree with me unless you find a way to deceive them.
(A) this is a contradictory statement as you are already assuming there are millions that agree with you. (B) You stated that "literally the rest of us", which also is speaking for a lot people other than yourself.
Where my issue is really with this statement is the complete 'othering' aspect. Are you sure that everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or has been deceived? Every single one of them? And in no case does that describe any of your points of view? (As an aside, I do often wonder what things I think about others actually do also apply to myself. I think it's a healthy exercise). As far as the hacker new commentary guidelines, we are to explore the reasons for disagreement. So far you've called anyone that has disagreed with you as simply stupid. This strikes me as both arrogant and narrow minded. Perhaps you are simply unaware of things that make other people think otherwise.
I'll end with mentioning that admins have banned this thread. I'm not the only one that thinks you're not in the spirit of hacker news. I regret a bit that I don't actually understand how you've explained the way you feel, and it is a perspective I would like to learn more about.
> "We're not coming for your X!" is the lead-in
What exactly are you afraid would be that X? We are talking about restricting a quarter mile, a single downtown square block from vehicle traffic and letting people walk in the streets. Is that X possible "your car", and do you plausibly think that allowing a few sections of downtown road become pedestrian zones would then lead to your car being seized from you somehow? Serious question. Can you walk through how that would happen step by step?
> I did speak for myself. I explained why this doesn't work for me, why I have no interest in it, and how there are millions of other people who will agree with me unless you find a way to deceive them.
(A) this is a contradictory statement as you are already assuming there are millions that agree with you. (B) You stated that "literally the rest of us", which also is speaking for a lot people other than yourself.
Where my issue is really with this statement is the complete 'othering' aspect. Are you sure that everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or has been deceived? Every single one of them? And in no case does that describe any of your points of view? (As an aside, I do often wonder what things I think about others actually do also apply to myself. I think it's a healthy exercise). As far as the hacker new commentary guidelines, we are to explore the reasons for disagreement. So far you've called anyone that has disagreed with you as simply stupid. This strikes me as both arrogant and narrow minded. Perhaps you are simply unaware of things that make other people think otherwise.
I'll end with mentioning that admins have banned this thread. I'm not the only one that thinks you're not in the spirit of hacker news. I regret a bit that I don't actually understand how you've explained the way you feel, and it is a perspective I would like to learn more about.