| I think there's some miscommunication over the meaning of our words due to the limitations of communicating by text. Maybe we can condense the topic. I suggest distilling it into 4 general areas. Things about which we agree, don't agree, things that bug us, and things we don't know I believe we agree that, (1) People make decisions based on how they feel about something (2) People are influenced by emotion, propaganda, and facts (3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting We don't agree on, (1) Whether facts are facts. You feel this way, I don't. I feel facts aren't meaningful on their own because they're always viewed through a lens, that is, by a person. (2) Whether I care that U/L is in Austin or not. You feel I do, I feel I don't. I'm interested in this discussion as a means of getting to know how people work, particularly, myself. Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are, (1) Putting words in each other's mouths I don't know, (1) Why you care about U/L vs. Austin. I've been making the wrong assumptions. Can you describe your interest? Do you care about both the principle of fingerprinting and the money equally? Why? I want to stop putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry if these sound like dumb questions. Is the above fair to say? How would you define where we agree and disagree? The discussion doesn't need to end, I'm just trying to think of a way to tone it down. I did not set out to dehumanize you. I am sorry for doing that. Obviously you are thoughtful. |
The points stand on their own or they don't.
> Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are, (1) Putting words in each other's mouths
You just discovered that?
But seriously, it's more that you're shooting in the dark when you guess that I'm anti so-and-so. You're looking for an easy win. Ditto the "Respect" angle. Since when did emotion make 2+2 = 5? And if you say it does, you're right that I will disrespect you, but falling back on that in an argument is dishonesty.
> (3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting
I must need to write more clearly. The part I care to discuss is that the people who we elect and pay to guide us are knowingly lying, and spending our money to propagandize to us, then claiming a victory at the polls represents the people's broader will.
Fingerprinting is a non-solution. It's like homeopathic medicine or faith healing. Largely irrelevant in theory, but in practice it prevents real solutions from being tried.
What would make people safer? Well, if there was an actual risk, then logging which vehicle was dispatched to each person would. And having the app phone-home GPS data from the vehicle in realtime. And that's all stuff Uber and Lyft already do.
If rape really was a threat in taxis, etc, then the elected officials have decided to keep subjecting their people to this by forcing out the actual safer option.
By denying actual solutions they're increasing the chance of rape. Why? Because they don't have their name on it. Better ten rapes, one of which the mayor is involved in rescuing, than no rapes at all. You can't claim responsibility for there not being any rapes unless you freak everyone out and are seen doing something, loudly.
The only saving grace is that the threat isn't actually real.