• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle







  • ramjambamalam@lemmy.catoFuck Cars@lemmy.worldAn old comic still relevant
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    least their use case is part of their employment, and not part of their entirely optional entertainment.

    And if they’re driving to an entertainment event, like say a concert, a vacation, or a park, is that any better than me going for a drive for the sake of going for a pleasure cruise of equal distance? Keep in mind that my sports car is no gas guzzler. It gets the same fuel economy as an average, mid-sized sedan, and better than an average SUV or truck which dominate our roads.


  • I’m happy to spend my carbon budget on an occasional Sunday cruise with the top down on a sunny afternoon, rather than overseas holidays, excessive consumption, etc. I don’t commute by car, I ride my bike as much as possible, and I advocate for improved public transit infrastructure in my community, which all have a far greater impact than my ~460 kg/year of CO2 from my joyrides.

    Isn’t the more significant problem that the 98% of motorists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the driving experience, are effectively forced to drive when they could be taking alternative transport, if the infrastructure supported it?

    Please, for the love of God, quadruple the carbon tax and invest it all in public transit, so that cars are treated like the luxury they should be.


  • ramjambamalam@lemmy.catoFuck Cars@lemmy.worldAn old comic still relevant
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Au contraire, my Fuck Cars fellow. A sports car’s agile handling and peppy acceleration are enjoyable even at street legal speeds. They are of course most enjoyable when driven nearer to the limits at a track, but most stock “sports cars” require some modifications to be reliably driven under such intense conditions.






  • By your definition of harm, no artist creating non-material goods (books, movies, music, etc) could ever experience harm due to any one individual’s actions. “I was never going to pay, so taking it without paying is a victim less crime,” etc, etc.

    False. I acknowledge that there could be harm if a consumer would otherwise be able to afford to pay for all of the music they listen to. The distinction here is that if a consumer is already spending as much as they can truly afford then artists aren’t going to get any more money out of this consumer, regardless of whether or not they pay for it.

    In other words: if you pirate because you must = no harm; if you pirate because you can = some harm.

    That’s an interesting thought experiment about the cheating spouse, though. Thank you for the interesting perspective! This makes me want to re-visit my philosophy notes.

    For the record, I pay for Spotify and also support artists through Bandcamp, merch, vinyl, and live concerts. I also pirate music which isn’t otherwise available through Spotify and/or Bandcamp (e.g. The Grey Album by Danger Mouse, and up until recently The Flamingo Trigger by Foxy Shazam) and don’t feel guilty about those instances.