Hacker News Reader

I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their moral stance when nobody asked about it. It is, in fact, not at all relevant to the conversation.

The easiest thing is to stay on topic, wouldn't you agree?

View on HN

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a moral stance for the OP to point out that the most common form of transport is partially responsible for dumping lots of CO2 into the environment, when the discussion is about junctions that prioritise active travel (walking/cycling). In motornormative countries such as the UK/USA (many others too), people are conditioned to only get from A to B via polluting methods (recognising that electric cars produce large amounts of tyre pollution which somewhat offsets their possible lack of fossil fuel use). The use of enlightened designs that work well for the Netherlands is part of the toolkit that we need to change people's mindsets if we can get past all the seductive advertising of the motor industries.

I'd put it as more of a pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint that a moral stance.

I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their self-described "pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint" when nobody asked about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com