Oh, you’re basing your opinions on fact-twisting headlines of right-wing “newspapers”, instead of, you know, reading the actual article where even they have to paint the picture just a liiittle bit differently.
You do understand the difference between “removing roads completely” and “removing all roads”, right?
Yeah, I can help you with that: “removing roads completely” does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially.
“Removing all roads” on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many.
A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.
[…]
“We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors."
This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That’s what this article is about.
So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense.
Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋
PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit.
And which one is it that you think is being proposed to be “ripped out completely” in this article?
Based on your link, I believe in this context it is ‘streets’.
Well, just go back and read my arguments, and then recognize that all of them apply to ‘streets’, and that making the distinction between ‘streets’ and ‘roads’ does not weaken my arguments in any way.
Try a different approach, something besides pedantry.
A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns.
Just for starter: “especially” does not mean “exclusively”.
How would you ‘use a van’ if the roads are “ripped out completely”?
You do understand nobody is talking about ripping out all roads everywhere, right?
Right?
It’s literally the title.
I can’t even understand down voting this, unless you’re delusional.
Oh, you’re basing your opinions on fact-twisting headlines of right-wing “newspapers”, instead of, you know, reading the actual article where even they have to paint the picture just a liiittle bit differently.
You do understand the difference between “removing roads completely” and “removing all roads”, right?
What do you think the distinction is, in this context?
Yeah, I can help you with that: “removing roads completely” does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially.
“Removing all roads” on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many.
There, that was easy, wasn’t it?
This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That’s what this article is about.
So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense.
Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋
PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit.
Yes, I continue to “drone on” about the content of the article which this comment section is about.
Are you lost? Did you read the article?
One of the roads near my house was removed completely.
All roads near my house were removed completely.
Two different implications, no?
Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that’s why I read articles (usually) before commenting.
There is a difference between roads and streets.
And which one is it that you think is being proposed to be “ripped out completely” in this article?
Based on your link, I believe in this context it is ‘streets’.
Well, just go back and read my arguments, and then recognize that all of them apply to ‘streets’, and that making the distinction between ‘streets’ and ‘roads’ does not weaken my arguments in any way.
Try a different approach, something besides pedantry.
Well, the expert is proposing to rip out roads - so my first guess would be they mean roads, not streets.
By the definition in your link, a ‘road’ would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are ‘streets’.
The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about ‘streets’, by your definition.
Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours.
Just for starter: “especially” does not mean “exclusively”.