No. I posted what government is like...

I am sure MY experience isn't LIKE others. But THAT doesn't matter. The nature of the beast doesn't change from one location to the other. You're missing my point.


No.
Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

You think religion is arbitrary? I am NOT familiar with YOUR concepts of religion. Maybe that is why you fail to see the common references I make. Many cultures past and present worship in many different ways. Most trendy environmental practices fit within what is recognized as a religion. That IS NOT my idea!

I never said that. I did however post that I don't see the difference. I just don't have a "vision" of the future.... that you apparently think you have. Things change... always have, always will. I do not have magical powers which would allow me to know which future change will be positive or negative.

I can't even image what would be a motivation to get out of bed in the morning.... in a world centered/concerned on what they are "against".

I'm trying to understand it; because if there is some aspect of government that makes it resistant to rationality, I would want to consider how to overcome that. I don't think we can discuss that here, though, without getting the thread bumped to P&R, which may be your point, idk.

Yes, I understand the definition of the word. But you could say it's pragmatic to shift some amount of the population away from driving rather than investing/wasting excessive resources on the ideal of ubiquitous personal automotive transportation. Then again, automotivists would contend that automotive ubiquity isn't an ideal but a reality and pragmatism is about accepting the reality as such instead of regarding it as a destructive 19th/20th century utopia that has failed in practice.

Either way, 'pragmatism' is relative to what is considered 'ideal' or 'realistic.' What's not relative are things like land use/waste, heat, groundwater runoff, economic costs, human health and free time, etc.

Nothing exists that is not religion/culture/society in some way. The way you talk about environmentalism as a religion implies that it is more subjective than other sciences, which would be thus less religious. Religion really just refers to a certain way of looking at things, i.e. from the perspective of human spirit and morality instead of materiality. Environmentalism refers to recognizing the broader functions and value of natural land features, ecologies, etc. instead of seeing them merely as an impediment to human development.

Apparently your vision of the future is that it will change unpredictably, as will the (cultural) ability to evaluate positivity or negativity in it. I disagree with that. I think you can look at how current patterns will evolve based on certain factors, and you can assess whether it would be better to divert or hold course in various ways. Refusing to focus on reality by chalking off everything to change is sub-accuracy.

Every positive motivation implies a set of factors that obstruct the goal. I agree with you that it is positive to focus on pursuing a goal instead of getting bogged down with hating the obstructions. The challenge, however, is to remain lucid regarding obstructions and negativities that oppose your goal in order to discuss them reasonably instead of reflexively reeling against their existence in order to maintain a positive attitude. If your positive attitude is secured against negativity, you can see the positivity in discussing opposition instead of fighting 'against' it. It is the difference between an observation/problem-solving approach and an approach that assumes observation of problems will inevitably lead to negativity, hate, and destructive impulses instead of constructive discussion and problem-solving.

Simple... remove humans from the management process.

No... I think the word your defining there is fascism

You apparently have some bigotries against religion. Once again... I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word(s) you don't like. I merely use words to commutate. As an adult... I try not to have too much emotional attachment to words. I think you are confusing the word religion... with the word worship.

No. I expect the future to play out pretty much in the same way as the past did. YOU... seem to expect different results from the same species.

Good. (hope you see the humor)

You misquoted me there by leaving out the significant portion of what I wrote in favor of citing a part I wouldn't have said in isolation. That's disrespectful, bad discussion, and intentional miscommunication. If you're going to play dirty, I don't want to play with you.

Sorry. I did that in a poor attempt (apparently) at humor. I meant to leave a smiley. I will edit.

Americans with Diabilities Act (ADA, 1992 was it?) The Elder Bush did us all a nice favor and signed a law requiring more accommodation for persons with disabilities (all kinds).


Persons using a wheelchair or other adaptive mobility device should not be limited in their travels or pursuits by the need for a higher or more expensive level of equipment necessarily.


That's why sloped curbs and added sidewalks are often added and in fact covered in road bills and other funding for cities and states. What you may consider ugly or detracting is a great service to others for whom it gives the opportunity to participate and recreate, adding to the vitality and pleasure of a life.


These places are for all people.

The problem is you can't pave a sidewalk everywhere, so it makes sense to work on improving off-pavement mobility for wheelchair users as well as paving good sidewalks where that is appropriate.

I am not bothered by sidewalks along roads at all. In fact, I am a strong supporter of them as I feel that everyone should be encouraged to walk along or otherwise traverse any paved corridor without worrying about colliding with motor-vehicles, and with a minimum of nuisance due to the noise they cause.

The places I think would be better left unpaved are trails with a rural, natural, or historical character. While some such places can be paved for easy access using normal mobility devices, I think there should also be unpaved trails, and I don't see why it wouldn't be generally beneficial to make off-pavement mobility devices within reach of potential users.

If my suggestion about off-pavement devices came across as an excuse to exclude people at first, that's unfortunate. My intent was to suggest greater inclusion could be achieved by improving off-pavement mobility, which in turn would make it easier to justify leaving currently unpaved trails unpaved.

Some trails are better paved for everyone involved, including cyclists and wheelchair users, but other trails are better left unpaved for walking/hiking, but also off-pavement wheelchairs. I don't see why that shouldn't be something to aspire to.

It's because you let everybody else vote. Basically, it's simply all your fault.

Now that is funny I don't care who you are!