Your assumptions clinging is staggering. Thank Reason that you put '(?)' preliminary marks - that you do not then follow.
> was that the EU itself needs to be entirely abolished
No, I wrote "should never have been born". Abolishing it does not remove the immense damages it caused. You are keeping your analytical processes very loose.
> If you apply that same standard, do you think cessation is what
Of course comparable cases entail comparable judgements?! But the USA, for example, about the destruction of cars the eu perpetrated, install 4-cylinder engines in the same models that in the eu are sold with 3-cylinders to stay within the regulations. So, not specifically comparable in the destructive effort, nor in the effect.
> []
Bad system, powerful entities that are systemically faulty hence damaging, must not be let into activity. As simple as this in principle - it is just logically self-contained.
That translates to "capillary education, to the point of fixing structural systemic issues", measure needed generations ago.
We have damages now. The car systems destroyed. How would we be able to fix that, to revert from that and the rest of the damages - which they are carrying on perpetrating as we speak, inventing new.
This is not any more a matter of prevention, it is a matter of fixing the past and preventing the future predictable damages.
That offensive law (every car owner must keep a breathalizer item in the vehicle ready for use) was famous in the "issued but not enforced" category.
But the mandate to keep "equipment" in the car is very different from kill-switches depending on sensors and embedded in electronics - the poster seems to have meant this.
Did they? That makes a good amount of difference, you know. Especially when "they" may be a vocal exception.
> How is this supposed to prove anything
Prove what. Nothing seems to be disproven.
Edit: look, if you were trying to negate a "bad A" through an "(also) bad B", review and revise your logic. Which is important because that non-argument has been exploited to bend the political opinion of street-rubes to CEO-rubes for the past few years ("Bad Springfield hence [...] not bad Vernapool").
It is shocking that idle bets, nothing but after dinner games, are confused with assessments. It is not too different from confusing opinions and arguments in debates.
If you predict an event E the juice is in the reasons that make it possible, and in the hurdles and dynamics that might make that not happen. (That is especially bewildering as it disregards the influence of the paper, as if separated from the world it comments about.)
There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").
Another piece that instigates a depreciation of humanity.
Is this "charlton" implying that humanity would be a decent, accomplished thing, as an inside-the-box actor? Maybe consumerist live-and-die animals? What does it mean "to act predictably" as a praise there? That clashes radically with the aim towards Intelligence.
Another piece that provides sketchy as-if-unprocessed notes but leaves confused and disturbed about the juice.
And how come this Australian administration seems to send the most "antipodic" messages, such as that idea of locking Wikipedia and search engines?
--
Edit: could not find the said "speech at Sidney". I am trying to find the source to get what the message must have been, clean of the odd suggestions.
But this seems to be an interesting presentation for "Dr. Charlton, MP":
I insist. It cannot be about broken cars, because there would be a large number of them.
The Nissan Leaf cars I experienced are not silent at all - it does not matter if it is the motor or another part of the system, or if it is the additional noise that was mandated legally because they were deemed too silent. Similarly, its Peugeot "twin" is "whaaa" whining, and so are the hybrid Jeep Renegade, and many others (as I was writing another reply nearby a Lexus) that had me turn in the street and address the drivers with impatience.
Is it possible instead that you have no noise sensitivity for that noise? Or maybe - that makes no sense but - if I pointed you to that noise you would be surprised that some find that a foreground in perception? Because it is really bewildering that you call those cars silent - they are the opposite. A large number of electric or hybrid cars produce a whining "whaaa", a sort of synth chord, loud with a filter-pass in an abominably annoying band. I think I even heard one with a fake ICE noise (an imitation), but still a coloured timbre (not a natural noise but a synth with a perceptible note) in that same band.
And the explanations you mention really make no sense: the beeps of the backup-alert noise - which we all know were mandated because the vehicles were supposed to be too quiet - are intermittent, whereas the whine is continuous.
(The vehicles were supposed to be too quiet, so they mandated extra noises. Some of them are guessed to be nerve wracking - which is also normal in societies that have lost their natural sense.)
But look: it is absolutely impossible that I can confuse an electric car noise with that of an ICE - and it is out of question that you can allege that.
Maybe ask other people whether they hear noise from electric or low-speed hybrid cars. Really, ask other people.
Edit: at this point I thought I could sample one - but I am sure they could be found on YouTube etc., there should be no need. ... I checked: it's full of them samples.
I am very certain I am talking about electrical and hybrid vehicles. The first one that had me aghast was a Nissan Leaf. Today, too many. Obviously I cannot confuse them with ICE ("brooom").
The point about the "whining possibly-engine" comes from a chat with a friend, where I said that they had decided to really use the most annoying overlapped noises to make the cars audible: he replied, those are not the additional noises, but the "noises from the engine" (probably from the whole system). I don't know.
> silence is objective
The electrical and hybrid vehicles I witnessed are very far from silent (save for the bicycles - I can't assess them, too little experience). As expressed, to us those noises - running noises and operational noises - are annoying to a whole new level.
It could be translated to "Frank Zappa is remarkably lucid".