|
Free TTC on NYE thanks to Charles Kabouth and Nick Di Donato (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| evil_cookie |
Wow what the is going on here.
I see a lot of people using the word "logic" without employing it; or knowing what it means for that matter.
Let me get this straight:
1.If public transportation is free then lives are saved because there are less drunk drivers
2.Public transpiration is not free
:Therefore lives are lost because there are more drunk drivers
What kind of backward ass logic is this? First of all, it's fallacious to say if
p --> q
~p
:Therefore ~q
You're denying the antecedent. Not only that, by saying that: drivers are just waiting for to take the TCC to be safer but they just can't afford it, you’re committing another fallacy:
1.If public transportation is expensive(not free) then drivers cannot afford to take it and so they have to drive drunk
2.Drivers are driving drunk
: Therefore the TCC is too expensive (not free)
In this case, you're affirming the consequent. Who the hell owns a car, pays for insurance and all that, but cannot afford to take the bus?
All of you need to stop bashing El K Dee with your non-existing "logic" because none of you are being logical in the slightest mean. Oh, and by merely using the word "logic" in your sentence doesn't somehow affirm your bizarre and entirely postulated claims. |
|
|
| Stilez |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Wow what the is going on here.
I see a lot of people using the word "logic" without employing it; or knowing what it means for that matter.
Let me get this straight:
1.If public transportation is free then lives are saved because there are less drunk drivers
2.Public transpiration is not free
:Therefore lives are lost because there are more drunk drivers
What kind of backward ass logic is this? First of all, it's fallacious to say if
p --> q
~p
:Therefore ~q
You're denying the antecedent. Not only that, by saying that: drivers are just waiting for to take the TCC to be safer but they just can't afford it, you’re committing another fallacy:
1.If public transportation is expensive(not free) then drivers cannot afford to take it and so they have to drive drunk
2.Drivers are driving drunk
: Therefore the TCC is too expensive (not free)
In this case, you're affirming the consequent. Who the hell owns a car, pays for insurance and all that, but cannot afford to take the bus?
All of you need to stop bashing El K Dee with your non-existing "logic" because none of you are being logical in the slightest mean. Oh, and by merely using the word "logic" in your sentence doesn't somehow affirm your bizarre and entirely postulated claims. |
interesting.
to add, most of us will easily spend $100 that night, I highly doubt $2.75 would be that big of a stretch to get home responsibly. Regardless, great gesture and pr for Charles and all involved. Now, open all night... that would be awesome. Most people won't be leaving the Guv. until the trains have stopped running anyways. |
|
|
| Intangible |
This is how I see it...
Its just a PROMOTION for getting somewhere safe. It is no different than when a retailer offers 10% off a pair of jeans, people can afford to pay full price, but it is a promotion to buy at that time.
If this promotion did not occur many people would not even consider taking the TTC, but now some people will.
It not only promotes the use of the TTC for NYE but safe driving in general. It shows that Toronto cares. It brings attention to drunk driving. It gets people thinking.
Hopefully this will reduce the number of drunk drivers as well as the amount of traffic.
Where I live I can get to nearly every club for around $10. If I have 4 people in the cab it works out to be the same price per person as taking the TTC. So this option is cheaper for many people that have to take a cab for NYE.... not saving lives, but reducing the cluster traffic nightmare.
I think its a brilliant move for the companies who donated the money. Great PR. |
|
|
| InfiniteEclipse |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Wow what the is going on here.
I see a lot of people using the word "logic" without employing it; or knowing what it means for that matter.
Let me get this straight:
1.If public transportation is free then lives are saved because there are less drunk drivers
2.Public transpiration is not free
:Therefore lives are lost because there are more drunk drivers
What kind of backward ass logic is this? First of all, it's fallacious to say if
p --> q
~p
:Therefore ~q
You're denying the antecedent. Not only that, by saying that: drivers are just waiting for to take the TCC to be safer but they just can't afford it, you’re committing another fallacy:
1.If public transportation is expensive(not free) then drivers cannot afford to take it and so they have to drive drunk
2.Drivers are driving drunk
: Therefore the TCC is too expensive (not free)
In this case, you're affirming the consequent. Who the hell owns a car, pays for insurance and all that, but cannot afford to take the bus?
All of you need to stop bashing El K Dee with your non-existing "logic" because none of you are being logical in the slightest mean. Oh, and by merely using the word "logic" in your sentence doesn't somehow affirm your bizarre and entirely postulated claims. |
I concur. It appears as though people are negating the contraceptive without first switching the terms. A critical flaw in logical reasoning, yet amusingly ironic.
I also agree that while there lies potential for great benefit, there is an undeniable motive behind the act itself. As Time2Burn suggested; its a smart PR move...however, considering the contribution, I'd personally grant them any profit that may seem fit - fiscal or otherwise. I think this is inline with El K Dee's perspective. |
|
|
| gummybear |
I'm not sure but would this donation be tax deductible?
In any case..it's a good thing..it's not the second coming of anything or the philanthropist act of the year....there are obvious gains that go beyond just wanting to lend a helping hand to the city..some of you have eloquently expressed those...
I just don't see it making a big huge difference..the people that were not going to drive..won't drive..and the one's that were going to..aren't going to now decide they won't drive because they can save 6 bucks...but these are things that we can never really measure..
so in the end.....anything free for the people can only be good..:)
other than that..it's a big MEH for me...
now..Honest Ed giving away free Turkeys for Christmas..that's something that I can get behind.......(may he RIP) |
|
|
| Frenchie |
| All this commotion for ONE day/night? Jesus Christ on a bike. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Wow what the is going on here.
I see a lot of people using the word "logic" without employing it; or knowing what it means for that matter.
Let me get this straight:
1.If public transportation is free then lives are saved because there are less drunk drivers
2.Public transpiration is not free
:Therefore lives are lost because there are more drunk drivers
What kind of backward ass logic is this? First of all, it's fallacious to say if
p --> q
~p
:Therefore ~q
You're denying the antecedent. Not only that, by saying that: drivers are just waiting for to take the TCC to be safer but they just can't afford it, you’re committing another fallacy:
1.If public transportation is expensive(not free) then drivers cannot afford to take it and so they have to drive drunk
2.Drivers are driving drunk
: Therefore the TCC is too expensive (not free)
In this case, you're affirming the consequent. Who the hell owns a car, pays for insurance and all that, but cannot afford to take the bus?
All of you need to stop bashing El K Dee with your non-existing "logic" because none of you are being logical in the slightest mean. Oh, and by merely using the word "logic" in your sentence doesn't somehow affirm your bizarre and entirely postulated claims. |
Ah, first year logic. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
I see a lot of people using the word "logic" without employing it; or knowing what it means for that matter. |
As much a fan as I am of laborious logical reasoning, and your argument is certainly sound, I believe it would be faster to sum it up thusly:
Drunk drivers don't get behind the wheel because they are broke or cheap. They drive because their judgment is impaired to the extent of being unaware of their own impairment. The likelihood of a $2.50 handout convincing anyone to take the bus who would otherwise drive is minuscule.
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
It brings attention to drunk driving. |
I don't know about you, but drunk driving as well as stoned/fatigued/distracted driving is very painfully brought to my attention virtually every time I go out on the road. If there is anyone in Toronto who needs a campaign to realize or remember that impaired driving is a serious and rampant problem, I can only hope that he/she doesn't actually own a car.
| quote: | Originally posted by InfiniteEclipse
negating the contraceptive |
:haha:
Wow. |
|
|
| Frenchie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Ah, first year logic. |
The first version of this post was funnier. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frenchie
All this commotion for ONE day/night? Jesus Christ on a bike. |
No, Jesus Christ on a bus, apparently. Who bikes in this weather? |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Ah, first year logic. |
You're right, this is elementary logic--maybe we should resume the thread the way it was, with someone saying:
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
your mother must not have loved you enough, because i can't think of any
other reason for you turning out to be such a cynical, pathetic idiot. |
maintained by your ingenious reasoning of:
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
lol.
+1
|
Yup, first year logic alright. Something that is entirely absent in any argument previously put forth against El K Dee's argument - summed up concisely:
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Drunk drivers don't get behind the wheel because they are broke or cheap. They drive because their judgment is impaired to the extent of being unaware of their own impairment. The likelihood of a $2.50 handout convincing anyone to take the bus who would otherwise drive is minuscule.
|
It sucks when you can't dismiss arguments based on jumping on the bandwagon or employing an imaginary standard of reasoning eh Skipper? |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by El K Dee
i dont need a car where I live
and about being poor...maybe i dont need a car where I live?
|
yet you are complaining about free public transport, something that would benefit you.
i'll have fries with that. |
|
|
|
|
