Language Used

If we are going to engage in a controversial subject of conversation where our goal is the ultimate removal of an entire mode of transportation, certainly our enemies will accuse us of engaging in violent rhetoric.

Naturally, it is necessary to use hypothetical and hyperbolic language to make our point, and we would like to presume that anyone reading this would be reading it in good faith - that is, to educate themselves on our positions, so that they may have an internal conversation and reach their own conclusions.

We will rebuke anyone who reads this as a deliberate and overt call for violence, or any criminal act, as dishonest thought criminals, and would urge them to go wait at a red light to calm themselves down.

Arguments Made

There is plenty of measurable and tested evidence we can use in advocacy against the usage of cars. This will appear in these written works, and will be cited when necessary.

That being said, we expect our enemies to accuse us of argumentum ad passiones. They will accuse us of being angry, and of appealing to the anger of those around us. That is, so to speak, the point.

Everybody is angry. People who drive are angry. People who fly are angry. People who bike are angry.

We are angry because we have created an imperfect system that prioritizes dangerous (for a multitude of reasons) machines over the lives and safety and convenience of actual people.

Things Unsaid

There’s lot to be said that isn’t. We will not touch on the greater impact of all technology or our current failing economic models. Although we agree with traditional Marxist views on our current economic system and how intrinsically it ties in with the Militarized-Automobile-Industrial-Complex, we simply don’t yet have the time to write about it. We do consider this document to be a living one, as it were, and prone to update as we see fit.