Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vexingsilence t1_j7vhz2d wrote

Reply to comment by TarantinoFan23 in Want passenger rail in Manchester? Make your voice heard by PurpleSubtlePlan

You made a sweeping statement that patriots and "true Americans" love paying taxes. That's like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You might love it, plenty of people don't. There are whole businesses devoted to helping people pay the least amount of taxes possible. Does that make them less patriotic or less of an American? That's a slippery slope. If you're not making six figures, you're practically a terrorist?

1

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vj8rw wrote

Tons of people pay no taxes, Its simple. The baffling thing is that people who don't want to pay taxes, yet want money. Those people are selfish and short-sighted. So those are the people thinking wrong, like you are.

3

vexingsilence t1_j7vko81 wrote

No. Not every project is worthy of funding. What kind of argument is that? If someone doesn't see a need for commuter rail, that doesn't make them any less of a "patriot" than someone that does see a need. That's such a disgusting way of debating a topic. Some people want commuter rail, they need to make a compelling argument to convince enough of the voters and their representatives to push the project through. That hasn't happened so far. Expensive projects like this should never get an automatic green light.

1

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vp1fw wrote

But you're in favor of an automatic red light on everything, not much different.

2

vexingsilence t1_j7vq7c2 wrote

I've watched it play out and added my $0.02 in some of the public feedback over the decades that this has been under discussion. That's pretty far from an automatic red light.

That's why there's a proposal to kill the thing. It's dragged on long enough. We need to either build it, or end it. We're wasting time and money letting this proposal drag on forever.

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vrbc3 wrote

Talk is cheap, the only reason to force people to stop is if you think they'll reach a conclusion that you decided you won't like.

Edit: It is actually an insidious tactic to shut down debate just because you've arbitrarily decided "its gone on too long".

3

vexingsilence t1_j7vvyte wrote

It's not a tactic to kill debate, it's a tactic to stop the state and the cities of Nashua and Manchester from dumping money into something that has failed to get off the ground in the ~50+ years that it's been under discussion. How much longer would you like to drag this out for? There's no use in keeping a project in the discussion phase for that long. It's either viable or it's not.

Would you be happier if this bill proposed shelving the project for a decade and then calling for it to be returned to the table for discussion then to see if conditions have changed enough to warrant further discussion?

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7w42jk wrote

I am in favor of making the best decisions. There is no limit to the amount of discussion to reach that conclusion. But we can't even debate the rail thing because we waste so much time debating if we should debate it. And THIS conversation is like debating if we should debate about debating. A person who is just looking to stifle progress can keep going like this forever. It is another insidious strategy to keep the focus away from the actual question at hand.

2

vexingsilence t1_j7w6yak wrote

The government shouldn't discuss topics endlessly. There are other topics that are not getting the attention they deserve by doing so. If a consensus can't be reached, it should be shelved for a while and everyone should move on. Revisit it at a later date after the interested parties have had time to come up with a more compelling pitch. I don't see an issue with that. A lot of people are in favor, a lot of against. There's no consensus.

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7wagdq wrote

You obviously don't want the rail and are doing mental gymnastics to justify shutting down debate BEFORE there is a decision. Let the debate die of its own merit or it will never be settled.

2

vexingsilence t1_j7wfa5q wrote

There's been 50+ years of debate. How much more do you want?

Like I said, there's no consensus. There's been countless studies and pitches over the years. None of them were compelling enough to rally enough support to get it approved.

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7zij3p wrote

Endless debate is actually fine as long as both sides are debating in good faith. There's no reason to stifle it unless you have an ulterior motive (like keeping status quo because it benefits you personally.)

0

vexingsilence t1_j7zqrmb wrote

It costs time and money to keep it going. If you can't make your case, it gets set aside. Much like this discussion here is about to.

0