Logical

joined 1 year ago
[–] Logical@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The second one made me dislike them, but the fifth one was the straw that broke the camel's back.

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No, they don't. It's bad that someone buys this to begin with, and yeah it sucks that they're taking up two parking spaces, but why direct your hate towards a person who actually seems to have a better attitude than 99% of people driving similar vehicles?

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I think this is the nicest way to go about parking a vehicle like this. I might think it's a bigger vehicle than necessary, but this is not the person who should primarily receive hate for their choice of car.

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Fair point, albeit a different one from the one I was making.

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Oh, I'm not blaming you at all, I'm just commenting on the article

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

Misleading title. Not incorrect, but it is based on what the source of income is, it is not about how rich you are relative to the rest of the population. The title makes it sound like if you make a certain amount of money, your tax rate is lowered. Alternatively, it sounds like the richest Dutch are evading 12% worth of taxes. But neither of these are true statements AFAIK, and either way they aren't made in the article, so the title is misleading.

Edit: Changed "the top 1%" to "the richest Dutch".

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I agree with that, it's important to consider what's being advertised and in what way.

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I've seen their ads in Sweden before IIRC. They don't seem to be very common though. Why don't you like that they're advertising?

[–] Logical@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

This post made my head hurt