
Originally Posted by
architect
To assume that the kuliglig downline will lie idle without the presence of the kuliglig is to conclude that there are no other livelihood options left for them, when in fact, there are so many others.
To assume that the kuliglig downline will resort to a criminal life without the presence of the kuliglig is to discount the fact there are indeed several other viable means of transportation for them.
Being the case, I don't see any point that I might be missing. My reaction to such fallacies would be similar to the one that I might have on hearing a hold-upper rationalize his actions by saying "sorry I am doing this because kuligligs have been banned."