> upon reading that using electric bikes (that are basically mopeds disguised as bikes, i.e. which do not induce "real" physical activity due to assistance from the motor) are the healthiest thing to ever happen to teenagers, I have the feeling that the title is being a bit over the top
Maybe you should read more than the title than? Like say...the article? Just a suggestion.
that line of "someone says something I don't agree with so I will insinuate they didn't read the article" is tired, seriously
an excerpt from the article you pretend I didn't read (which I did)
But let’s be honest: even throttle-only riding is more active than sitting on a couch
the article is literally saying that
it's also saying things about mental well-being, the sense of community, which I can get behind of course, but there's some sense of course to the bottom in our expectations
> that line of "someone says something I don't agree with so I will insinuate they didn't read the article" is tired, seriously
Except... you clearly didn’t read it, or you read it and didn’t understand it. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was the former.
> the article is literally saying that
The article is literally saying a lot more than just that.
You cherry picked one point out of a multi-faceted discussion about health benefits, ignored the rest, and then acted like that narrow takeaway was the entire message. Pro tip: “health” doesn’t just mean physical exertion.
So again, either you didn’t read the article, or you didn’t get it.
> it's also saying things about mental well-being, the sense of community, which I can get behind of course
Cool. But no one’s asking whether you can “get behind it” and nor does anyone care. The point is those are part of what makes it beneficial.
Maybe you should read more than the title than? Like say...the article? Just a suggestion.