Look, Günter, I don't know how much driving you do, but imagine if you come up to a line of those eight cars you see at rush hour moving at ten miles an hour behind a tractor on a two lane road. To pass, you have to pass nine vehicles. Meanwhile, there is always traffic coming the other direction, limiting your opportunities to pass. I traveled through counties with very small population densities and often encountered this problem.
Give me a break. Overall, traffic is much more pleasant in rural areas. This isn't exactly a radical concept.
Look, Günter, I don't know how much driving you do, but imagine if you come up to a line of those eight cars you see at rush hour moving at ten miles an hour behind a tractor on a two lane road. To pass, you have to pass nine vehicles. Meanwhile, there is always traffic coming the other direction, limiting your opportunities to pass. I traveled through counties with very small population densities and often encountered this problem.
Give me a break. Overall, traffic is much more pleasant in rural areas. This isn't exactly a radical concept.
No. Since we moved here, I haven't had to deal with traffic at all because now we have access to public transportation and we're close enough to a lot of things that we don't need a car to access. Even if we did want to go somewhere like that, we have access to . . . taxi cabs! I haven't actually driven a car for nearly a year now.
I haven't had to deal with trafficat allbecause now we have access to public transportation
Ah... traffic is so bad that you use a slow and inefficient form of transportation. Congratulations! Nice comeback, Joe. When the commuter train makes all sorts of stops that you don't need, I'm sure it feels much better than driving a car down a wide-open country road. And I'm sure you'll brag about the "convenience" of your hour-long commute when mine is 4 minutes door-to-door. I don't know of anyone in my area who has a commute of an hour.
And a taxi... Yup. Sure beats having your own car! Nothing like waiting an hour for a cab on a rainy day. What joy!
Traffic is better for you because you've given up all sorts of freedom. Forgive me if I err on the side of freedom.
Frankly, Joe, I used to respect your arguments. Lately, you've shown that you're just stubborn and your head is stuck in the sand. There are lots of benefits to urban living, but only the most naive would fail to recognize the problems that congestion create for the movement of oneself.
Even in the poorly designed city of NY, even if you want to drive, traffic is rarely a problem if you just listen to the radio. There are so many roads to choose from, that there are always multiple alternate routes. It is extremely rare that all alternate routes are clogged. Meanwhile we were driving through rural New Jersey on our way to Wildwood. One road was closed, thus we had to take an insane detour because it was the only road. George Washington Bridge backed up? Big deal, there are two tunnels you can use.
Also, public transportation is hardly slow and inefficient. Have you ever been on the subway? It goes stupid fast.
k, I'm not arguing in general here. I'm relating my personal experience. Since you know nothing about me, the prudent, polite thing for you to do is to take me at my word.
It's nice that you can drive to work in four minutes. My wife can WALK to work in five minutes. I do have to ride for about an hour to get to DC, but for you to characterize that commute as inefficient shows an abundant lack of understanding of the word, "efficient". Finally, I'll bet you do have to wait an hour for a cab in Dogpatch. In civilization, however, there are taxis galore. If I need a taxi, all I have to do is walk just outside the front door of my apartment building and raise my arm. I've never had to wait for more than a minute. Of course, it helps if you live a block away from the Convention Center.
You seem pretty desperate to justify your bucolic existence. I wonder if you're trying to convince us half as much as you're trying to convince yourself. Don't be so jealous. Vermont has a lot to offer, like maple syrup and . . . well, I'm sure it's very nice.
I wonder what the homosexual rape statistics are for little Jewish computer programmer guys. Probably pretty low.
Whatever they are, they are higher than in the country. How difficult is that for you to understand?
Finally, I'll bet you do have to wait an hour for a cab in Dogpatch.
I've never had to wait for a cab in over a decade in rural life. On the rare occasion I don't have my car, I have friends or relatives that can give me a ride. And you know as well as I do that it's next to impossible to get a taxi on a rainy day in the city.
but for you to characterize that commute as inefficient shows an abundant lack of understanding of the word, "efficient".
Anything you can do on the commute, I can do. I can also do much more than you can do during that time. What little you can do on a commute, you must do in a crappy atmosphere. I can do it in the comfort of my own home. I can also go grocery shopping, interact with my family, go hiking, play sports, or any number of things that you can't do while stuck in that aluminum tube. So please explain to me how a long commute is efficient as it pertains to your time, and ability to complete tasks within that time.
My wife can WALK to work in five minutes.
Every relationship has a smarter half.
You seem pretty desperate to justify your bucolic existence.
Not at all. I'm just mature enough to recognize that there are advantages and disadvantages to any lifestyle. You are unwilling to accept any disadvantage to urban life, which brings me back to my point that you're not nearly the good debater that you once were. Maybe your clients are rubbing off on you. Maybe breathing all of that air pollution has done something to your brain. And your metro area is getting worse and worse. Or are you going to say that air pollution is just a "benefit" of urban life?
I wonder what the homosexual rape statistics are for little Jewish computer programmer guys. Probably pretty low.
Whatever they are, they are higher than in the country. How difficult is that for you to understand?
The liklihood of Scott being anally raped is vanishingly small. It's so small, I feel pretty confident in making a bet on it. What do you say? I'll bet you a thousand bucks that Scott is not anally raped within the next thirty years. Does anyone else want a piece of this action?
Anything you can do on the commute, I can do. I can also do much more than you can do during that time. What little you can do on a commute, you must do in a crappy atmosphere. I can do it in the comfort of my own home. I can also go grocery shopping, interact with my family, go hiking, play sports, or any number of things that you can't do while stuck in that aluminum tube. So please explain to me how a long commute is efficient as it pertains to your time, and ability to complete tasks within that time.
I'm not even talking about sleeping, reading, gaming, or working, all of which I can do on the train. I'm talking about not needing to own a car with all the maintenance appurtenant thereto, as well as not needing to drive, as well as hundreds of other people not needing to drive. Look at the energy costs of the train that transports hundreds if not thousands of people and compare that with the energy costs of the same number of cars.
My wife can WALK to work in five minutes.
Every relationship has a smarter half.
HAHA. Maybe after February, when I take the MD Bar, I'll be walking to work in B'More as well . . . or I might take a cab if it's raining.
You seem pretty desperate to justify your bucolic existence.
Not at all. I'm just mature enough to recognize that there are advantagesanddisadvantages to any lifestyle. You are unwilling to accept any disadvantage to urban life, which brings me back to my point that you're not nearly the good debater that you once were. Maybe your clients are rubbing off on you. Maybebreathing all of that air pollutionhas done something to your brain. Or are you going to say that air pollution is just a "benefit" of urban life?
Of course I'm going to talk about the benefits of urban living in a thread entitled "The Clear BENEFITS of Urban Living". It's pretty disingenuious of you to complain that I'm "unwilling to accept any disadvantage to urban life" because I've posted a few comments about my experiences with the benefits of urban life in a thread that calls for such comments. If you want to make a thread entitled "The Clear COSTS of Urban living", I will happily post about such costs. However, for me, such costs are greatly outweighed by the benefits.
I haven't seen you decry the disadvantages of rural life in this thread. Maybe you're "unwilling to accept any disadvantage to rural life".
Frankly, Joe, I used to respect your arguments. Lately, you've shown that you're just stubborn and your head is stuck in the sand. There are lots of benefits to urban living, but only the most naive would fail to recognize the problems that congestion create for the movement of oneself.
You're right. I'm telling Carole that we're moving to Vermont tonight. Just let me look in the employment section of Craigslist here . . . well, it looks like all the syrup jobs are taken. I guess we'll have to stay here with our heads in the sand . . . beach sand that is, since we live so close to many fine beaches.
The liklihood of Scott being anally raped is vanishingly small. It's so small, I feel pretty confident in making a bet on it.
Do you not understand that this was a metaphor for crime in general? The likelihood of Scott being a victim of crime is actually quite great.
I'm talking about not needing to own a car with all the maintenance appurtenant thereto, as well as not needing to drive,
I've got sufficient money for a car, so I guess that's not an issue for me. As for the "hassle" of owning a car, it far outweighs the "hassle" of not owning a car, so I'm not really sure what your point is here. My energy costs are lower than yours, given my 4 minute commute. So again, you've failed to make a point.
My energy costs are lower than yours, given my 4 minute commute. So again, you've failed to make a point.
Le Sigh. Let me explain it once again. When we were in KY, we had to go to court in Louisville, but we also often had to travel to many of the outlying counties. We were using our cars a great deal. We were paying a lot in gas and maintenance. We pay much less now. Our energy costs are much less now.
My energy costs are lower than yours, given my 4 minute commute. So again, you've failed to make a point.
So far this month, we've paid a total of twenty dollars for gasoline. If you divide the energy costs of my commute by a few thousand (to take into account all the other passengers) and add that to our twenty dollars, I'm pretty sure my energy cost is either less than or equal to yours.
If you are satisfied with your energy costs, that's outstanding. But for us, living in Baltimore has greatly reduced our energy costs.
If you divide the energy costs of my commute by a few thousand
Why would you do that? The only thing that matters to you personally is the cost of gas, the cost of your commuter rail pass, the cost of your metro pass, and the cost of taxis. It may be efficient overall, but I'm talking about the relative cost as it pertains to you.
No doubt, living without a car is economically prudent for certain urban dwellers. My point is that it comes at the price of freedom. Freedom to hop in your car and do what you want, when you want. If your commuter train is late, you're screwed. Less freedom for you. I guess I just prefer to control my own destiny, rather than sit by while others control it for me.
Does your wife own a car? If not, less freedom for you guys. I can hop in my car and go skiing, go hiking, go to the beach, etc. I can do it on my schedule, and on my terms. And unlike urban dwellers, I don't have to plan around traffic. While this is hard to quantify, it is something that must be considered.
I don't begrudge anyone who lives in a city. Different strokes for different folks. It sounds like the correct decision for you. Scrym and you, however, seem to think that one size should fit all, and don't seem to have the cognitive ability to understand that there may be benefits to living in the country, as well as detriments to living in the city. On some level, you must understand this, since you've deftly avoided responding to the "benefit" of sucking in all sorts of air pollution. I'm still shocked that a desire to live near liberals is worth being exposed to an increased risk of cancer and other diseases. But like I said, different strokes for different folks.
I understand the thread's title, but I'm rather surprised that you're so hamstrung by a mere title, that you're unable to respond to me in a candid manner. It goes back to my argument that your debating skills have slipped. The old Joe would not have hid behind a title.
Maybe the area I live in isn't as "seedy" as other rural places, but people out here aren't the crazy motherfuckers you seem to think they are. Sure, the political and religious views of you average southern farmer might be pretty out of whack, but they're still some of the friendliest and most hospitable folks I've ever met. That's not to justify their views, or anything. Living around a bunch of hicks just isn't so bad when they're really friendly hicks.
Something I've noticed is that the hick people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but their outward attitude does not match their real feelings. City folk are honest. They let you know how they're feeling. Most of the time they are thinking "meh". I'd rather have people acting not so nice who are honest than people pretending.
What are you basing this on? Also, not everyone that lives rurally is a "hick". EDIT: I do not get this debate at all. It just comes down to personal taste and lifestyles. It isn't like living in a rural area or an urban area will necessarily make you a better or worse person nor guarantee you a better or worse life.
People can and should live wherever they want and can afford. The problem lies in that the majority of these rural people are disconnected in a major way from the rest of society, yet still have a voice in the federal electorate. They oppose social tolerance and support disastrous international diplomacy. They elected Bush. Twice. They now want to elect McCain.
The people least connected to international affairs have a good half of the votes concerning it.
People can and should live wherever they want and can afford. The problem lies in that the majority of these rural people are disconnected in a major way from the rest of society, yet still have a voice in the federal electorate. They oppose social tolerance and support disastrous international diplomacy. They elected Bush. Twice. They now want to elect McCain.
The people least connected to international affairs have a good half of the votes concerning it.
So wouldn't it be better to address that problem, rather than simply run to the city? One of the best places to shape and form a community is from within it. Get into local politics, set an example, run for school board, be an educator, create clubs and organizations that unite the minority and inform the majority, etc. The rural areas need to exist and the people aren't going away. Lets work with them rather than ignore them.
It isn't like living in a rural area or an urban area will necessarily make you a better or worse person
On average, however, living in a rural area correlates strongly with social intolerance, which I would argue most certainly makes someone a worse person.
It isn't like living in a rural area or an urban area will necessarily make you a better or worse person
On average, however, living in a rural area correlates strongly with social intolerance, which I would argue most certainly makes someone a worse person.
So wouldn't it be better to address that problem, rather than simply run to the city?
The rural world can't solve that problem. There isn't enough money to fund the kinds of schools and programs you would need without the economy of scale of large populations. You also can't simulate the diverse social interactions between many different types of people that only happen in urban environments.
Get into local politics, set an example, run for school board, be an educator, create clubs and organizations that unite the minority and inform the majority, etc.
I live in a place where this isn't an issue. The people who would attempt these changes by and large don't live in places where the changes are needed.
Almost all of the infrastructure that exists in the rural US is subsidized heavily by the urban population as it is. I don't foresee any support for further increases in these subsidies, nor do I foresee mass-migrations of multiple, diverse cultural groups into rural areas. You can't build a school for gifted students in every town with one gifted student, but you can build one in a city to cater to the thousands of them. What is a rural gifted child to do?
If you divide the energy costs of my commute by a few thousand
Why would you do that?
The only thing that matters to you personally is the cost of gas, the cost of your commuter rail pass, the cost of your metro pass, and the cost of taxis. It may be efficient overall, but I'm talking about the relative cost as it pertains to you. . . .
I don't begrudge anyone who lives in a city. Different strokes for different folks. It sounds like the correct decision for you. Scrym and you, however, seem to think that one size should fit all, and don't seem to have the cognitive ability to understand that there may be benefits to living in the country, as well as detriments to living in the city. On some level, you must understand this, since you've deftly avoided responding to the "benefit" of sucking in all sorts of air pollution. I'm still shocked that a desire to live near liberals is worth being exposed to an increased risk of cancer and other diseases. But like I said, different strokes for different folks.
I've said many times before - our transportation costs are cheaper in Baltimore than they were in Louisville.
I honestly don't understand why you're so stuck on complaining that we're not talking about the disadvantages of the city while I've yet to see you talking about the disadvantages of the country. That's not very fair of you, is it?
As far as air pollution pertains to my personal experience, I came from Louisville. The air in the Ohio River Valley was very, very bad. I guess you could even say it was polluted. Comparitively, the air in D.C. and Baltimore is great.
Yes, Carole has a car. We have the freedom to go where we want when we want, but we can also use public transportation. Isn't that great?
The liklihood of Scott being anally raped is vanishingly small. It's so small, I feel pretty confident in making a bet on it.
Do you not understand that this was a metaphor for crime in general? The likelihood of Scott being a victim of crime is actually quite great.
So you think Scott will be anally raped sometime in the next thirty years? Do you want to take the bet, then?
EDIT: I do not get this debate at all. It just comes down to personal taste and lifestyles.
The smartest thing said in this entire thread.
Basically, Rym's post was that of a troll. Shame on us for taking the bait.
while I've yet to see you talking about the disadvantages of the country.
I've been very clear that there are disadvantages. In a debate, however, it's not my job to make your argument. See what I mean about your debating skills slipping?
while I've yet to see you talking about the disadvantages of the country.
I've been very clear that there are disadvantages. In a debate, however, it's not my job to make your argument. See what I mean about your debating skills slipping?
That's my point. YOU were the one complaining about us not talking about the disadvantages of the city. WE don't have to make your argument.
You're talking in circles. First you say that we're obligated to enumerate disadvantages of the city, but then you say that you don't have the same obligation because that would be making our argument for us. Did you contract Lyme Disease over the weekend?
I don't pay any attention to the categories, since they are so often wrong. Even then, there is often good debate in a "flamewar" thread.
YOU were the one complaining about us not talking about the disadvantages of the city.
Absolutely untrue, Joe. I was complaining that you were not rebutting my criticism of your argument. Big difference. You should have understood that. I've seen a lot of denial of my criticism, but it has been tepid at best. Higher crime rates, increased pollution, increased commutes, etc. The only thing approaching a rebuttal was mentioning that crime rates vary by neighborhood. This was weak at best, though, since it was not fleshed out by any statistics whatsoever, whereas I did provide statistics that urban areas have higher crime rates.
The old Joe was a much better debater. Sad, really.
The problem lies in that the majority of these rural people are disconnected in a major way from the rest of society, yet still have a voice in the federal electorate. They oppose social tolerance and support disastrous international diplomacy. They elected Bush. Twice. They now want to elect McCain.
Because of the high probability of smelling or seeing urine or feces in the subways or sidewalks in the city everyday, city dwellers are used to crap. That is why city people vote for Obama because he's crap, and they vote to what they are familiar with – crap.
The problem lies in that the majority of these rural people are disconnected in a major way from the rest of society,
Doesn't this go against everything you have been preaching about the "internet" revolution? Heck... there's no way I'd be talking to you without the internet. It shows that, at least in this case, the disconnect from the rest of society has been shattered.
YOU were the one complaining about us not talking about the disadvantages of the city.
Absolutely untrue, Joe. I was complaining that you were notrebuttingmy criticism of your argument. Big difference. You should have understood that.
This is what you wrote:
You are unwilling to accept any disadvantage to urban life, which brings me back to my point that you're not nearly the good debater that you once were.
Scrym and you, however, seem to think that one size should fit all, and don't seem to have the cognitive ability to understand that there may be benefits to living in the country, as well as detriments to living in the city.
It's hard to understand how you think those statements translate into "you're not rebutting my argument" as opposed to "I think you should be admitting the disadvantages of your argument" unless you're been sniffing glue or your brain has atrophied through disuse.
I'll say once again that just because I posted a couple of comments about the benefits of urban life in a thread calling for such comments does not mean that I do not recognize the costs of urban life. Anyone who would come to such a conclusion is either sadly mentally deficient or deliberately trolling. The point of my comments, that can gleaned by anyone with rudimentary reading skills, is that it was the best decision for us.
Kilarney, I think another one of your problems is that you are picking on stereotypes of New York city specifically. You're also using Vermont specifically as your rural example. Joe is using his personal situation also, though.
Anyway, when you take out the outliers, and you look at the aggregate, the cities are clearly the winners. The shitty city is the exception to the rule, the really nice rural place is also the exception. I mean, forget about New York, what about any of the awesome cities in Europe or Asia? Heck, what about Vancouver? A lot of your city complaints are very indicative of someone who has not spent a lot of time in cities, and who hasn't been to very many of them for extended periods of time.
A lot of your city complaints are very indicative of someone who has not spent a lot of time in cities, and who hasn't been to very many of them for extended periods of time.
Why would he have to go to a city when he has all the maple syrup he could ask for at home?
Kilarney, I think another one of your problems is that you are picking on stereotypes of New York city specifically. You're also using Vermont specifically as your rural example. Joe is using his personal situation also, though.
Oh? Kinda like how you stereotyped hicks and city folk?
Something I've noticed is that the hick people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but their outward attitude does not match their real feelings. City folk are honest. They let you know how they're feeling. Most of the time they are thinking "meh". I'd rather have people acting not so nice who are honest than people pretending.
Comments
So, for me, traffic is actually much better here.
And a taxi... Yup. Sure beats having your own car! Nothing like waiting an hour for a cab on a rainy day. What joy!
Traffic is better for you because you've given up all sorts of freedom. Forgive me if I err on the side of freedom.
Frankly, Joe, I used to respect your arguments. Lately, you've shown that you're just stubborn and your head is stuck in the sand. There are lots of benefits to urban living, but only the most naive would fail to recognize the problems that congestion create for the movement of oneself.
Also, public transportation is hardly slow and inefficient. Have you ever been on the subway? It goes stupid fast.
It's nice that you can drive to work in four minutes. My wife can WALK to work in five minutes. I do have to ride for about an hour to get to DC, but for you to characterize that commute as inefficient shows an abundant lack of understanding of the word, "efficient". Finally, I'll bet you do have to wait an hour for a cab in Dogpatch. In civilization, however, there are taxis galore. If I need a taxi, all I have to do is walk just outside the front door of my apartment building and raise my arm. I've never had to wait for more than a minute. Of course, it helps if you live a block away from the Convention Center.
You seem pretty desperate to justify your bucolic existence. I wonder if you're trying to convince us half as much as you're trying to convince yourself. Don't be so jealous. Vermont has a lot to offer, like maple syrup and . . . well, I'm sure it's very nice.
I haven't seen you decry the disadvantages of rural life in this thread. Maybe you're "unwilling to accept any disadvantage to rural life". You're right. I'm telling Carole that we're moving to Vermont tonight. Just let me look in the employment section of Craigslist here . . . well, it looks like all the syrup jobs are taken. I guess we'll have to stay here with our heads in the sand . . . beach sand that is, since we live so close to many fine beaches.
If you are satisfied with your energy costs, that's outstanding. But for us, living in Baltimore has greatly reduced our energy costs.
The only good thing cities are good for is attracting rats, welfare recipients, crazed homeless people, open homosexuality, and diseases.
No doubt, living without a car is economically prudent for certain urban dwellers. My point is that it comes at the price of freedom. Freedom to hop in your car and do what you want, when you want. If your commuter train is late, you're screwed. Less freedom for you. I guess I just prefer to control my own destiny, rather than sit by while others control it for me.
Does your wife own a car? If not, less freedom for you guys. I can hop in my car and go skiing, go hiking, go to the beach, etc. I can do it on my schedule, and on my terms. And unlike urban dwellers, I don't have to plan around traffic. While this is hard to quantify, it is something that must be considered.
I don't begrudge anyone who lives in a city. Different strokes for different folks. It sounds like the correct decision for you. Scrym and you, however, seem to think that one size should fit all, and don't seem to have the cognitive ability to understand that there may be benefits to living in the country, as well as detriments to living in the city. On some level, you must understand this, since you've deftly avoided responding to the "benefit" of sucking in all sorts of air pollution. I'm still shocked that a desire to live near liberals is worth being exposed to an increased risk of cancer and other diseases. But like I said, different strokes for different folks.
I understand the thread's title, but I'm rather surprised that you're so hamstrung by a mere title, that you're unable to respond to me in a candid manner. It goes back to my argument that your debating skills have slipped. The old Joe would not have hid behind a title.
EDIT: I do not get this debate at all. It just comes down to personal taste and lifestyles. It isn't like living in a rural area or an urban area will necessarily make you a better or worse person nor guarantee you a better or worse life.
The people least connected to international affairs have a good half of the votes concerning it.
Almost all of the infrastructure that exists in the rural US is subsidized heavily by the urban population as it is. I don't foresee any support for further increases in these subsidies, nor do I foresee mass-migrations of multiple, diverse cultural groups into rural areas. You can't build a school for gifted students in every town with one gifted student, but you can build one in a city to cater to the thousands of them. What is a rural gifted child to do?
I honestly don't understand why you're so stuck on complaining that we're not talking about the disadvantages of the city while I've yet to see you talking about the disadvantages of the country. That's not very fair of you, is it?
As far as air pollution pertains to my personal experience, I came from Louisville. The air in the Ohio River Valley was very, very bad. I guess you could even say it was polluted. Comparitively, the air in D.C. and Baltimore is great.
Yes, Carole has a car. We have the freedom to go where we want when we want, but we can also use public transportation. Isn't that great? So you think Scott will be anally raped sometime in the next thirty years? Do you want to take the bet, then?
Basically, Rym's post was that of a troll. Shame on us for taking the bait. I've been very clear that there are disadvantages. In a debate, however, it's not my job to make your argument. See what I mean about your debating skills slipping?
You're talking in circles. First you say that we're obligated to enumerate disadvantages of the city, but then you say that you don't have the same obligation because that would be making our argument for us. Did you contract Lyme Disease over the weekend?
The old Joe was a much better debater. Sad, really.
I'll say once again that just because I posted a couple of comments about the benefits of urban life in a thread calling for such comments does not mean that I do not recognize the costs of urban life. Anyone who would come to such a conclusion is either sadly mentally deficient or deliberately trolling. The point of my comments, that can gleaned by anyone with rudimentary reading skills, is that it was the best decision for us.
Anyway, when you take out the outliers, and you look at the aggregate, the cities are clearly the winners. The shitty city is the exception to the rule, the really nice rural place is also the exception. I mean, forget about New York, what about any of the awesome cities in Europe or Asia? Heck, what about Vancouver? A lot of your city complaints are very indicative of someone who has not spent a lot of time in cities, and who hasn't been to very many of them for extended periods of time.