Kilarney, you realize that the economic presence of New York and Boston is one of the big reasons New England is so prosperous, right?
Please back up this statement. A lot of people are throwing around the world ignorant to portray people in rural areas, but I sincerely doubt that they are any more or less ignorant than people in urban areas. A lot of this has to do with social pressure and what information is consumed and believed and what information isn't consumed or believed.
Here is the key statement, Kate: like in India and China. This is WHAT IS HAPPENING! There is rampant poverty and illiteracy in the rural areas, and most of the wealth and education is concentrated in the cities. Since China allows only certain professionals and educated citizens to vote, guess who gets ignored. That's right, the people in the country. What Rym was proposing is like China. I was stating why that was a bad idea. Basically it would take the area that is rich and make them richer, and the marginalized people would get even less say in government. It could go either way, it just so happens that in my two example countries the areas that areas lacking in education are rural.
And Kilarney, Vermont is not the same kind of rural as, say, Missisippi or Alabama, or perhaps some farm town in Texas. Perhaps "rural" is too broad a term for what Rym is describing. However, instead of defending your dear little Vermont by dissing one of the greatest metropolises in the world (oh, and I'm GLAD you don't get killed by terrorism, by the way. That appears to be one of the many moral failings of New Yorkers in your estimation), what do you say you get some data on the poverty rates in the rural deep South. Oh yes, Vermont is peachy, but I think when Rym stated his somewhat misguided argument that rural people were causing all his problems, I doubt he was directing his thoughts toward your home. Using Vermont as the global example of "rural prosperity and liberalism" is somewhat incorrect: I would argue that it is the exception rather than the rule.
City and Country. Each comes with its own sets of unique problems. In any case, I think Rym is being hypocritical on this issue (sorry dahling), because he and Scott always argue for freedom when they tread on the toes on others, but when someone else's freedom messes up things for them, they get grumbly. You can't have it both ways. Kinda like how freedom of speech in America means that even the neo-nazi can say his noxious ideas, freedom of participation in government means even lame people get to try for their lame things.
Also Rym, all your ideas would hurt people in ways I don't think you are paying enough attention to. As long as wealth in American is connected to education, and as long it is also unfortunately connected to race, geography, and many other factors, your idea would basically end up excluding poor people and minorities. It would be skewed terribly to discriminate in favor of rich white people, because guess who's the lucky group in America most likely to afford college? Yup, you got it. Bad idea. We need to find more ways to make things equal, rather than worsening this already stratified society.
Also Rym, all your ideas would hurt people in ways I don't think you are paying enough attention to. As long as wealth in American is connected to education, and as long it is also unfortunately connected to race, geography, and many other factors, your idea would basically end up excluding poor people and minorities.
I did say the following, I should note:
"So long as adequate educational opportunities were provided to all who failed, for free, I'd be fine with the disenfranchisement of said failures. Essentially, if we fixed our educational system, we could hold our voters to a higher standard. Until we fix our system, we can't easily or fairly do so."
And Kilarney, Vermont is not the same kind of rural as, say, Missisippi or Alabama, or perhaps some farm town in Texas. Perhaps "rural" is too broad a term for what Rym is describing.
Oh dear... I hope the word he was looking for wasn't Southern.
Kilarney, you only enjoy such things in Vermont because your state leeches money from New Yorkers who go on vacation up there. Most rural places do not have a way to bring money into the area like that. You are the exception.
We need to find more ways to make things equal, rather than worsening this already stratified society.
I think the stratification idea is okay, but we need to find a new way to stratify. Maybe the test should have questions like, "Identify the first comic book appearance of Green Lantern.", or, "What was Spock's father's name?", or maybe, "How does gold kryptonite affect Kryptonians?"
Maybe the national service requirement could be met by publishing a comic book or by doing a good job at voice acting.
Oh dear... I hope the word he was looking for wasn't Southern.
Sorry, jcc. Unfortunately, those states have many problems. If Kilarney were to quote the same kind of statistics for those areas, he would have difficulty proving his point.
Oh dear... I hope the word he was looking for wasn't Southern.
Sorry, jcc. Unfortunately, those states have many problems. If Kilarney were to quote the same kind of statistics for those areas, he would have difficulty proving his point.
It would make it a different and much uglier argument, is all. Also, it would make point 5 a lot more ridiculous in context. Here, let's give it a try:
This ought to be a good one.
While there are most certainly individual exceptions, all of the demographic, electoral, and polling data suggests that the vast majority of people living in the Southern United States share certain characteristics and tend to act politically in a semi-unified manner:
1. They vote Republican. 2. They are very socially conservative. 3. They are anti-gay. 4. They are pro-war. 5. They are xenophobic and/or racist.
While in the case of the first point it is debatable (barely), the rest of these are clearly undesirable and counter-productive traits. There is clearly something about living below the Mason-Dixon line that engenders myopic and dangerous worldviews.
Southern culture is thus, in aggregate, dangerous to America. Discuss.
Please back up this statement. A lot of people are throwing around the world ignorant to portray people in rural areas, but I sincerely doubt that they are any more or less ignorant than people in urban areas. A lot of this has to do with social pressure and what information is consumed and believed and what information isn't consumed or believed.
Here is the key statement, Kate: like in India and China. This is WHAT IS HAPPENING!
I thought this was a conversation regarding the US. If you want to bring in China and India, that is a different kettle of fish. It is a very different think to live in LeRoy, NY and to live in a small Indian village.
Many high-income countries, having attained high levels of literacy, no longer collect basic literacy statistics and thus are not included in the UIS data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is assumed for high-income countries that do not report adult literacy information.
Same goes for:
Wow, I had no idea Eastern Bloc countries had such high literacy rates.
Just everything with a D behind the country name does not report adult literacy.
Kilarney, you only enjoy such things in Vermont because your state leeches money from New Yorkers who go on vacation up there. Most rural places do not have a way to bring money into the area like that. You are the exception.
Our top private employer is IBM.
I understand fully that Vermont may be the exception. However, here was Rym's complaints about rural areas: 1. They vote Republican. 2. They are very socially conservative. 3. They are anti-gay. 4. They are pro-war. 5. They are xenophobic and/or racist.
The argument that the city is better (for those reasons), fails in the case of Vermont. That's important to know, because it proves that you can have a rural life without these factors popping up. In other words, there really is no excuse to live in the city, if you prefer a rural life but value liberal social policies.
I think the stratification idea is okay, but we need to find a new way to stratify. Maybe the test should have questions like, "Identify the first comic book appearance of Green Lantern.", or, "What was Spock's father's name?", or maybe, "How does gold kryptonite affect Kryptonians?"
When I get more then a minute, but quickly, I just can't believe the Ignorance to rural living/city dwelling and how it's not so much about where you live but the culture and the economy that you are in. Vermont is a different state then West Virginia, New York City is different then Flint, Michigan, Not everyone that votes democrat is voting for the "liberal social agenda of the party" nor do people vote republican just for finanicial/social issues *cough* some vote for the Foreign Policy... (even if we think it's flawed) some people view democrats as weak.. (even Democrats!). I have more to say but I'm at work... and should be working.
I understand fully that Vermont may be the exception. However, it is important because you can havebotha prosperous, liberal state and a rural existence. So the argument that the city is better (for those reasons), fails in certain circumstances. It's important to know about those circumstances, should you prefer a rural life if all other things are equal.
But you can only have those nice things because the cities exist. Without us, you would be screwed. You shouldn't disrespect that which you depend on.
When I get more then a minute, but quickly, I just can't believe the Ignorance to rural living/city dwelling and how it's not so much about where you live but the culture and the economy that you are in. Vermont is a different state then West Virginia, New York City is different then Flint, Michigan, Not everyone that votes democrat is voting for the "liberal social agenda of the party" nor do people vote republican just for finanicial/social issues *cough* some vote for the Foreign Policy... (even if we think it's flawed) some people view democrats as weak.. (even Democrats!). I have more to say but I'm at work... and should be working.
Scott, I brought up a lot of these points, as have others. Read the thread before criticizing.
I understand fully that Vermont may be the exception. However, it is important because you can havebotha prosperous, liberal state and a rural existence. So the argument that the city is better (for those reasons), fails in certain circumstances. It's important to know about those circumstances, should you prefer a rural life if all other things are equal.
But you can only have those nice things because the cities exist. Without us, you would be screwed. You shouldn't disrespect that which you depend on.
That is why I try to respect everyone. Because in one way or another we all depend on each other
how it's not so much about where you live but the culture and the economy that you are in.
The second smartest thing posted in this thread. This is the point I have been trying to make - but I failed to make it this succinctly. This is why Rym's argument is entirely flawed. I did mention, earlier (many pages ago), that Rym confused correlation with causation. This stands true.
Sorry Rym, but the old logical fallacy has bit you in the arse.
But you can only have those nice things because the cities exist. Without us, you would be screwed. You shouldn't disrespect that which you depend on.
When have I disrespected the city? I've been very clear that I believe cities are great places for those who wish an urban environment. I'm just pointing out it's really a matter of personal preference, since each environment has benefits. As I posted a list of benefits to living in Vermont, I could post a list of benefits to living in NYC.
Mrs. Macross, calling out ignorance was not necessarily targeting you and every post in the thread. Just a lot of the arguments. I don't have time to pick out everyone :-p
But you can only have those nice things because the cities exist. Without us, you would be screwed.
On a macro scale, sure. On a micro scale, who gives a crap. Your decision, or my decision, on where to live aint gonna change anything. Therefore, I have no problem living where I want to live.
Mrs. Macross, calling out ignorance was not nessiarly targeting you and every post in the thread. Just alot of the arguements. I don't have time to pick out everyone :-p
Mrs. Macross, calling out ignorance was not nessiarly targeting you and every post in the thread. Just alot of the arguements. I don't have time to pick out everyone :-p
You specifically said all sides of the argument. I'm not offended, it just seemed "ignorant" of you to make such a sweeping statement when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
But you can only have those nice things because the cities exist. Without us, you would be screwed. You shouldn't disrespect that which you depend on.
And without the rural areas that contain large factories, mines, farms, dairies, processing plants, etc. then the cities would be screwed (not to mention the overall economy).
When exactly did this analysis if and why the majority of rural states are conservative turn into a shouting argument of city vs. country?
When Rym said this:
Rural culture is thus, in aggregate, dangerous to America.
Now... I owe the thread an apology. I went back and re-read Rym's initial post. He stated:
While there are most certainly individual exceptions, all of the demographic, electoral, and polling data suggests that the vast majority of people living outside of the orbits of major urban centers in the United States share certain characteristics and tend to act politically in a semi-unified manner:
While I am not ready to concede his argument, I do have to give him credit for admitting up front that there are exceptions. For calling you out on that, I apologize.
And without the rural areas that contain large factories, mines, farms, dairies, processing plants, etc. then the cities would be screwed (not to mention the overall economy).
Why is there no more working class in America? It moved to China.
Comments
And Kilarney, Vermont is not the same kind of rural as, say, Missisippi or Alabama, or perhaps some farm town in Texas. Perhaps "rural" is too broad a term for what Rym is describing. However, instead of defending your dear little Vermont by dissing one of the greatest metropolises in the world (oh, and I'm GLAD you don't get killed by terrorism, by the way. That appears to be one of the many moral failings of New Yorkers in your estimation), what do you say you get some data on the poverty rates in the rural deep South. Oh yes, Vermont is peachy, but I think when Rym stated his somewhat misguided argument that rural people were causing all his problems, I doubt he was directing his thoughts toward your home. Using Vermont as the global example of "rural prosperity and liberalism" is somewhat incorrect: I would argue that it is the exception rather than the rule.
City and Country. Each comes with its own sets of unique problems. In any case, I think Rym is being hypocritical on this issue (sorry dahling), because he and Scott always argue for freedom when they tread on the toes on others, but when someone else's freedom messes up things for them, they get grumbly. You can't have it both ways. Kinda like how freedom of speech in America means that even the neo-nazi can say his noxious ideas, freedom of participation in government means even lame people get to try for their lame things.
"So long as adequate educational opportunities were provided to all who failed, for free, I'd be fine with the disenfranchisement of said failures. Essentially, if we fixed our educational system, we could hold our voters to a higher standard. Until we fix our system, we can't easily or fairly do so."
Maybe the national service requirement could be met by publishing a comic book or by doing a good job at voice acting.
I understand fully that Vermont may be the exception. However, here was Rym's complaints about rural areas:
1. They vote Republican.
2. They are very socially conservative.
3. They are anti-gay.
4. They are pro-war.
5. They are xenophobic and/or racist.
The argument that the city is better (for those reasons), fails in the case of Vermont. That's important to know, because it proves that you can have a rural life without these factors popping up. In other words, there really is no excuse to live in the city, if you prefer a rural life but value liberal social policies. If you're just going to be silly, please go away.
Sorry Rym, but the old logical fallacy has bit you in the arse.