3 ms·

> I never implied i cared really, don't be so defensive. The fact that you expended so many keystrokes explaining why you think city living is better implies t

> I never implied i cared really, don't be so defensive. The fact that you expended so many keystrokes explaining why you think city living is better implies that you do care. And you were the one being defensive. I never said one word trying to convince you my preference is better. > My point, is that city living is objectively better, which is why i don't understand why people prefer to live in the burbs. No offense, but I don't think you're using the word "objectively" correctly. You seem to put a lot of stock in your perception that it's less expensive to live in the city. But money is a very subjective value. I make enough money that I don't have to ride on smelly buses, so I choose not to. You may view it differently, and that's cool. Perhaps you see it as a personal virtue, or find it gratifying for other reasons. Whatever. And I like being able to start my car in my heated garage in the winter, rather than dig it out of a snow bank parked on the street a block from my house, like some of my urban friends do. It's all very subjective.

grapes4me 11y ago
No i used it correctly not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. The only reason I can think of to live in the burbs, is that there can be better public schools, but if you are not raising a family, any argument you can give, I can give you a logical reason why living in a city is better. Regardless of what you spend your money on, or chose to budget, living in a central location without needing a car, close to all amenities and services, is better, plain and simple. I don't see how that is not objective, unless you prefer living far removed from everything and wasting time out of your day traveling in a car, which statically the more time you spend driving the more likely you will die or be injured in a accident.
- rhapsodic 11y ago
  OK, you're right. Riding smelly buses that run behind schedule and only stop within walking distance of an infinitesimal portion of the places I might want to visit is "objectively better" than getting in a late-model luxury car and going wherever I want whenever I want... Dude, do you still not see it? I made a point, not about city living, but about city dwellers, and you appeared out of the blue, to illustrate my point in one post after another. If anyone is reading this thread, they probably think you're a sock puppet created by me. You illustrate my point perfectly. And you also remind me that the city dwellers I've encountered, who obsess about convincing others that their lifestyle is superior, seem to really be trying to convince themselves of that more than anyone else. So, if you makes you feel better, I'll admit that I'm jealous that I don't get to ride smelly buses or crowded trains every day, while being on guard against pickpockets, and live without a car because I "don't need" one. It's soul-crushing that my kids can play in any backyard in the neighborhood without me worrying about junkies or mentally ill homeless people lurking nearby.
- capsule_toy 11y ago
  Whether you prefer the city or the suburbs is value-based. I value a low crime rate very highly. I don't know how you can claim to be objective and brush aside crime rate as an irrational fear when there are published crime rate statistics. And there is no objective way to say that my valuing a lower crime rate is less reasonable than all the other things you value.

grapes4me 11y ago

No i used it correctly not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. The only reason I can think of to live in the burbs, is that there can be better public schools, but if you are not raising a family, any argument you can give, I can give you a logical reason why living in a city is better. Regardless of what you spend your money on, or chose to budget, living in a central location without needing a car, close to all amenities and services, is better, plain and simple. I don't see how that is not objective, unless you prefer living far removed from everything and wasting time out of your day traveling in a car, which statically the more time you spend driving the more likely you will die or be injured in a accident.

rhapsodic 11y ago
OK, you're right. Riding smelly buses that run behind schedule and only stop within walking distance of an infinitesimal portion of the places I might want to visit is "objectively better" than getting in a late-model luxury car and going wherever I want whenever I want... Dude, do you still not see it? I made a point, not about city living, but about city dwellers, and you appeared out of the blue, to illustrate my point in one post after another. If anyone is reading this thread, they probably think you're a sock puppet created by me. You illustrate my point perfectly. And you also remind me that the city dwellers I've encountered, who obsess about convincing others that their lifestyle is superior, seem to really be trying to convince themselves of that more than anyone else. So, if you makes you feel better, I'll admit that I'm jealous that I don't get to ride smelly buses or crowded trains every day, while being on guard against pickpockets, and live without a car because I "don't need" one. It's soul-crushing that my kids can play in any backyard in the neighborhood without me worrying about junkies or mentally ill homeless people lurking nearby.
capsule_toy 11y ago
Whether you prefer the city or the suburbs is value-based. I value a low crime rate very highly. I don't know how you can claim to be objective and brush aside crime rate as an irrational fear when there are published crime rate statistics. And there is no objective way to say that my valuing a lower crime rate is less reasonable than all the other things you value.