It isn't ridicule. It's a simple statement of fact that you're so far down the justify-my-life hyperbole well (you sound like any early-20 year old living in a

It isn't ridicule. It's a simple statement of fact that you're so far down the justify-my-life hyperbole well (you sound like any early-20 year old living in a tiny dump downtown) that you won't be convinced to the contrary. And I don't want to live in a dirty, squalid, crime-filled ghetto of overcrowding and limited accommodation that is the city. Of course that's hyperbole, but given that I'm responding to a guy who referred to suburbs as "the desolate, isolating distance between various places", it sounds like it's the colour of the argument. Of course, I like driving in my comfortable, air-conditioned, very safe vehicle (without the risks of dangers and olfactory offenses of public transit -- again, just borrowing some of your style) while listening to music of my own choice. >something I should be forced to not only pay for Yes, you've covered this again and again. It turns out that in a modern society all of us pay for a lot of things that we don't personally benefit from. I pay towards mass transit that I don't use. I pay towards welfare that I don't use. I pay towards police that aren't policing me, and doctors that aren't tending to me. I pay for arts facilities that I don't use, and sports facilities that I don't play at. That's aggregate living for you. Of course cities simply can't exist without the transportation networks around them (the products and foods that you exist on most certainly weren't made locally), so your argument smells a little more ripe. Let me make it totally clear that I engaged in this discussion with a full expectation of being downvoted (even for absolute statements of fact such as the reason for parking space regulations). People who live in the suburbs generally just enjoy life. People who live in the city sit online justifying why living in the city is the ideal form of existence.